deer density

[PurpleFloyd]

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...

Well, to believe that we as hunters cannot figure it out on our own is to accept that we are not smart enough to know better and I don't buy that idea. I also do not believe that force by the government is the only way to condition the general population to do the right thing. One place to start would be for the industry to throw a little real biology into the hunting shows and do some work on what it takes to make deer populations work in the real world and not just in a high fence operation.

[smsmith]

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.

Maybe. Did cavemen paint pics of small racked bucks, rams, bulls, etc.? Nope. Men have been obsessed with the largest male animal specimens since before we had language and formal record keeping.

I'll agree that "horn porn" and TV shows may consistently reinforce this idea, but man had it long before the invention of TV, social media, outfitters, or deer farms.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'll agree that "horn porn" and TV shows may consistently reinforce this idea, but man had it long before the invention of TV, social media, outfitters, or deer farms.

Yes. But it was a goal,not an expectation.

[smsmith]

[One place to start would be for the industry to throw a little real biology into the hunting shows and do some work on what it takes to make deer populations work in the real world and not just in a high fence operation.

You do have a sense of a humor

I agree that would be nice...but it ain't gonna happen. TV shows are all about advertising dollars. No company is going to spend money on that message.

[smsmith]

Just sharing this:

There was an article in the St Paul Pioneer press yesterday. I could not ignore some of the comments.

Blue font are quotes pulled from a 1/18/2014 Pioneer Press article.

http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_24...erd-populations

Leslie McInenly, the state's top deer manager, said "it's fair to question the goals" the agency sets for various deer hunting zones throughout the state. But when it comes to Johnson's specific claims against the agency -- Johnson alleges one area has more hunters than adult deer -- McInenly said Johnson is either improperly applying DNR data or missing the nuances of deer management.

Brooks replies:

Beau Liddel, DNR Regional Biologist in Little Falls has the deer density goals for zone 222 at 10.8 deer per square mile. The zone measures 413 square miles. At goal that is 4,460 adult deer. (St Paul DNR reports the deer density goal number at 12 deer per square mile, or 4,956 adult deer at goal. No one really knows which number is used in the field ). And 5,100 firearms hunters. And another 1,000 (estimate) bow and muzzleloader hunting. No matter how you slice it, that is more hunters than adult deer.

"My initial intent was to make the committee members' names public," she (McInenly) said, referring to committees of hunters, landowners, farmers and others that recommend whether the deer population in a given area should increase or decrease. "But there is a danger that we might lose some people as a result of the heat on this issue."

It's unclear under what legal basis, if any, the DNR could withhold the identities of committee members, whom the agency picks. Johnson said he wants the names made public.

Brooks replies:

When asked why the goals are so low and there are so few deer, the DNR will answer 'The stakeholders asked for it'. No hunter I know would feel one adult deer per 60 acres is adequate. We manage areas of the state for densities identical to WI CWD zones. The closed door 2006 process should never be repeated. The process had an agenda to lower deer numbers, and it was taken too far. Its destroying the quality of the hunt in MN. The voice of the hunter will be represented in the next go round. There is absolutely no way the hunters of MN are going to allow the process that led to these numbers to continue.

It's hard to know how widespread the criticism is among the 500,000-strong deer-hunting public.

Brooks replies:

It's not difficult. You simply ask the hunter. But the DNR has not run a hunter satisfaction survey in Central Minnesota since 2005. So I did one myself. Took me 30 minutes and cost me $24 through Survey Monkey. I borrowed an email list of Sportsmen from a colleague. I had never contacted any of the names on the list, they were sent no info or propaganda. They received the exact same questions and given the exact same choices as asked in the 2005 DNR survey. I wanted to compare 2013 to 2005. And the answers are disturbing.

In 2005, 77% of the hunters surveyed either strongly or slightly agreed with the statement "I am satisfied with the number of deer I see while hunting." For 2013 that number has dropped to 23%. A 70% decline. But the DNR does want to act for the 2014 season.

The DNR needs to make changes for the 2014 season. You simply can not ignore the cries for help from the stakeholder group that funds the hunting side of the DNR.

Brooks Johnson

MN Deer Density Initiative

[rockman]

The DNR needs to make changes for the 2014 season. You simply can not ignore the cries for help from the stakeholder group that funds the hunting side of the DNR.

Brooks Johnson

MN Deer Density Initiative

And that goes right back to my earlier post about the majority of the hunters are not involved in these organizations. You guys are stating the DNR is ignoring your group, and the other hunting groups, and you want change right now. What about the rest of the deer hunters who are not in these organizations, and/or won't not join one? Yeah, I read your reply addressing that every hunter should join one of these organizations, but that is a simple canned answer for the sake of recruitment, that I will refrain from giving my opinion on right now. The 500,000 estimated deer hunters in this state are across the entire state, not just in central, and east central MN. So to say that the stakeholder groups are the ones funding the DNR for deer hunting, is a bit misleading, when in reality it's ALL the deer hunters in the state funding the DNR. And you wonder why there is skepticism to initiatives like this. I give you guys a tip of the hat for your efforts in this, but when I posted good luck in this, I meant good luck in telling the DNR they suck, their management practices don't work, and expect them to roll out the red carpet for your initiative. Yea, I get it 'that somebody's got to do it'. Again, good luck in 'paddling up river' on this endeavor.

[smsmith]

And that goes right back to my earlier post about the majority of the hunters are not involved in these organizations. You guys are stating the DNR is ignoring your group, and the other hunting groups, and you want change right now. What about the rest of the deer hunters who are not in these organizations, and/or won't not join one? Yeah, I read your reply addressing that every hunter should join one of these organizations, but that is a simple canned answer for the sake of recruitment, that I will refrain from giving my opinion on right now. The 500,000 estimated deer hunters in this state are across the entire state, not just in central, and east central MN. So to say that the stakeholder groups are the ones funding the DNR for deer hunting, is a bit misleading, when in reality it's ALL the deer hunters in the state funding the DNR. And you wonder why there is skepticism to initiatives like this. I give you guys a tip of the hat for your efforts in this, but when I posted good luck in this, I meant good luck in telling the DNR they suck, their management practices don't work, and expect them to roll out the red carpet for your initiative. Yea, I get it 'that somebody's got to do it'. Again, good luck in 'paddling up river' on this endeavor.

I understand your points, but I think you may be missing a few facts.

First off, their is no "MDDI deer group" in the sense of an MDHA, MBI, QDMA, etc. It is simply a group of hunters who may or may not have any affiliation with an organized group. The vast majority of signatures that I've collected are from average Joe deer hunters. They do not belong to any group. This is a grass roots movement.

Second..to your point about a "recruitment" move. When I stated that hunters should join a "deer group" I said to join ANY of them. MDHA, MBI, QDMA, MWA...I don't care who. Just to join one who you think supports most of what you believe in. I expressed that idea because I think those groups have the best chance of developing a positive, working relationship with the DNR in the future. That's what we need here...a number of organized groups representing the vast majority of deer hunter concerns (all of their concerns...). Without that, you simply have the DNR doing as they wish. Would you prefer the DNR to make all the decisions arbitrarily or to have at least a few groups representing maybe 20% or so of the deer hunters giving them input along the way?

Third, I think you may have misinterpreted what Brooks was saying. When he states "the stakeholder group that funds the hunting side of the DNR" he is referring to the 500K deer hunters in this state. Not the MDDI, MDHA, MWA or any other "group".

Yes, we are paddling up river. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, we already have made inroads. Yes, we are going to make more.

[jentz]

Problem with joining these groups is,They start with a idea then expand,Get many to join, then the active grass roots starters have a number of members and claim the whole assn is behind what their pushing.

They go to the DNR with a longlist of members and claim all members want this and that.APRs later down the road after a large membership is formed.

So like lake assns,the few claim the many want this and now,When in reality only the few who coersed the many to follow really get to push their way.

[smsmith]

Problem with joining these groups is,They start with a idea then expand,Get many to join, then the active grass roots starters have a number of members and claim the whole assn is behind what their pushing.

They go to the DNR with a longlist of members and claim all members want this and that.APRs later down the road after a large membership is formed.

So like lake assns,the few claim the many want this and now,When in reality only the few who coersed the many to follow really get to push their way.

If you joined a group like that and paid dues....wouldn't you then end your membership and stop paying dues? MDHA has lost a significant number of their members. I don't know if that has to do with the economy, those members died, those members didn't like what MDHA stood for or what the cause is, but they have indeed lost membership.

I pay dues to organizations who I feel best represent my stances. If those orgs. stop doing what I believe in....then I don't give them any more money.

Is it a perfect world? Of course not. However, I'd prefer to take my chances with a private organization than with a governmental entity. That's just me though. If folks trust the DNR to manage the deer herd for hunters....then don't join a private organization/group. Take what the DNR gives you and be "happy"

[rockman]

Oh really, so now you are the one to straighten out my 'misunderstanding' of an online article? Is that right? So just who do you think you are? I was just fine in my understanding right up to reading this bunch of nonsense in this thread regarding any initiative by a select few, who constantly cry about not getting THEIR deer during the hunting season. And by the way, I am still perfectly good in my understanding of anything I read online. This whole thing is the same old hat. The same old whining about how the DNR is the the sole reason for the doom of it all, by a petulant few in the deer hunting ranks. I think most folks don't really care for your elitist view(s), just sayin'. Yep, nothing like hijacking a thread on a internet forum, to give you a soap box to preach your initiative.

[smsmith]

Yep, nothing like hijacking a thread on a internet forum, to give you a soap box to preach your initiative.

I hijacked a thread about the MDDI and the petition by posting information on them? Okay....

We're not going to agree, I'm okay with that. I'm just posting information so that each person can make up their own mind. You've made up yours, I've made up mine. Everybody else gets to do the same

[nonteepical]

rockmans the new purplefloyd.

[Getanet]

If you joined a group like that and paid dues....wouldn't you then end your membership and stop paying dues? MDHA has lost a significant number of their members. I don't know if that has to do with the economy, those members died, those members didn't like what MDHA stood for or what the cause is, but they have indeed lost membership.

I pay dues to organizations who I feel best represent my stances. If those orgs. stop doing what I believe in....then I don't give them any more money.

Is it a perfect world? Of course not. However, I'd prefer to take my chances with a private organization than with a governmental entity. That's just me though. If folks trust the DNR to manage the deer herd for hunters....then don't join a private organization/group. Take what the DNR gives you and be "happy"

As long as we're heading down this road I've wondered why the MWA gets any "seat at the table" when it comes to anything. Love them or hate them, the MDHA, BWI, QDMA, MBI, etc are all actual organizations. Members have some "skin in the game" by having to pay to join. A portion of that money is then used to support their mission - whether it's youth engagement, more land access, whatever. There is an election process for the board and members can vote on other initiatives. The WMA is simply a Facebook group that, while having many "Likes," has received no commitment from those people other than a click of the mouse. I can all but guarantee if they required payment to be a "member" their numbers would plummet.

[rockman]

rockmans the new purplefloyd.

Cute. Any more Romper Room style shenanigans you'd like to try today?

[rockman]

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Enough said.

[mntatonka]

As long as we're heading down this road I've wondered why the MWA gets any "seat at the table" when it comes to anything. Love them or hate them, the MDHA, BWI, QDMA, MBI, etc are all actual organizations. Members have some "skin in the game" by having to pay to join. A portion of that money is then used to support their mission - whether it's youth engagement, more land access, whatever. There is an election process for the board and members can vote on other initiatives. The WMA is simply a Facebook group that, while having many "Likes," has received no commitment from those people other than a click of the mouse. I can all but guarantee if they required payment to be a "member" their numbers would plummet.

oh come on now, everyone knows how many "likes" you have on Facebook is all that matters!

[smsmith]

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Enough said.

Fair enough sir...I'd love to sit down with you over a beer someday. Bet we'd have more in common than not.

[smsmith]

As long as we're heading down this road I've wondered why the MWA gets any "seat at the table" when it comes to anything. Love them or hate them, the MDHA, BWI, QDMA, MBI, etc are all actual organizations. Members have some "skin in the game" by having to pay to join. A portion of that money is then used to support their mission - whether it's youth engagement, more land access, whatever. There is an election process for the board and members can vote on other initiatives. The WMA is simply a Facebook group that, while having many "Likes," has received no commitment from those people other than a click of the mouse. I can all but guarantee if they required payment to be a "member" their numbers would plummet.

Very legitimate statement. MWA has under 400 "members" (even though its free) and almost 13K "likes". If they want to be a player in the state, I'd think they should find a way to convert "likes" to membership

[PurpleFloyd]

rockmans the new purplefloyd.

[laker1]

The DNR wildlife at present will work with private landowners on best wildlife practices for your land. Just ask.

[smsmith]

The DNR wildlife at present will work with private landowners on best wildlife practices for your land. Just ask.

Very true. Marrett Grund offered me some "tips" on improving my land. Since I've been doing habitat work for 30 years none of it was anything new to me however. He even told me the best thing to do would be to develop a co-op with like minded neighbors. Get them on board with increasing the population and even with increasing the number of mature bucks if we wanted.

I asked him how that would help public land hunters...it wouldn't. I asked him if that wouldn't basically privatize the deer herd (like what many areas of WI are dealing with). He didn't really answer that one.

If the MN DNR's focus is to assist private landowners to improve their parcels and encourage them to form co-ops.....okay...I could accept that. If that is the "plan", I think part of their advertising dollars (i.e. part of our license fees allocated to advertising) should be used to let folks know. While I disagree with privatizing the herd (deer hoarding on private parcels)....as a landowner it could obviously benefit me. Of course...my benefit would come at the cost of those folks who don't own land and hunt on public ground........

[Jameson]

...

Very true. Marrett Grund offered me some "tips" on improving my land. Since I've been doing habitat work for 30 years none of it was anything new to me however. He even told me the best thing to do would be to develop a co-op with like minded neighbors. Get them on board with increasing the population and even with increasing the number of mature bucks if we wanted....

Kinda seems that he should have determined if the deer in your area was above, below, or at goal. If the deer density in your area is at or above goal he should have told you to get used to what you have, it is what the public stakeholder process wants and what he is managing for. If the density was below goal he could have gave reasons why and how he was going to fix it.

[smsmith]

Kinda seems that he should have determined if the deer in your area was above, below, or at goal. If the deer density in your area is at or above goal he should have told you to get used to what you have, it is what the public stakeholder process wants and what he is managing for. If the density was below goal he could have gave reasons why and how he was going to fix it.

That was discussed. My unit is currently under goal. I asked why each hunter can take two deer here if its under goal and if the unit would be going to Hunter Choice next year. The response was that if we went to HC the population would "explode" in a year and the following year we'd have to go to Intensive When I asked what the DNR would do to get the unit to goal I was told that it would just occur naturally due to variances in harvest. Public stakeholder densities are essentially worthless. Our area guy has consistently managed at densities lower than those established by the "public". What a waste of taxpayer and DNR employee time (i.e. taxpayer money)...go through this process, set up the goals...then have a rogue manager do whatever he wants anyway.

[PurpleFloyd]

If he is correct that the population would explode in one year just by going hunter choice then the problem is really not so great as to need special groups and policies to fix. How serious was he?

[laker1]

Yes each area Manager is different,mine thought we should increase the goals from present levels.

I also know because the size of the zone,you can end up with the south half being all farmland and the north being all wooded and more public land,still you set up goals on completely different populations. I know zones can never be perfect,but some could be adjusted.