MDHA/MN DNR listening sessions

[Meat-Run]

mntatonka,

I totally agree with you not all zones are suffering like NE Minnesota and it was really good to here from two fellas about there area by New York Mills. That's why the DNR does need to hear from folks so they don't get any further out of control (to many) and protect what we have left.

Over all I was surprised at the civility of the people who came it was good.

MR

[smsmith]

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.

I think their model is a good one, but if you recall one of the keys to that model being a good one (and effective) is to recalibrate it every 4-5 years (directly from the DNR's presentation). It has been at least 10 years since the model has been recalibrated in many areas of MN. I agree, the DNR folks have a tough job. They are likely underfunded and overworked. That said...I don't really care. I don't think it is an unrealistic expectation for the deer hunters of this state (who contribute about $13 million every year) to have a responsible and responsive DNR. If we need to raise license fees a few bucks to make sure our DNR can manage the deer herd the way they should...I'm all for it...as long as those additional funds GO DIRECTLY TO DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR

[laker1]

I thought the DNR and public had a good cordial meeting. Also if wanted you had the opportunity to talk one on one with DNR staff.

I was there and like most want the goals to carry a higher population especially in the north half of the state. Much of the rest of the state has a lot of intertwining issues,like farmers etc.,which gets complicated to manage,but hope they try to adjust for a little higher population.

Seen different studies and this also varies,but adult coyotes average about 3 deer per coyote and mostly fawns. The number mentioned last night was way out there and it is possible(must of been a good deer area).

Bottom line for the long term which was only mentioned by the Minnesota Deer representative from Windom is habitat. Much of are good habitat is getting subdivided more everyday. A good honest 40 or 80 acres wooded lot is getting rarer all the time.

Also like Crow Wing county 500 cords of Oak are going up for auction to cut. The number of mature oak stands keep shrinking. But like others and the local deer association should be talking to the county on deer management issues.

Yes you can still send comments via web.

[smsmith]

Sounds like the Cambridge meeting was verrrrrrryyyyy different in tone than the Brainerd meeting.

[hockeybc69]

Lots of emotion in the Cambridge meeting.

Zero people spoke about too many deer, crop damage, etc.

In fact, a few farmers that hunt deer spoke up and said that the deer are simply gone in the east central areas. One farmer tends to over 3000 acres of land in the Cambridge area and said the deer numbers are terrible.

Another farmer drove down from Detroit Lakes of all things and said he has hunted 60+ years and things have gone way too far in harvest and tag allocations up there.

[BuckSutherland]

Sounds like the Cambridge meeting was verrrrrrryyyyy different in tone than the Brainerd meeting.

When you get a chance could you share a little more??

[smsmith]

When you get a chance could you share a little more??

I did not attend (in hindsight I should have made the 2 hr drive). The information I have is second hand, but I know at least one guy from here who did attend. It'd be great if hockeybc69 would share more when he gets a chance

I will state the thing that irks me the most. The DNR's aerial survey of unit 221 came up with 7.2 deer per square mile. However, the DNR states they will "throw out" that number because its impossible for it to be correct. They state the kill there (around 4.5 dpsm) couldn't be possible with those densities. They also stated that the aerial surveys hadn't been properly stratified by habitat type.

My responses to that is this: A. The DNR cannot cherry pick which aerial surveys they choose to use. Lou C. stated in Brainerd that they had IDEAL CONDITIONS for flying unit 221 this year. If aerial surveys are the tool the DNR uses to recalibrate their model...then whatever the results are MUST be what is used for recalibration. Without doing that, it destroys the validity of their model.

B. if indeed their flights weren't properly stratified (which I find to be a highly questionable statement), then WHY IN THE HECK DID THEY WASTE AROUND $13,000 DOING THEM?

This is just one example of DNR incompetence. I have contacted my State Senator and Representative (again) and implored them to push for an external audit of the DNR. I'd like that audit to explore both the DNR's finances (in particular the $.50 surcharge for feeding/disease management) as well as the deer management model they use.

If we have a model that needs to be recalibrated every 4-5 years (right from the DNR's presentation) and we're going on 10 years since it was recalibrated...and then they attempt to recalibrate it and WON'T USE THEIR OWN NUMBERS...what the heck good is the model?

I'd encourage everybody who finds this at least a little bit "intriguing" to contact your state legislators as well. You can find them here (hope posting this link is okay) http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[BuckSutherland]

Thanks Smith for everything you have been doing to help lately. I have been beating my people over the head and we have sent 22 comments via the DNR web page. We have sent almost as many emails to state reps.

Perhaps a DNR webinar or something similar would be more appropriate in the future. Many of us have conflict with the times and places offered for the meetings. I have relayed my feelings with CO Larry Francis who is the GW in my area.

Some of us in my group have been talking about a self-imposed harvest restriction and only hunting for trophy bucks next year. Looks like we need our doe(s) going forward for the replenish.

Sounds like next week I will finally have a chance to get up north and check out my woods and cams in 172. Lots of disappointing thoughts running through my head, but at the same time I am feeling good about all the habitat improvements we are going to go after this spring. I will try to post some pics and thoughts in early April.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Perhaps a DNR webinar or something similar would be more appropriate in the future. Many of us have conflict with the times and places offered for the meetings.

Good luck on a webinar.... Hate to say it, but it sure seems like part of the design by the DNR. No meetings around the metro to get input from people that live down here, but travel to all areas of the state to hunt deer.

[BuckSutherland]

Good luck on a webinar.... Hate to say it, but it sure seems like part of the design by the DNR. No meetings around the metro to get input from people that live down here, but travel to all areas of the state to hunt deer.

And that is sad. Its the 21 century last time I checked....

[laker1]

Thanks Smith for everything you have been doing to help lately. I have been beating my people over the head and we have sent 22 comments via the DNR web page. We have sent almost as many emails to state reps.

Perhaps a DNR webinar or something similar would be more appropriate in the future. Many of us have conflict with the times and places offered for the meetings. I have relayed my feelings with CO Larry Francis who is the GW in my area.

Some of us in my group have been talking about a self-imposed harvest

restriction and only hunting for trophy bucks next year. Looks like we need our doe(s) going forward for the replenish.

Sounds like next week I will finally have a chance to get up north and check out my woods and cams in 172. Lots of disappointing thoughts running through my head, but at the same time I am feeling good about all the habitat improvements we are going to go after this spring. I will try to post some pics and thoughts in early April.

Much of the south and the west side of 172 the snow is hard packed right now(March 20th) and deer are walking on top. Seen about 50 deer and they look pretty good. Total snow depth by Longville is 17 inches. Seen it worse over the years. The weather is going to be the deciding factor.

[laker1]

I think your email or talking to your area manager will get your thoughts known. Sometimes at meetings your individual concerns can be drowned out by other people talking etc..

Very few people take the time to visit there Area office.

[hockeybc69]

I contacted my area WL manager for permit area 223, just to reach out for some chat and to find out whats happening down here.

I have not seen a deer in over 2 months where I live. I have had a feeder out since the day deer season closed. In living here 13 years I have never once gone more than few days all winter without deer prancing through the yard to the feeder.

During the hunting season, I saw deer on 2 sits. My son saw none. I keep a journal of all my hunt details if anyone was curious.

My wildlife manager told me that populations in Sherburne are healthy.

OK. I guess that solves that.

Here are the upcoming listening sessions.

- 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.

[smsmith]

I think your email or talking to your area manager will get your thoughts known. Sometimes at meetings your individual concerns can be drowned out by other people talking etc..

Very few people take the time to visit there Area office.

I posed a question to a different area manager than mine on Weds. "If you have a unit that is under dpsm goal, would you designate that unit as being Managed?" Response - "no, if its under goal Hunter's Choice would be the most liberal designation I'd use".

Unit 215 is under goal (that from Marrett Grund via phone conversation)...yet it has been designated Managed. In 2007 this unit was identified as needing an increase of 10% during the public stakeholder process....yet it continues to have the population suppressed through excessive antlerless permits. This is a betrayal of the public trust IMHO.

Talking with Beau Liddell is getting hunters nowhere in unit 215, 221, and 222. Talking with Beau's superiors in St. Paul is getting us nowhere.

[laker1]

I think the Manager who you talked to Wednesday gave you a good answer on HC being the most liberal he would go.

[smsmith]

I think th e Manager who you talked to Wednesday gave you a good answer on HC being the most liberal he would go.

You and me both brother

[schmoe147]

I can't make the Bemedji meeting unfortunately. If anyone reading this happens to make it there I would appreciate if you could ask a question for me. My concern is zones surrounding zone 287 ( Itasca state park). I hunt the park occasionally but my main zone of hunting is zone 184. I hunt within a couple miles of the park. The park (287) is intensive harvest yet across the road it is a lottery, how can zones that boarder each other be so extremely different. That's my rant for the day.

[mntatonka]

I can't make the Bemedji meeting unfortunately. If anyone reading this happens to make it there I would appreciate if you could ask a question for me. My concern is zones surrounding zone 287 ( Itasca state park). I hunt the park occasionally but my main zone of hunting is zone 184. I hunt within a couple miles of the park. The park (287) is intensive harvest yet across the road it is a lottery, how can zones that boarder each other be so extremely different. That's my rant for the day.

I would expect that since 184 is a large area (1300 sq mi), they have to have it lottery to keep the average population across the entire area high enough to meet goal, while the park is small (51 sq mi) so it's easier to manage the local herd for a specific goal. That situation alone can make my case for remapping the deer areas to make it easier to manage the local herds.

[laker1]

In the past DNR meetings they often had a open questioneer piece of paper you could feel out concerns. For a lot of people at open meetings if they don't have experience in talking in public it is hard for them to express their thoughts properly and cordially. That's just human nature.

[smsmith]

In the past DNR meetings they often had a open questioneer piece of paper you could feel out concerns. For a lot of people at open meetings if they don't have experience in talking in public it is hard for them to express their thoughts properly and cordially. That's just human nature.

Absolutely true. I think in the DNR's mind the online comment section fills that need now. Leslie didn't do a great job of telling folks how to find the online comment section at the Brainerd meeting. Through in the fact that plenty of rural Minnesotans don't have internet in their homes....not an ideal way to get public input.

I do strongly encourage everyone who can't get to one of the meetings to submit an online comment if at all possible. Here's the link to the info on listening sessions and to the online comment section again.... http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html?tab=3#detailTabs

[Chris St. Peter]

I attended the listening session in Bemidji last night and would sum up the overall mood as very frustrated. The DNR folks presented the power point regarding management goals and how we got to this point. Noone in the audience was having it... Most of the hunters who spoke, firmly rejected the data and, instead, testified regarding the overall lack of confidence of the DNR to properly manage the Deer herd.

The three big themes were

1. Too few deer

2. Too many wolves

3. Lack of transparency in the management process.

While most who spoke were cordial, it was very clear that the current management plan is unacceptable and unless we turn this trainwreck around the future of hunting and hunter recruitment will suffer greatly.

I think the most frustrating part for me personally was looking at the graphs the DNR folks were sharing and listening to the message that in most units, including 184, that the populations are right where they need to be.

And while I appreciate the MDHA for pulling these sessions together, I've got to wonder where in the he!! have they been for the past three years?

It's time to take the gloves and start acting like a real special interest group. If the MDHA cannot muster the clout to make changes, then they need to step aside and make room for an organization that can.

[smsmith]

I attended the listening session in Bemidji last night and would sum up the overall mood as very frustrated. The DNR folks presented the power point regarding management goals and how we got to this point. Noone in the audience was having it... Most of the hunters who spoke, firmly rejected the data and, instead, testified regarding the overall lack of confidence of the DNR to properly manage the Deer herd.

The three big themes were

1. Too few deer

2. Too many wolves

3. Lack of transparency in the management process.

While most who spoke were cordial, it was very clear that the current management plan is unacceptable and unless we turn this trainwreck around the future of hunting and hunter recruitment will suffer greatly.

I think the most frustrating part for me personally was looking at the graphs the DNR folks were sharing and listening to the message that in most units, including 184, that the populations are right where they need to be.

And while I appreciate the MDHA for pulling these sessions together, I've got to wonder where in the he!! have they been for the past three years?

It's time to take the gloves and start acting like a real special interest group. If the MDHA cannot muster the clout to make changes, then they need to step aside and make room for an organization that can.

Thank you for sharing, I had not heard anything from Bemidji until your post. While I share your frustration, I'm glad to hear that folks expressed themselves.

It will be interesting to watch what (if anything) comes out of these listening sessions.

[hockeybc69]

How was attendance up there?

[Chris St. Peter]

It was paltry. I'd estimate maybe 60 people. I expected to see a lot more.

[MahtowaDave]

I feel for the kids. They love to go hunting with our group, but at some point seeing deer is part of the experience, or rather, it should be. We hunt very hard and we like it that way as I'm sure all of us do. I don't want a canned hunt, neither does my son, but this is no management plan, it is a joke. Sad more than angry really, but it varies from day to day. I agree recruitment and retention will suffer some. License sales will also, eventually. Given the circumstances, our group will continue to tweak our own plans for hunting deer at our property accordingly, out of responsibility. Kids can take a deer if they have that opportunity. Adults will enjoy the scenery and the experience of the kids until it makes sense again, numbers-wise. I will forever regret my past participation in intensive harvest hunting. While I stopped doing it when it was clear in my area that it made no sense, I am guilty and ashamed of it. Its about accountability. I hold myself accountable for some of this. It can't be said enough that without a management plan that is palatable to hunters, the whole resource suffers. We drive the bus, why can't we get a ticket? The farmers know the score on their land. If they say that they are not there, they are not there.