MDHA/MN DNR listening sessions

[mntatonka]

You may well be correct(again), however an audit would be a darn good start I think. A complete rebuilding would never happen unless the audit found a reason for doing so...right? We'd never get a politician to push for a complete overhaul unless there was proof that it needed to be done. If there's a way to get that proof other than an external audit...I'm all ears.

There one legislator in particular that would probably be more than willing to get a push for an audit started. Pretty much the only person in the state legislature that wants the government organizations to have less money and power. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, he's your favorite representative after all

[smsmith]

There one legislator in particular that would probably be more than willing to get a push for an audit started. Pretty much the only person in the state legislature that wants the government organizations to have less money and power. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about, he's your favorite representative after all

I have planted that thought and will continue to feed it

[bowhunternw]

What exactly would you guys like to see changed? Of course everyone wants more deer, but they are apparently near goals determined in the last go around. Couple of years of limited doe harvest and they should rebound. As far as deer quality, well you have seen how that ends up on here. I think the day that the majority of hunters want that, then go forward with it. Right now I think that the majority of hunters want it how it is, not me but I have to live with what the numbers want. I actually think that we have a lot of opportunity here and generally think controllable things are run decent.

[LandDr]

What I would like to see...

1. More winter core areas (WCA) consisting of primarily Black Hills Spruce and\or Rocky Mountain Juniper for the thermal properties they provide. One well designed WCA per 160ac would be nice but one per 40 would be ever better. We live in Minnesota for goodness sakes...plan for the worst.

2. Back those WCAs up with 10 to 15 percent food sources. Fill the "fridge" up.

3. Remaining balance can be native prairie or other perennial covers.

This will provide more hens making it through the winter...which means more roosters in the fall...it also means healthier deer making it into the spring which means better fawning and healthier bucks or deer in general.

This design also provide fantastic hunting opportunities with a lot of lineal edge, corridors, travel lanes, etc. Not only does it increase the carrying capacity of the wildlife, but it also greatly increases the carrying capacity of the number of hunters or number of hunter days.

As far as what kind of deer can people shoot and how many...I'm not a big fan of telling people what kind of buck they can or can't shoot, I'm hoping people will figure that out with more education. But in general, hunters would be seeing 10 to 15 deer per sitting so they either will shoot something right away and be done, or they will be more patient and let the little ones walk. Either way, there will be more bucks surviving to an older age which will give everyone a better age structure. As far as doe harvest...I feel all private landowners should be able to shoot a deer of eiter sex since these landowners are already paying taxes, paying for the habitat and paying for the food to house all the animals on their property...so what is wrong with every landowner shooting a deer? Public land doe harvest...I'm going to leave that up to the people that actually use public land to figure that one out.

I would like to see less of the "preservation" and "restoration" philosophy...it is too late...the buffalo are gone and the prairie chicken is not a HUGE benefit to our economy...having a few prairie chickens is great, but cutting every single spruce and conifer tree down at the expense of deer and pheasants is just wrong and not fair to our economies that depend on revenues from deer and pheasant hunting. Start designing for maximum carrying capacities of "recreational" wildlife and for maximum carrying capacities of hunters and hunter days. I would love to have everyone, especially kids, have a great experience when they go out in the field. If they don't, it drives them to video games and these kids are our future leaders.

Just my $1.50...since you asked.

[Musky Buck]

With ya LandDr, it's a reference I made on a different topic yesterday, forget "organizations" lets be honest those are for raffle tickets and gun drawings, DNR forget them to, do what you can control in a helpful way to MN's wildlife. Monitor your own 40 or 80acres or whatever, from there check the rest of the section the land is in and go from there, we can't blanket this great state, we have diversity from north to south east to west, people need to start small and work outward, not the other way around, winter and wolves and predators in general have some say always about wildlife populations. It's always been food,water,shelter and that'll always be the case, not every organization is bad no, but for me to support a duck organization cmon, they've been extinct for 20 years now or more, same with grouse, honestly how great do you think it can get in a way, we're sitting closer together, we have longer seasons talking old zone 4, we all can bow muzzleload cheat the tagging system/registration systems if we want to, we are going to go through more peaks and valleys it's just we have less patience primarily due to quick hitting technologies, meaning if this were 1983 and the deer situation you wouldn't hear or even know much, now a click on a machine can send tirades and bellyaching with ease. We see the world coming to an end everytime there's any issue, IT MUST BE FIXED NOW ! It's a process, it takes time, and it may or may not always work, it's too bad "getting" or what'd ya get is always question 1, a few milder winter/springs would help a bunch, start with the small picture and move forward, don't forget what it was like to enjoy all the thrills of hunting, hope to get one at a younger age turns into I better get one as an aging hunter, why'd any of us take up a gun at 13 to hunt deer, because it was fun, exciting, filled with the unknown and known, can it be better sure of course, could it even be worse I'm afraid so, now lets go plant some trees in July when Winter is finally done

[slimngrizzly]

I was appointed to the MN DNR Pheasant Oversight Committee for two terms. This committee, just like the deer, waterfowl, turkey, etc oversight committees, meets regularity, discusses and puts recommendations together to present to the DNR. The pheasant oversight committee put recommendations together that would improve pheasant habitat, management, populations, hunting opportunities, etc. In the 4 years I was on the committee, I don't recall the DNR ever implementing any of our recommendations. It was so frustrating that several of the guys I was serving with resigned as they felt it was a waste of their already limited time to go to these meetings and put all of this time into making really sound recommendations only to have them ignored. Is the DNR reading this, maybe...if they are, the truth hurts...and they will most likely continue to ignore me or banish me from meetings, projects, etc. But I refuse to sit back and be quite while our pheasant and deer populations are destroyed. My feeling is that certain non-profits and government organizations have had 20 plus years to fix the problem...the results are we have some of the lowest pheasant numbers and low deer numbers in many areas...how about we let someone else try it now?

There is a large tract of land not too far from me that was purchased by a certain non-profit and is being donated to the DNR. The whole thing is being planted to native prairie. Not a single well designed winter woody cover area and not a single food source. When I talk to them about it, just ignored. Yet we had a 29% reduction in pheasants last year due to NOT GETTING THE HENS THROUGH THE WINTER..."Dead hens don't lay eggs!"

I applaud your efforts smsmith and I hope you get a lot of people out to that meeting. However, I feel the same as the person who made the statement that the DNR and non-profits feel they know more than the rest of us. They only way to change anything these days is to get people in charge that you want to be in charge. I hope we can see some change, but in the mean time I am going to keep working hard with landowners that want to change their land...that is immediate change with results.

Keep up the fight!

I couldn't agree more with everything you said!

[brittman]

MN Pheasants = Grass - winter weather - spring nesting weather. For the most part the MN DNR cannot greatly impact any of those three inputs.

Agree swamps (woody or cattail) are excellent help for getting birds through winter. Shelterbelts less so and single trees provide death traps.

I would love to see food plots in or adjacent to all public land areas that have good winter cover.

MN pheasant hunting has remained rather good in my book. This past fall was solid in number of birds seen, pointed, and killed.

You can overshoot a deer population, but I do not believe you can overshoot the pheasant population.

[brittman]

Stop going to the banquets and stop being members of organizations if they are not doing what you want. These organizations have had 20+ years to get it right and to put pressure where it needs to be...but unfortunately they are all sleeping together these days. One big cozy bed. If their funding suddenly went away, they would hear you loud and clear! We all know the "volunteer" local board members...organize boycotts until they get it. Can you imagine the riffle that would make!

I have to say at least PF tries to lobby. CRP acres dwarfed the amount of public land when in its prime. With the grass came pheasants. There are some good walk-in areas that were CRP and CREP. But one guy (part time ??) against an army of lobby groups directly and indirectly supported by Big Ag ... which one wins ?

ADM, Cargill, John Deere, Monsanto, etc... all benefit greatly with every acre planted and every bushel harvested and brought to market. They do not make money watching grass grow. Even the state of MN (taxes) and small towns (employment) benefit more by planting corn than grass.

[LandDr]

Low Pheasant numbers = Grass + bad winter weather + bad spring nesting weather

Pheasants are NOT a byproduct of grass...prairie chickens, bob-o-links, buffalo and butterflies are byproducts of grass.

Pheasants are byproduct of woody cover, agriculture (food plots, feeders or crop waste) and grass.

Pheasants can not survive MN winters effectively and consistently without the protection of thermal cover (spruce\juniper) and immediately adjacent food sources.

If you want the continuous up and down cycle of the MN Pheasant population, then just plant grass and that is what you will get. Mild winter and nice spring...your pheasant population goes up...harsh winter and cold, wet spring...your pheasant population goes down.

None of us can control the spring weather...but we sure the heck can reduce the affects and mortality of a bad winter.

Again..."Dead hens don't lay eggs"...we are not shooting hens...so where are they going? They are not surviving the winters and more grass sure isn't going to get more hens through the winter. More properly designed WCAs on DNR and private lands will make a HUGE difference for deer and pheasants in MN...HUGE.

Read the book "Ringnecked Pheasant in Iowa"...it's an eye opener and it directly relates to deer carrying capacity as well.

[brittman]

Create a new thread on the Upland forum.

I have the little Red Book. Guess Iowa forgot about that book ...

[MahtowaDave]

There are so many outdoorspeople ticked off at the current situation in this state. I have never seen such an unruly bunch of fisherman and hunters in my life as is currently the case in Mn. right now. Just the guys and gals in my deer camp alone are enough to start a revolt.

How to organize that energy so that everyone feels that it was going somewhere is the problem. I am motivated and invested in the cause, as are others that I hunt/fish with. Listening sessions, by definition, irritate me. I, for one, am not made to feel better by being listened to. Some recent statements that DNR representatives have made regarding the situation at Mille Lacs, as well as the deer population, tell me that they are now aware of the frustration that is felt. Someone in DNR public relations finally got the memo that people are ticked off and it is nice to hear them sound more like they are hearing it, as well as admitting some responsibility for the mess, errors and mismanagement of the resources. I don't doubt that they are hearing it and a listening session will only reinforce what they already know.

Why is this so hard? Give us walleyes and whitetails and most of us are happy. Wisconsin has it figured out. When deer populations plummet, there is an uprising and people lose their jobs, until there are deer and lots of them. Why does that not happen in Mn? Until it does, we don't really have their attention in a way that matters to them.

I guess listening might be the first step, but only if it is followed by real efforts to change the status quo in the name of the resource, instead of blindly leading us in a circular direction. WE have to organize ourselves in the name of the resource. WE voted for the hunting and fishing amendment and the money that is supposed to go towards our goals. We got together for that, but the follow-up is not there and I believe that it is because we don't know what to do or how to do it. We like to sit in boats and deer stands, not meetings. We put the money in, we run the show financially, why don't we have more say in how things go? Because we are isolated most of the year. We are a force on fishing opener, Memorial Day weekend, Deer opener etc. but then it fades. I will put in the money, I'll put in the time, but I need to feel a sense of efficacy when I am doing it. Thanks for listening, I guess.

[minky]

I am hoping these meetings produce positive results.

I am planning to attend the Cambridge meeting if possible.

I will voice my thoughts and keep working on improving the private land I have to hunt.

[BLACKJACK]

What I would like to see...

1. More winter core areas (WCA) consisting of primarily Black Hills Spruce and\or Rocky Mountain Juniper for the thermal properties they provide. One well designed WCA per 160ac would be nice but one per 40 would be ever better. We live in Minnesota for goodness sakes...plan for the worst.

2. Back those WCAs up with 10 to 15 percent food sources. Fill the "fridge" up.

3. Remaining balance can be native prairie or other perennial covers.

This will provide more hens making it through the winter...which means more roosters in the fall...it also means healthier deer making it into the spring which means better fawning and healthier bucks or deer in general.

This design also provide fantastic hunting opportunities with a lot of lineal edge, corridors, travel lanes, etc. Not only does it increase the carrying capacity of the wildlife, but it also greatly increases the carrying capacity of the number of hunters or number of hunter days.

As far as what kind of deer can people shoot and how many...I'm not a big fan of telling people what kind of buck they can or can't shoot, I'm hoping people will figure that out with more education. But in general, hunters would be seeing 10 to 15 deer per sitting so they either will shoot something right away and be done, or they will be more patient and let the little ones walk. Either way, there will be more bucks surviving to an older age which will give everyone a better age structure. As far as doe harvest...I feel all private landowners should be able to shoot a deer of eiter sex since these landowners are already paying taxes, paying for the habitat and paying for the food to house all the animals on their property...so what is wrong with every landowner shooting a deer? Public land doe harvest...I'm going to leave that up to the people that actually use public land to figure that one out.

I would like to see less of the "preservation" and "restoration" philosophy...it is too late...the buffalo are gone and the prairie chicken is not a HUGE benefit to our economy...having a few prairie chickens is great, but cutting every single spruce and conifer tree down at the expense of deer and pheasants is just wrong and not fair to our economies that depend on revenues from deer and pheasant hunting. Start designing for maximum carrying capacities of "recreational" wildlife and for maximum carrying capacities of hunters and hunter days. I would love to have everyone, especially kids, have a great experience when they go out in the field. If they don't, it drives them to video games and these kids are our future leaders.

Just my $1.50...since you asked.

Good post Landdr!!! Your winter core areas and food plots is right on for what it would take to help pheasants and deer. Problem is that 'the Prairie Mob' has taken over, everything is prairie, prairie, more prairie. Don't you know that all this used to be prairie!!! Gagging sound...

[Getanet]

I'm still a little confused as to what kind of response SSmith was hoping for?

Personally, if enough hunters are upset it's great that they want to enact change. But at this point many of these initiatives remind me too much of the Tea Party movement - anger is their largest rallying point.

Has the MDDI formulated any type of platform/strategy that details how they would achieve higher deer densities?

[smsmith]

I'm still a little confused as to what kind of response SSmith was hoping for?

The "response" I'm hoping for is for hunters to turn out en masse at every listening session. If we don't the press release from the DNR will state "hunters apparently aren't that upset, turn out was very poor". If we want increases in the deer herd, the "general public" needs to know how upset and unsatisfied hunters are. Like it or not, this issue will be won or lost in print and social media.

- The goal to achieve higher densities is to make the public stakeholder process legitimate. Last time around it was not. The DNR came into those meetings and told the stakeholders there would be decreases. When stakeholders attempted to debate that or discuss "numbers" the meetings were "adjourned".

- Make the process representative of the public within the units.

- Make it transparent without any preconceived agendas.

- Make it present facts besides those which the DNR present - i.e. our own State Dept. of Public Safety's deer/car crash numbers aren't used to monitor the herd at all, the State's of IL and PA use those numbers almost exclusively to monitor herd trends. Rather than using our State's car/deer crash numbers, the DNR uses a model from State Farm Insurance (no possible agenda there...)

- Crop depredation complaints aren't tracked and recorded. In 10 years there have been 20 documented cases of crop depredation in Todd Cty. In that same time there were less than 10 documented cases in Mille Lacs Cty. If farmer complaints are part of the goal setting process, then doggone it...let's accurately monitor and record those complaints.

- The current DNR model needs to be re-calibrated every 4-5 years via aerial surveys to insure it remains accurate....those surveys have not been done for 10-12 years in central and east central MN.

- The DNR put a significant reduction in place 10 years ago. During that time zero (0) hunter satisfaction surveys have been done in central and eastcentral MN. Generally, when a change is undertaken data is collected from a great number of sources (car crash data, crop depredation data, hunter satisfaction data) to determine if that change has been effective, if it has been too effective, or if it has not been effective at all. Where is that data? It doesn't exist. The only data is buck and doe harvest trend lines...which are based on the model that hasn't been re-calibrated in a decade or more.

[Getanet]

So if people don't respond to a post about meetings nearly a month away, you challenge them to grow a pair? That's certainly an interesting strategy.

I agree with many of your points about the goal setting process, but it doesn't really address how we'll get higher densities. There is really only way I can see to have a positive impact on deer densities in the near term is to reduce harvest for a few years. There are a few options for reducing harvest, and I doubt we'll get to a consensus on how to do that either.

[smsmith]

So if people don't respond to a post about meetings nearly a month away, you challenge them to grow a pair? That's certainly an interesting strategy.

I agree with many of your points about the goal setting process, but it doesn't really address how we'll get higher densities. There is really only way I can see to have a positive impact on deer densities in the near term is to reduce harvest for a few years. There are a few options for reducing harvest, and I doubt we'll get to a consensus on how to do that either.

I wish more MN deer hunters had grown a pair a number of years ago so we wouldn't be in this situation. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Of course we have to reduce antlerless permits. I'd look for a total kill next year in the 150-160K range, perhaps lower. The DNR is going to reduce antlerless permits. I'd guess that will be a big part of their spiel in the listening sessions. That's great, but it doesn't do anything for a long term solution. We'll find ourselves right back here in a few years.

We need oversight of the DNR. We need an external audit of the DNR by qualified biologists. We need legislative action in order to insure that hunter satisfaction surveys are completed at least every 3-4 years and the model the DNR uses is re-calibrated every 4-5 years.

I look at this with two possible solutions.

1. guys continue to sit around, complain about the DNR, complain about deer hunting, do nothing and we get the same dump we've got for the last decade for the coming decades.

2. guys get angry enough to get off the couch, get involved, contact their legislators, contact the DNR, attend meetings, demand changes be made, be vocal in print and social media...and maybe, just maybe we get some positive changes made that benefit hunters of today and tomorrow.

I suppose we all get to make that choice for ourselves. My choice is option 2

[PurpleFloyd]

You are not going to get consistently higher deer densities unless you tackle the habitat situation and make it the first and only priority. If this winter has taught anyone anything it is that you need to have the habitat to support the number of deer you want to see and do it without us having to intervene and feed them artificially.Increasing density before establishing suitable habitat is not a very wise way to manage the herd.

You can imagine what kind of shape the herd in the north would be n today if the herd was double the size it is today considering there isn't enough food to go around for the ones we have.

[LandDr]

I can't agree more. I hate to keep preaching...but there are severe limiting factors with the majority of the land these days. I see it over and over and over. I got two calls today alone for seeding CRP in Todd Co...both plans are to take out ALL of the cropland and plant it to native prairie. No food. No Conifers for thermal cover. Just grass. Seriously...what are the deer and pheasants going to survive on?

But, oddly, both landowners asked me my recommendations on what they should plant for the prairie mix to make it the best for deer and pheasants. So I took 10 minutes to explain to each of them that deer and pheasants don't eat native prairie and native prairie will not help them through the winter. So the result is that they have no thermal cover and the refrigerator is empty. After the discussion, they are both going to put in the "small" food plot that CRP allows (5% not to exceed 5 acres) and put out some feeders. Both are also going to start planting some spruce trees...but unfortunately not in the number that are required to provide the thermal cover required to survive a Todd Co winter.

Reducing the harvest and adding more deer in an already low carrying capacity landscape will just result in more deer eating whatever they can to survive and eating things they shouldn't be eating in an attempt to survive. Just as Floyd said...can you imagine if we had twice the herd size right now and the stress they would be under?

It's similar to releasing pheasants...there is a reason why you already have a low population, so releasing more birds into a landscape that already has a population at it's carrying capacity won't result in more birds. BUT...change the landscape to have a higher carrying capacity...and...amazingly...wild birds show up and the population naturally and exponentially increases to the new carrying capacity.

Now there are areas in the state with higher carrying capacities...I am not referring to those areas. Although those areas could also benefit from increasing the carrying capacities.

Land Dr

[PurpleFloyd]

I can't agree more. I hate to keep preaching...but there are severe limiting factors with the majority of the land these days. I see it over and over and over. I got two calls today alone for seeding CRP in Todd Co...both plans are to take out ALL of the cropland and plant it to native prairie. No food. No Conifers for thermal cover. Just grass. Seriously...what are the deer and pheasants going to survive on?

But, oddly, both landowners asked me my recommendations on what they should plant for the prairie mix to make it the best for deer and pheasants. So I took 10 minutes to explain to each of them that deer and pheasants don't eat native prairie and native prairie will not help them through the winter. So the result is that they have no thermal cover and the refrigerator is empty. After the discussion, they are both going to put in the "small" food plot that CRP allows (5% not to exceed 5 acres) and put out some feeders. Both are also going to start planting some spruce trees...but unfortunately not in the number that are required to provide the thermal cover required to survive a Todd Co winter.

Reducing the harvest and adding more deer in an already low carrying capacity landscape will just result in more deer eating whatever they can to survive and eating things they shouldn't be eating in an attempt to survive. Just as Floyd said...can you imagine if we had twice the herd size right now and the stress they would be under?

It's similar to releasing pheasants...there is a reason why you already have a low population, so releasing more birds into a landscape that already has a population at it's carrying capacity won't result in more birds. BUT...change the landscape to have a higher carrying capacity...and...amazingly...wild birds show up and the population naturally and exponentially increases to the new carrying capacity.

Now there are areas in the state with higher carrying capacities...I am not referring to those areas. Although those areas could also benefit from increasing the carrying capacities.

Land Dr

+1

We need to change from the Minnesota Deer Density Initiative to the Minnesota Habitat Density Initiative and Quality Deer Management to Quality Habitat Management.

(Side bar, I know many of the guys who belong to these groups already are working on the habitat and for that they should be congratulated so please don't see my post as saying they don't already do it)

We just need to make Habitat the number one priority for deer management in this state. We need to have more food available in the North, we need to have more shelter for the deer in the Ag zone, we need to find a way to turn the tide of tearing down every abandoned grove in the farmland and every tree line separating properties. Nearly all the fence lines are gone as are the bushes and trees that used to grow along them. This, more than target selection has and continues to have a far greater impact on the present and future landscape of hunting than the things we have been quarreling about among ourselves.

[smsmith]

Okay, so it would appear that we have at least 2 votes for continuing on our current path of low densities....at least until the habitat is improved. What's your guys' plan for getting that done?

[smsmith]

We need to change from the Minnesota Deer Density Initiative to the Minnesota Habitat Density Initiative and Quality Deer Management to Quality Habitat Management.

Interestingly enough, about 30 guys I know have just started a group based on "quality habitat management". Our first event is this Sunday.

That's what we're doing about habitat....how's about you?

[LandDr]

I tried working with the govt and non-profits...but they watched, learned and then got equipment and started selling seed and services in direct competition with private companies already doing that. Nice use of our tax payer money isn't it? Now most of them see private companies as competitors so we don't get invited to meetings, events, etc. Very self serving...where is the team effort there?

I work with whoever will listen and whoever wants to take it to a higher level. Until there is a major change in the position of govt and non-profits...change from compete with us to work with us...I just don't see that happening. It is very unfortunate and hard to understand govt and non-profits competing with private tax paying businesses.

Sunday? You should send out an invite. But I will be at the Deer Classic this weekend...unless you are having the meeting there?

If you are at the Deer Classic this weekend, stop by and say HI

[minky]

Sounds like you are on the right track! Keep us posted on your groups progress.

[hockeybc69]

Our habitat meeting is near Buckman Sunday at 10 am.

LandDr

What booth are you in?