deer density

[PurpleFloyd]

Jameson - you should know by now that PurpleFloyd takes the "other" position just to be that guy, I've seen it 100's of times, this thread is no different.

[rockman]

So because of some hypothetical concern you won't back an initiative that benefits every deer hunter in the state? Okay...........

From the MWA fb page "I don't know what sort of timeframe we are looking at here, but I think we would be looking at 2016/2017 to be the year we really look to expand APR."

Since the major organization involved with getting APRs in the SE and who would "lead the charge" for any expansion is saying you have at least 2 years and possibly 3 before any expansion.....I think we can all take a step back and think about what has been stated in this thread.

There's nothing to think about. You can play all the games you want to in this thread, but the fact is some folks, like myself, are not going to buy what you are pushing. 2-3 years before the expansion of APR? So that means the long term agenda by these major organizations, is to try to get implementation of APR across large parts of our state, or statewide? And I'm supposed to rethink this? It's entitlement mentality by the groups that are pushing these initiatives, period. To say these initiatives are for the 'greater good of all deer hunters in MN' is socialism in hunting, end of story. I call it like I see it. Oh, by the way, I don't care for any of these initiatives, at the expense of more restrictive regulations. Keep trying to push the agenda, and see how much resistance you'll get.

[smsmith]

Oh, by the way, I don't care for any of these initiatives, at the expense of more restrictive regulations. Keep trying to push the agenda, and see how much resistance you'll get.

Okey dokey. If you want to keep whacking the doe herd that would be the only way what we're pushing for would be seen as more restrictive.

The Initiative will indeed be pushed. We are getting more and more support each day. Petitions are in many locations already. Many have been filled with signatures already as well. So far I'd say we've been met with 95% support from those who've actually taken the time to listen to Brooks' presentation or to talk with somebody about the MDDI and their concerns.

Entitlement mentality for those who pay the MN DNR to manage our deer herd competently to demand changes be made when the herd isn't being managed well? Okay.......

[rockman]

If I 'whack the doe herd' within the limits of the law on my land, and my families land, that is my business, and mine only. I can do my own self regulating on the deer herd, on my land, without the agenda of a select few, or a select few groups, doing so via the DNR, or the legislature. I could care less about your supposed 95% support, because anyone can skew the numbers to further the agenda. If the the plan of the minions is implemented in each deer zone sub-section, rather than a blanket change statewide, your support may actually be there. The area where these petitions are right now looks to be rather limited, so take it statewide, and it'll be interesting to see the results. I know what it will be in my deer hunting area.

[PurpleFloyd]

...That was very mature of you to change my name in your post. Grow up a little and when you are old enough I will be happy to discuss it with you.

[smsmith]

If I 'whack the doe herd' within the limits of the law on my land, and my families land, that is my business, and mine only. I can do my own self regulating on the deer herd, on my land, without the agenda of a select few, or a select few groups, doing so via the DNR, or the legislature. I could care less about your supposed 95% support, because anyone can skew the numbers to further the agenda. If the the plan of the minions is implemented each in each deer zone sub-section, rather than a blanket change statewide, your support may actually be there. The area where these petitions are right now looks to be rather limited, so take it statewide, and it'll be interesting to see the results. I know what it will be in my deer hunting area.

There you go. Getting some information before judging. Currently, the MDDI is focusing on central and east central MN. Those areas are all that those of us who have been heavily involved know well enough to address. If other folks in other areas want to do all the background work we've done and get on board we'd certainly be open to it.

We are all well aware that there is no "one size fits all" answer for the entire state of MN.

I'd ask you, what is the current pre-fawn density in the primary unit you hunt? How many hunters per square mile?

[mntatonka]

I'm still very concerned that the entire goal behind brooks push is to get populations up so he and his supporters can make the big apr push across more of the state in a couple of years. I'm certain he was trying to push apr, but was hitting resistance due to perceived low population numbers.

Apr is the most divisive regulation ever to be pushed in minnesota, and that's certainly not a good thing.

[smsmith]

I'm still very concerned that the entire goal behind brooks push is to get populations up so he and his supporters can make the big apr push across more of the state in a couple of years. I'm certain he was trying to push apr, but was hitting resistance due to perceived low population numbers.

Apr is the most divisive regulation ever to be pushed in minnesota, and that's certainly not a good thing.

Why not ask the guy? He's got nothing to hide.

[rockman]

I judged it quite awhile ago because of the initiatives that are already being implemented by the DNR. So, you would like to know if I know what the pre-fawn density, and hunter density figures are in my area are, for what purpose? To continue this online charade? Less fawns-less deer. I get it. I'm only concerned about the amount of deer I see on my land. It is private land, so the hunter density there is of no concern to me, because I can control access there. If you folks in the areas of your research for MDDI have a problem to fix, than go for it. I don't hunt in those areas, so it's of no concern to me. Sure, you folks would like everyone else in the state to jump onboard to keep the agenda alive longterm. Keep it where the problem(s) need to be fixed, not where they don't. Doesn't matter if it's MDDI, APR, QDMA, or any other alphabet soup initiatve.

[smsmith]

I judged it quite awhile ago because of the initiatives that are already being implemented by the DNR. So, you would like to know if I know what the pre-fawn density, and hunter density figures are in my area are, for what purpose? To continue this online charade? Less fawns-less deer. I get it. I'm only concerned about the amount of deer I see on my land. It is private land, so the hunter density there is of no concern to me, because I can control access there. If you folks in the areas of your research for MDDI have a problem to fix, than go for it. I don't hunt in those areas, so it's of no concern to me. Sure, you folks would like everyone else in the state to jump onboard to keep the agenda alive longterm. Keep it where the problem(s) need to be fixed, not where they don't. Doesn't matter if it's MDDI, APR, QDMA, or any other alphabet soup initiatve.

dam dude...did I pee in your Wheaties at some point? You seem awfully angry all the time.

I asked what your pre-fawn and hunter densities were out of curiosity. Where we've found a lack of support for the MDDI is in areas where the pre-fawn densities are at least 18 deer per square mile and where hunter densities per square mile are under 8 or so. Most of us who are heavily involved are dealing with units where we have fewer adult deer per square mile than we have firearm (not even counting archers and muzzleloaders) hunters.

I own my place too. That doesn't mean I'm unaffected by the other 9-13 guys on my square mile who each can take two deer...with adult deer densities of under 10.

[PurpleFloyd]

Please explain.

[rockman]

No, not angry at all. Just spirited. As far as density figures go, okay, I'll play. In my area the pre-fawn density for 2011 was 8-13 per sq. mi., according to a DNR map. Hunter density for 2012 was 5.3 per sq. mi. So there you have it. I do have a pretty good idea of how many hunters are on the surrounding farms. The numbers are not an issue when you've known everyone for years. I've had hunters choice in my area for awhile now, and the last time it was managed harvest was 5 years ago. Don't need to go to managed there. Doe #'s have increased the last three years. So, I'm not against doe management. But APR is another story.

[smsmith]

No, not angry at all. Just spirited. As far as density figures go, okay, I'll play. In my area the pre-fawn density for 2011 was 8-13 per sq. mi., according to a DNR map. Hunter density for 2012 was 5.3 per sq. mi. So there you have it. I do have a pretty good idea of how many hunters are on the surrounding farms. The numbers are not an issue when you've known everyone for years. I've had hunters choice in my area for awhile now, and the last time it was managed harvest was 5 years ago. Don't need to go to managed there. Doe #'s have increased the last three years. So, I'm not against doe management. But APR is another story.

Thanks for taking the time to look those figures up and for the reply. I'll say this...I attempted to work with the DNR to get my area to be HC since we're under goal and I feel the density goals are way too low to begin with. I was told about 6 weeks ago that wasn't an option...not gonna happen. Now...we're getting an aerial survey. Wasn't gonna happen 6 weeks ago. Now...we're getting letters from legislators informing us that in some of the units we've spent a lot of time on the DNR feels the herd needs to increase. Less than 3 weeks ago our regional manager told us that those SAME UNITS were over goal and we may be looking at continued intensive harvest (2 of 3 units) AS WELL AS early doe hunts and even possibly earn a buck.

Had the DNR been responsive (at all) to me or with Brooks about these issues the MDDI would have never developed. We tried to do things the "right way". We were told to basically sit down and shut up and let the DNR do what they were gonna do. That didn't go over too well...........

[smsmith]

I don't have a problem with the DNR offering reduced tags in areas where the population is low. Does your group have a stance on whether the reduction in tags would be focused on the areas where it is needed only or is the goal to reduce the number of permits statewide in all areas?

Next, the plans are only phase one. Once they reach the desired population goals, what is the stance on how the herd is managed after the goal is reached? If we just go back to the way things were then we will end up in the same boat in a few years so I would like to hear if there are any long term visions by this group about how they would like hunting to look 5 and 10 years down the road in relations to how permits are handled and what is allowed to be harvested. If there is no long range plan to go with the short term plan then it has very little chance of fixing anything over the long term.

Not getting into points on heads or anything how do you see the harvest looking if you get your way in the future? Would there be buck lotteries? Earn a Buck? Multiple licenses available for every hunter? Doe lotteries?

We are focused on increasing pre-fawn densities to 20-25 dpsm, or 50% of the biological carrying capacity of a unit...whichever is LOWER. If an area already meets those criteria (and there a number of units who do around the state, just very few, if any in east central and central MN) then obviously there would be no impact from the MDDI there.

How is the herd managed after raising goals? Great question. That is exactly why the second (and probably most important) part of what we're pushing for is a change to the public stakeholder process. That process determines what each unit is managed for (pre-fawn densities). With an increased hunter voice on those stakeholder teams, as well as a public, transparent process we hope to avoid situations like we currently have. Units going from HC to Managed to Intensive in the span of 5-7 years is ridiculous. Most of MN is being managed at lower pre-fawn densities than the CWD zone in WI. Why?

Your final bolded points I really don't have much to say on right now. We're looking for immediate relief of a deer herd that has been reduced to unsustainable levels. We're looking for a change/improvement to the public stakeholder meeting process so that hunters have more input on how the herd is managed from now on. Getting into specifics on buck or doe lotteries, EAB, etc. is outside our scope right now. I will say that something like EAB is so far from reality in the vast majority of the state I'd be surprised to ever see it anywhere in MN ....outside possibly the Metro.

My personal goal would be to achieve what Lou C. indicated we should probably be aiming for in this state (I believe in 2012)...a total annual harvest in the range of 200-220K. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation.

[creepworm]

If this initiative is successful, how would the "hunters" in the stakeholder meetings be chosen?

[smsmith]

If this initiative is successful, how would the "hunters" in the stakeholder meetings be chosen?

Good question. What we'd like would be to have various "deer groups" to have say on who serves for at least a percentage of those stakeholders. To me, it would be a good way for those groups (MDHA, QDMA, MBI, MWA, MDDI, whoever else) to work TOGETHER ON SOMETHING. I think the vast majority of deer hunters have more in common than not. Two guys who sit and argue on an internet forum would likely meet, get to know each other and find out they pretty much agree on about 90% of "deer topics". Getting some unity and strength with those deer groups (on many, not all issues) and we'll have a better chance of working together in the future. I believe the MN DNR was counting on the fact that deer groups here were more intent on fighting with each other than with the DNR. Made it easier for them to reduce the herd by the 40+% we're currently looking at.

[laker1]

The DNR had no intent on people fighting. Across the nation deer herds were doing real well and the trend was to reduce herd size for multible reasons from farmong,forestry,diseases etc..

As hunters found out and the DNR found out numbers were lowered more than most diciplines liked.

We had the brucellocous issue up in the northwest to CWD down south and out east.

I just think certain factions got carried away.

Much of the problem is how they estimate deer herd size,that has to change.

Too many times I get tired of conspiracy theories by some. Us vs them.

method used to estimate deer per square mile usually estimated more than present.

[rockman]

With all due respect, that looks good on paper, but the fact is a large majority of deer hunters in this state are not involved in any of these groups. If the these organizations are going to be the ones to collaborate on these 'issues', and only these groups, then we are not to get any further than we are right now. The DNR probably isn't that far off the mark with the assessment that the groups would end up battling each other. It would not be the first rodeo for the DNR, I would imagine, where impact groups are concerned. Folks will have an opinion, disagree, and debate on internet forums, or at a DNR impact meeting, but it doesn't matter because agendas are still agendas. Groups have agendas, and different groups have different agendas. Nothing is going to change that. Agreeing on one issue by select groups, with results that can affect the majority of the hunting public, is where the agendas will get resistance. Like they are now. Good luck in dealing with the all of this.

[smsmith]

Too many times I get tired of conspiracy theories by some. Us vs them.

I understand that sentiment. In fact, 7-10 years ago I would have likely said something similar. I think something is going on with deer management in middle America...and I don't think its good.

[PurpleFloyd]

We are focused on increasing pre-fawn densities to 20-25 dpsm, or 50% of the biological carrying capacity of a unit...whichever is LOWER. If an area already meets those criteria (and there a number of units who do around the state, just very few, if any in east central and central MN) then obviously there would be no impact from the MDDI there.

[rockman]

Quote:

Keep in mind one thing. In essence what you are doing is ask the government to save the hunters from themselves. In other words we as hunters have the ability to make the deer densities what we want it to be without them. If we learn to accept that we are a big, diverse group and that we need to find ways to work together to make the hunting better rather than trying to micromanage the DNR to change rules to benefit our particular cause I think we can do a better job than we are.Much of this can come from hunters working with other hunters to change their minds rather than using the government to do it. If the ideas for selective harvest etc are valid then lets put out examples and work on changing culture from within,not from regulation.

First and foremost we should be focusing on habitat for the deer and making sure that they have what they need to thrive before we pack more on a chunk of ground. For instance, here in the corn belt we are losing a staggering amount of tree lines, old abandoned farms and grass cover that hold deer and give them a place to live. So if this continues and the hiding places are turned to black dirt, then there are going to be less deer around period. Up north they have to worry about the Wolves, the Coyotes and other predators that are increasing their ranges and population. There are also developments that are popping up that are taking away hunting spots as well.If we make more areas a nice place for deer to live and have some spots the big ones can go to hide we will have more of them around even with no mandates.

Exactly this. PurpleFloyd, thanks for conveying this much more eloquently than I could.

[smsmith]

With all due respect, that looks good on paper, but the fact is a large majority of deer hunters in this state are not involved in any of these groups.

I absolutely agree with you that very few deer hunters are organized into any functional/powerful group. That's really too bad IMHO. I spoke with one of the regional MDHA guys at our meeting in St. Frances when we were putting the petition/our ideas together. He informed me that MDHA has shrunk to around 13K members. That's pretty sad if you ask me. The most powerful deer group in the state and they have 13K of the approximate 500K deer hunters as members.

I'd add that if anybody wants to have some input into deer management decisions....it'd be a darn good idea to join and participate in a group with whom your ideals align. I don't give two shi7s what group that is.....just get involved and become vocal with SOME ORGANIZED DEER GROUP in this state.

[smsmith]

That brings up a good point though. If I remember correctly there was a CWD scare earlier in the decade and that was one of the reasons why they thinned the herd from what I remember. Is it generally accepted that CWD is now controlled and a thing of the past or could we potentially be setting ourselves up for another round of CWD with the accompanying herd reductions and testing that came with the last scare? Just thinking out loud and something to keep in mind. I have no idea what the current status of CWD is in the upper midwest.

A valid point and question. I asked Marrett Grund if the current density goals in MN were in fact a reaction to CWD being found in WI. Seeing as the reduction in goals here began occurring shortly after CWD was found in WI it seemed to be a reasonable assumption. Marrett assured me that was NOT the case.

CWD surveillance will stop in MN in 2014 according to the MN DNR. They have found zero positives after finding the first (don't know how many years ago that was off the top of my head). My understanding is that unit 602 (previously the only CWD zone in the state) will now be allowed to slowly increase the herd due to no more positives.

CWD is not well controlled in WI for the most part. In IL they have done a fantastic job of reducing the spread and the trend of the disease is downward.

MN has been declared free of bovine TB for a number of years as I recall.

[smsmith]

Keep in mind one thing. In essence what you are doing is ask the government to save the hunters from themselves. In other words we as hunters have the ability to make the deer densities what we want it to be without them. If we learn to accept that we are a big, diverse group and that we need to find ways to work together to make the hunting better rather than trying to micromanage the DNR to change rules to benefit our particular cause I think we can do a better job than we are.Much of this can come from hunters working with other hunters to change their minds rather than using the government to do it. If the ideas for selective harvest etc are valid then lets put out examples and work on changing culture from within,not from regulation.

I agree with you...in principle. The problem is that the vast majority of deer hunters here (and around the country) don't have even a basic understanding of deer management. They figure if the DNR sells them a tag...they can safely go out and shoot whatever the DNR tells them. I'd be "all in" for a MN DNR P.R. campaign similar to what the Oklahoma DNR has..I'd be all in for the MN DNR to use a portion of our license fees to advertise about how to better manage on individual properties...something...other than "we have about a million deer...here's two tags...go shoot a buck and doe because we have plenty of deer".

Since we've already established that very few MN deer hunters belong to any organized group, how do we get 500K people to be "educated"? Lets face it, the only way to reach the vast majority of deer hunters here is through the state agency tasked with managing the resource...

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

Keep in mind one thing. In essence what you are doing is ask the government to save the hunters from themselves. In other words we as hunters have the ability to make the deer densities what we want it to be without them. If we learn to accept that we are a big, diverse group and that we need to find ways to work together to make the hunting better rather than trying to micromanage the DNR to change rules to benefit our particular cause I think we can do a better job than we are.Much of this can come from hunters working with other hunters to change their minds rather than using the government to do it. If the ideas for selective harvest etc are valid then lets put out examples and work on changing culture from within,not from regulation.

First and foremost we should be focusing on habitat for the deer and making sure that they have what they need to thrive before we pack more on a chunk of ground. For instance, here in the corn belt we are losing a staggering amount of tree lines, old abandoned farms and grass cover that hold deer and give them a place to live. So if this continues and the hiding places are turned to black dirt, then there are going to be less deer around period. Up north they have to worry about the Wolves, the Coyotes and other predators that are increasing their ranges and population. There are also developments that are popping up that are taking away hunting spots as well.If we make more areas a nice place for deer to live and have some spots the big ones can go to hide we will have more of them around even with no mandates.

Exactly this. PurpleFloyd, thanks for conveying this much more eloquently than I could.

Thanks RM. One of the unintended consequences of having these groups formed to promote a particular philosophy or method is that before buying into it, they fail to research how the idea came about, what the circumstances were and why the results were what they were.

We have seen a big increase over the past decade in guys stating you need to protect the young bucks at any cost and instead harvest a doe and stick her in the freezer all while not considering that without the doe you don't get fawns the next year. We should always be concerned first with habitat and second with making sure we have enough does to sustain the population. Everything else is secondary. Period. Yeah, it's nice to have big deer. But it is mandatory to have does that get bred to sustain the population. The big rack thing is something that is driven by the retail industry who rely on the notion of a big rack on the wall to drive sales for their products and also by the land management groups/outfitters etc who rely on the population of big deer to lure in clients so they can keep their businesses viable. The rest trickles down through the population but it begins and ends there.