MDHA/MN DNR listening sessions

[smsmith]

I just hope the meetings is a discussion and not by a few a shouting match. Both sides really want to get it right. Nature is always changing as is are landscape with more and more people and framented ecosystems.

Estimates are for MINNESOTA human population to double in 30 some years.

A place to hunt is going to change and the land can produce only so many deer. As we get more hunters there will be years the success rate has to drop.

I certainly hope the same thing. A shouting match gets nothing done. I don't that I agree with you that both sides want to get it right (assuming the DNR is one side), but hope that you're correct.

The land can produce only so many deer, there is no doubt of that. What will happen here is the privatization of the deer herd. Those who own land will be able to continue to have fair - decent deer hunting, while those who hunt public land will have terrible - poor results. Most areas of central and eastcentral MN have nowhere near 50% of the biological carrying capacity of deer right now. That is likely because the DNR doesn't have the manpower or funds to be able to manage at those levels.

[smsmith]

Deer hunters are invited to attend one of a series of listening sessions jointly hosted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.

All listening sessions will be from 7-9 p.m. Meetings are scheduled in:

Brainerd on Wednesday, March 19, at Central Lakes Community College, 501 West College Drive, in the cafeteria;

Cambridge on Thursday, March 20, at Anoka Ramsey Community College, 300 Spirit River Drive South, in rooms G201 and G202;

Bemidji on Monday, March 24, at Bemidji High School, 2900 Division St. W, in the auditorium;

Morris on Tuesday, March 25, at the University of Minnesota's West Central Research and Outreach Center, 46352 Minnesota Highway 329, in the Ag Country Auditorium;

Nicollet on Thursday, March 27, at the Nicollet Conservation Club, 46045 471st Lane; and

Virginia on Tuesday, April 1, at the Mesabi Range College, 1001 Chestnut St. West, in the auditorium.

Online comments also will be accepted on this web page beginning Wednesday, March 19.

For those unable to attend one of these meetings, I sure hope you post comments on the page (hope its okay to post the link here)

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html?tab=3#detailTabs

Make your voices/thoughts/whatever heard, either in person or online. Please ask everybody in your hunting party and/or anyone you know who hunts to do the same

[Getanet]

Ssmith, did you see the Strib article the other day that talked about the potential use of personal drones for hunting?

That made me think of your request to do much more aerial surveys. If restrictions were put in place on the DNR's use of them, it would seem having a few drones would be a fairly cost-effective way for the DNR to monitor deer populations in the future. By restrictions I mean when and where they could be used, and for what specific purposes.

[smsmith]

I did not see it, but did hear some of the content from other guys. Sounds like a reasonable solution to me

edit...sure be nice if the DNR would get the comments section on the page I posted a link to ^^^^

Is it too much to ask of our DNR to get up to speed on 21st century technology? If they say they're going to allow online comments starting on March 19th...then doggone it get it working at 12:01 a.m. on the 19th

[jerkbait]

Would have been nice if there would have been a meeting or 2 furhter north of Bemidji. Some of us up here are 2-1/2 hours away.

[smsmith]

Would have been nice if there would have been a meeting or 2 furhter north of Bemidji. Some of us up here are 2-1/2 hours away.

I agree. My understanding is MDHA tried to get more sessions, but DNR wouldn't do it. Some folks also tried to get the Brainerd meeting moved to Little Falls but again...DNR wouldn't do it. Also wouldn't add it.

I'm "lucky" that Brainerd is only about an hour for me. Cambridge is a little over 2 and Morris about 90 minutes.

For anybody who is able and willing to get to these meetings...I implore you to do so. I also understand not wanting/being able to drive for hours to get to one of the darn things. That's why the online comments are so important (if the DNR would get the thing working). I think there were fewer than 500 online comments for the SE stakeholder process. That's a pretty pathetic response. If there aren't thousands (and thousands) of online comments that come out of this round of listening sessions...I'll be surprised and disappointed.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

If there aren't thousands (and thousands) of online comments that come out of this round of listening sessions...I'll be surprised and disappointed.

And if there are not thousands and thousands of comments, the DNR will simply say there isnt a problem and wash their hands of it once again....

[smsmith]

And if there are not thousands and thousands of comments, the DNR will simply say there isnt a problem and wash their hands of it once again....

Exactly. Time to put up or shut up.

Send Leslie an email asking why the online comment section isn't available, even though the DNR webpage says it will be available starting today.

[email protected]

DNR changed the date to tomorrow (3/20) for online comments now.

Sheesh...now the online comment section IS UP AND AVAILABLE. Chinese fire drill at the DNR webpage today I guess

[ANYFISH2]

Smsmith, I plan on going to brainerd tonight, is there a way to identify you? I will have a LF Flyers jacket on. I would like to talk about our local herds. Being you are near L. Prairie and I am from Randall our herds could be similar.

[smsmith]

Smsmith, I plan on going to brainerd tonight, is there a way to identify you? I will have a LF Flyers jacket on. I would like to talk about our local herds. Being you are near L. Prairie and I am from Randall our herds could be similar.

Big and ugly?

6'4" 240, long goatee...probably have on a winter camo hat with a "Bialka's Bar" logo

[BuckSutherland]

Just sent my letter.

Also emailed the link to 15 other hunters and demanded they do the same, and then forward the link to other hunters they know.

I dont want our deer population to end up the same way Mille Lacs has. You guys email your state reps too!!!

Thanks for the link Smith!!

[ANYFISH2]

Sounds like I'll try not to disagree with you then!;-)

[smsmith]

Just sent my letter.

Also emailed the link to 15 other hunters and demanded they do the same, and then forward the link to other hunters they know.

I dont want our deer population to end up the same way Mille Lacs has. You guys email your state reps too!!!

Thanks for the link Smith!!

Fantastic Buck, good to hear it. Thank you for your commitment to the deer and deer hunters of MN.

[smsmith]

Sounds like I'll try not to disagree with you then!;-)

Big and ugly. Not big, tough and ugly

Looking forward to meeting ya

[SmellEsox]

Went to the Brainerd meeting last night. Was disappointed that it was aimed at permit areas from Brainerd and north to Grand Rapids/Park Rapids. Was hoping to hear from more folks from 214, 215, 248 and 221. I thought there was 75-100 people there. Most of the comments were negative. One guy said he had a lot of deer out by New York Mills. Is one of the other meetings supposed to address areas in the central part of the state? A lot of support for APR. A lot of wolf complaints.

[TRZ II]

If the DNR really cared what people thought they would have meetings in the metro where a majority of the hunters live. I wouldn't waste my breath on them, never the less drive hours to talk to them. Pure waste of time, energy and money. They will do what they want anyway....

[hockeybc69]

I emailed the DNR with those exact thoughts..... A huge number of people that hunt, live in the twin cities area and have to travel a few hours to their hunting shacks.... How many are going to spend hours driving round trip to a single meeting?

Do the online comments at least if you are not attending.

[ANYFISH2]

I was there as well, and probably should have something, I was more or less taking in the sentiment of comments.

My general observation is most are concerned was current population and current goals.

Lot of concern over predators.

Many don't trust the population models or use of said models.

Apr was brought up multiple times, mostly by "younger hunters" .

Smsmith and I discussed how at the end they (dnr) didn't really have a intention to put an overview together after the statwide meetings for us to review and see what hunters seemed to want. That made it seem to me like these meeting were not being wieghed very strong go them IMO.

Not a dnr apologist but many hunter want higher populations while put more pressure on the doe population through aprs. I don't see how that will work. The dnr will not and can not make us all happy, I say limit harvest and get poulations up then we can deal with personal prefrences.

[smsmith]

I was there as well, and probably should have something, I was more or less taking in the sentiment of comments.

My general observation is most are concerned was current population and current goals.

Lot of concern over predators.

Many don't trust the population models or use of said models.

Apr was brought up multiple times, mostly by "younger hunters" .

Smsmith and I discussed how at the end they (dnr) didn't really have a intention to put an overview together after the statwide meetings for us to review and see what hunters seemed to want. That made it seem to me like these meeting were not being wieghed very strong go them IMO.

Not a dnr apologist but many hunter want higher populations while put more pressure on the doe population through aprs. I don't see how that will work. The dnr will not and can not make us all happy, I say limit harvest and get poulations up then we can deal with personal prefrences.

I said nothing either. I was hoping not to going into these meetings due to others voices being heard. There were a fair number of folks who spoke, but I'm hoping there are more in Cambridge tonight.

APR's are a non-issue right now for the DNR. I appreciate the sentiment from those who spoke and offer kudos to them for speaking...however..any additional APR zones/units are several years away (at best).

When Telander answered the question of what would the outcome be of these listening sessions and online comments with "we hadn't really thought about that, sounds like you folks would like a summary or something?" it reinforced for me just how out of touch with the common man our DNR is.

[smsmith]

If the DNR really cared what people thought they would have meetings in the metro where a majority of the hunters live. I wouldn't waste my breath on them, never the less drive hours to talk to them. Pure waste of time, energy and money. They will do what they want anyway....

I understand the sentiment, but I'd caution you that there are an awful lot of folks who hunt that don't live in the Metro

Those folks generally get really sick of having to drive down there to make their voices heard.

You may be correct about them doing what they want to do anyway...but personally I'd rather at least make an attempt to effect change than to just give up.

[TRZ II]

Of course the entire state should be involved. By majority I'm saying over 50%, I don't have stats to back that up but I'd assume it is correct. They want these meetings small and civil so they put them in places few will attend. Just a joke, much like the mille lacs fishery meetings, all just a show. I hunt north 156 and it was INTENSIVE for years and if you saw 5 deer it was a great year. They are so far out of touch it is sickening.

[hockeybc69]

TRZ

Go to: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

Click on listening sessions tab and give your input.

Who knows where it goes or who reads it, but take the step to give it to them anyway.

[Meat-Run]

I too was at the meeting and listened and kept an open mind. One thing to consider is managing a deer population in such a diverse state is difficult even with the "model" they like and have been using. Right or wrong its a tool to adjust per zone(s) etc so just put yourself in there shoes for a moment. I'm not defending them but it's a tough job period.

Now APR is and only will be decided by Legislation ONLY per Mr. Lou Concellie (sp)the DNR don't have say on where and when APR is. I asked Lou about utilizing Ripley and he said it's almost unlikely there will be another APR done unless us hunters visit with your senator etc. I asked him since you (DNR) are the science/biologist on the APR can't you suggest/push for APR and he said no he encourages state hunters to make that happen not DNR. I about fell over, not intentionally through Lou under the bus but that kind of made me shake my head.

Predation: discussed possible bounty on coyotes and Lou said it will never happen because you can't regulate where the predator came from (nd,sd) etc and you can't control what zones etc. that does make sense.

Not much explanation regarding the browse factor since that is "science" but one DNR person doesn't use that to gage deer densities but "allowable social density's" not browse... What that means is what society expresses or "complains" about deer problems or not enough deer in one particular area. I guess that would be contradicting there "model" and why do we even survey for deer if they go by what the "public" suggest to the DNR!?

I'm kind of confuses but I'm going to say something that most don't want to hear. We need to go back to a lottery and/or extreme reduction on license, YES you may have to pass and I strongly suggest most of us maybe not buy a license or only let our youth harvest a deer this year!!!

thanks,

MR

[Bear55]

Left my 2 cents.

[mntatonka]

I'm kind of confuses but I'm going to say something that most don't want to hear. We need to go back to a lottery and/or extreme reduction on license, YES you may have to pass and I strongly suggest most of us maybe not buy a license or only let our youth harvest a deer this year!!!

thanks,

MR

Just remember (and I've said this before), not all of the state is so low on deer, so something like that certainly isn't a statewide solution.