Audit Push: Time To Act!

[PurpleFloyd]

...An even harvest is a fantasy.There is no such thing as an even harvest on any wild game species in a public setting. Look at Pheasants, Fish, Ducks, Elk, Moose and any number of species and you will see they ALL have peaks and valleys.

[PurpleFloyd]

From an article following the 2011 deer season:

Although more permits - at least about 512,000 - were sold than ever before, the number of deer killed - likely to be a little more than 192,000 - is well below last year's harvest of about 207,000.

It's also below the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' general goal of 200,000, a number that Lou Cornicelli, the agency's big-game coordinator, has called the "sweet spot" for a stable deer population. Cornicelli and others have pointed to the poor conditions - mainly high winds - during the firearms opening weekend as a major contributor to the lower harvest, but McNamara is skeptical.

You reference Permits. The DNR sells licenses to any eligible hunter over the counter and issues permits to certain hunters in certain areas.

According to this link, the harvest number looks right but the license and permit totals don't.

2013 report

In that report, if you add all firearms, ML and archery licenses and permits

Firearms- 597000

Archery- 102000

ML-59000

I get 758000 licenses and permits sold in 2013

Compare to the peak year of 2003

Firearms 649000

Archery 60000

ML 9100

Total sales 718000 in 2003.

That being said, if 200k average is the sweet spot then over the past 20 years that the stats are available for we are actually above average over tha period. We are down right now, we were down in the 90's and higher last decade.Look at early 90's harvest levels, the number of antlerless permits offeserd and the way the population grew with favorable conditions. We are set up to see a similar increase right now if the weather cooperates.

On thing in that report that does jump out is the rise in bonus permit sales, which is something we more than likely both agree should be eliminated completely. I feel 1 deer per hunter total is enough and I suspect you do as well. I also don't feel archery should automatically be able to harvest a doe without a lottery permit.

[smsmith]

What I find "interesting" is that in 2003 the DNR said there's about a million deer in the state....and they continue to say the same thing

So...apparently hunters just aren't hunting hard enough anymore

^^^^that's exactly what Beau Liddell stated in ODN after last year's Ripley hunt

I believe the DNR sold more licenses and permits in 2013 than there were deer in the state.

[Farmsfulltime]

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term , we will be right back at an exploding populations in some areas . When population was growing fast under lotto or controlled tags , what turned the tide was more does harvested , multiple tags are here to stay in some areas and conditions, Lets talk audit or start a new thread like we could call it deer same old thread

[smsmith]

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term , we will be right back at an exploding populations in some areas . When population was growing fast under lotto or controlled tags , what turned the tide was more does harvested , multiple tags are here to stay in some areas and conditions, Lets talk audit or start a new thread like we could call it deer same old thread

Thought you were done with this discussion?

I didn't realize you were the controller of thread topics/content, thanks for letting me know

[smsmith]

Carry on Im done this horse is dead enough for me

Guess not

[hockeybc69]

I posted that info to show that our DNR said the sweet spot is around that 200k annual harvest mark. In previous pages there was discussion about what people on here thought it should be.

The 512,000 permits sold, I think is referred to just the firearms season.

[mntatonka]

That being said, if 200k average is the sweet spot then over the past 20 years that the stats are available for we are actually above average over tha period. We are down right now, we were down in the 90's and higher last decade.Look at early 90's harvest levels, the number of antlerless permits offeserd and the way the population grew with favorable conditions. We are set up to see a similar increase right now if the weather cooperates.

On thing in that report that does jump out is the rise in bonus permit sales, which is something we more than likely both agree should be eliminated completely. I feel 1 deer per hunter total is enough and I suspect you do as well. I also don't feel archery should automatically be able to harvest a doe without a lottery permit.

lottery areas worked in the early 90's to increase the herd, and it will work again.

One deer per hunter is not the answer statewide. In fact, no single regulation is the answer for the entire state. There will always be areas that have more deer than others, and will require individual management.

I definitely agree that archery hunters should have the same restrictions on harvest as all other seasons

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

There is no way one deer per hunter is going to work long term

You are correct. And the fact many areas were Intensive for as long as they were, werent going to work long term either.

To hit a sweet spot in populations, available tags need to be adjusted to maintain that.

Not rocket science.

[PurpleFloyd]

What I find "interesting" is that in 2003 the DNR said there's about a million deer in the state....and they continue to say the same thing

So...apparently hunters just aren't hunting hard enough anymore

^^^^that's exactly what Beau Liddell stated in ODN after last year's Ripley hunt

I believe the DNR sold more licenses and permits in 2013 than there were deer in the state.

So at this point the discussion comes down to the DNR's herd estimate?

It may have to because the antlerless harvest clearly shows that there have been many more antlerless deer harvested in the past without the population crashing and it shows that the current deer harvests,while lower than the peak, are still in line with what we have seen over the past 20 years.

[Farmsfulltime]

Two way street I would guess

[PurpleFloyd]

You are correct. And the fact many areas were Intensive for as long as they were, werent going to work long term either.

To hit a sweet spot in populations, available tags need to be adjusted to maintain that.

Not rocket science.

Not rocket science but the adjustment always needs to be reactionary and not proactionary. You don't know what the weather or the population will be like a year in advance. All you can do is adjust after the fact to bring numbers up or down which is clearly what is being done. They can't please everyone but the numbers are not out of the range we have seen over the past 20 years.

[PurpleFloyd]

I posted that info to show that our DNR said the sweet spot is around that 200k annual harvest mark. In previous pages there was discussion about what people on here thought it should be.

The 512,000 permits sold, I think is referred to just the firearms season.

Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure we are talking apples to apples. Right above your post I used only the firearms numbers to get the average of 180k number but someone wanted to use the total harvest number instead so if we are going to use the total harvest numbers, then it seems to make sense to use the total license sales as well because they show that firearms license sales are down from the peak while archery and ML have seen big increases.

On way or the other we just had a very bad winter and I suspect harvest, especially in the norther half of the state, will suffer for it. But reduced antlerless permits will help to rebuild the herd if the weather cooperates.

[Jameson]

....Is that what ou are promoting?

nope.

[smsmith]

But reduced antlerless permits will help to rebuild the herd if the weather cooperates.

I don't think anybody is going to argue against that point

[SmellEsox]

Here's what I'd like to have figured out. I look at the harvest for the areas around Little Falls and they are remarkably consistent since 2001. Buck harvest especially is very flat. Yet so many hunters are seeing fewer and fewer deer and are unsatisfied. Does harvest accurately reflect what is out there? Can hunters harvest the same number of deer year after year in a declining population? Is deer behavior changing? Are they better at evading hunters?

I will also be very interested in seeing what the buck harvest will be in these areas this fall. There will be more pressure on bucks for sure (I think). I think buck harvest will certainly tell us the impacts of the winter of 2012-13 because buck fawns born in 2013 will be the yearling bucks (1.5 year olds) that make up the majority of buck harvest (and overall harvest) this fall. Next years buck harvest will tell us a lot about the effects of last winter.

DNR needs to do more to monitor populations. I think harvest alone isn't telling the whole story. We need more flights done on a more frequent basis. The money is there to do it, it just needs to be made a priority. I support other boots on the ground population monitoring also. Let hunters help. Once populations are more accurately tracked, then decide where they should be maintained. Currently we are apparently close to goal levels around here. If hunters aren't happy (which they aren't), then we need to find out where an acceptable level is for all involved. If we continue to go in the direction we are going, we are killing deer hunting. As us old farts die out of the sport, we won't be replaced. Come to think of it, that might make hunting really good in the future if we are still allowed to do it.

[hockeybc69]

I have used this example several times

Permit area 240

2006 to 2012(I havent gotten the 2013 data tallied yet, but the harvest did increase slightly over 2012 because we went from Hunters Choice to Managed)

We have more than 10% additional firearms hunters

Harvest has fallen over 40%

Yet in 2007 DNR said we had 19 dpsm. DNR said we had 18 dpsm in 2013.

So our population estimates are nearly the same from 2007 to present, but our harvest is down 40%.

Those numbers raise some red flags without thinking too much about it.

That tells me clearly the DNR either had no clue how many deer we had in 2007 or that they have no idea what we had in 2013..... Or they just dont have any idea how many deer have been there.

You cant harvest 40% less deer and say the populations are stable.

[smsmith]

Here's what I'd like to have figured out. I look at the harvest for the areas around Little Falls and they are remarkably consistent since 2001. Buck harvest especially is very flat. Yet so many hunters are seeing fewer and fewer deer and are unsatisfied. Does harvest accurately reflect what is out there? Can hunters harvest the same number of deer year after year in a declining population? Is deer behavior changing? Are they better at evading hunters?

Sounds like a great opportunity for a UM grad student and the MN DNR to do some research.

[SmellEsox]

Not rocket science but the adjustment always needs to be reactionary and not proactionary. You don't know what the weather or the population will be like a year in advance. All you can do is adjust after the fact to bring numbers up or down which is clearly what is being done. They can't please everyone but the numbers are not out of the range we have seen over the past 20 years.

Yes, however, if their population modeling isn't accurate, they don't seem to know when to back off antlerless harvest.

[DaveT]

Does harvest accurately reflect what is out there? Can hunters harvest the same number of deer year after year in a declining population?

Good questions. The harvest does not reflect how long each harvest took. If I hunted 5 days to kill a buck last year versus hunting 1 hour to kill a buck 5 years ago my harvest total is the same. Even though 5 years ago I saw multiple deer and had success earlier in the season because there were more deer around. Yes we can continue (to a point) to harvest the same number of deer in a declining population, we are just hunting harder and longer to do it. At some point the bottom will fall off though.

[Bear55]

Does harvest accurately reflect what is out there? Can hunters harvest the same number of deer year after year in a declining population?

I would say no, does are pretty predictable and easy to hunt, find the beds and the food and you can fill tags without much trouble. Do that a few years in a row and the population will decline. The hunting will start to become a little more difficult but guys can make drive and party hunt and still fill those tags with does. By the time this happens it's too late, the population takes a big hit and by the time the harvest numbers are down the population may be significantly down. Mix in some bad winters and here we are.

Not much left to do but let the does walk and hope for a mild winter. The sad part is a few seasons back I was seeing a decent recovery in far northern MN. Then my hopes and dreams were crushed by the weather.

[smsmith]

Good questions. The harvest does not reflect how long each harvest took. If I hunted 5 days to kill a buck last year versus hunting 1 hour to kill a buck 5 years ago my harvest total is the same. Even though 5 years ago I saw multiple deer and had success earlier in the season because there were more deer around. Yes we can continue (to a point) to harvest the same number of deer in a declining population, we are just hunting harder and longer to do it. At some point the bottom will fall off though.

Good post. Doing annual hunter surveys about time afield and deer seen would give us some insight into this situation. While such surveys aren't solid "evidence" of anything, they certainly are an additional tool the DNR could add. Its been over a decade since any hunter surveys were done in central MN

[B. Amish]

You cant harvest 40% less deer and say the populations are stable.

yes you could.

30 deer - shoot 10 = 20

26 deer - shoot 6 = 20

harvest drops 40% and population is the same.

[hockeybc69]

True. If the populations were not stable, you are right.

Less deer to shoot, you shoot less. Thats exactly my point.

DNR says we are stable from 2006 to 2013.

PA 240 is 694 sq miles.

19 dpsm in 2006(approx 13,100 deer). 5453 deer shot.

18 dpsm in 2013(approx 12,500 deer). 3602 deer shot.

How can you have the same rough population of deer and shoot that many less without populations soaring at some point?

You cant.

The numbers do not add up.

[thedanimalkmk]

Maybe more people are passing on the deer that they see so they can shoot that monster buck people are always yaking about. It seems more hunters are content to wait for the big one to walk by and eat tag soup if he never shows.