Audit Push: Time To Act!

[hockeybc69]

And if that many deer are passed up to survive, the population would be on the increase.

DNR says populations are stable.

So what you say is kinda what I am saying.... if fewer deer are being shot, the population should be on the increase....

OR..... the population is not what the DNR says that it is.

[PurpleFloyd]

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?

Maybe things are not that different than they used to be but expectations have been raised to new levels

[thedanimalkmk]

In an average winter the deer would survive but winters like this past may be keeping that number more towards the stable range the dnr claims. It is also possible that some of these deer are being lost to the increased wolf/yote population in the central part of the state. I agree with you that the dnr is not accurately counting the deer, but I don't know what the best way to do that is....

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

Migration?

[SmellEsox]

Maybe things are not that different than they used to be but expectations have been raised to new levels

I thought about that, but I don't think so. Hunters are complaining about seeing fewer deer not the same. If you went to the listening sessions, this was not the message hunters were giving the DNR. The message was clearly that they are seeing far fewer deer and kids are losing interest.

[SmellEsox]

Migration?

I doubt that and I would guess emigration in would equal migration out if you are talking about yearling buck dispersal. I've never heard of whitetails migrating that much besides UP of MI deer and maybe north shore deer. And those are moving back to where they came from I think.

You've brought up some great points about harvest and stability in my area. I've wracked my brain about it over and over believe me. To me it seems like DNR was underestimating numbers in the past and now they are overestimating them. The harvest doesn't seem to be reflecting the true population somehow. That is why I think an audit of that model is needed.

[DaveT]

Migration?

I think you're onto something, PF. They're flying to Kansas every fall. I guess I should thank the good people of MN for feeding those bucks all summer and then sending them down to me.

[PurpleFloyd]

Migration?

[PurpleFloyd]

Migration?

[smsmith]

So...perhaps instead of counting deer we try something else. Arkansas has implemented a new management system.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/s...KGEGHeaVIQnpcCg

[ANYFISH2]

Purple, I think you may be reading into the complaints alittle far. Yes we are pointing out where we feel managment has dropped the ball, and given the circumstances,there are plenty of issues.

For me, I think the DNR has lost their accountability! They have a model that probably works, but many higher ups somehow feel it doesn't need to be reset like the creator suggests. Which in turn causes the managers to manage populations with increasingly inaccurate numbers. An impossible job.

This audit I hope would put accountability where I belongs be it st.paul, area managers, or hunters, where ever it belongs.

Harvest of an animal/fish should only be that of the "harvestable surplus" that of which results in stable to slighly increasing populations. As environmental conditions impact the population and reduces it,

the harvestable surplus demishes and as should allowable harvest. Now, one year events, mildly harsh winter, poor spring weather, may drop the surplus and not be seen in harvest numbers or truly have a long term effect if the surplus was greater than the previous harvest. But now with bad data the surplus over the mid-late 2000's was reduced and IMHO harvest exceeded the surplus thus reducing the population a little every year, and with 500,000+ hunters they still could consistantly harvest deer. Now you throw 2 mod to severe winters, reduced population, and 500, 000 hunters wanting thier deer the population is ready to hit bottom.

The DNR absolutely did the right thing this year. I hope it stays like this next as well.

I do not think they would have reduced antlerless permit this much with out the listening sessions the MDHA and MDDI seemed to force outside of the SE mn. The sure didn't seem to think anything was amiss with the population this spring.

I want the DNR to be able to manage our deer to the best of their abilities, but that requires best possible data and the best tools for the job. I think this audit would help to achieve this.

[Bureaucrat]

I've been on the road for work all week, so I'm a little behind. I skimmed the last few pages of this thread. Has an anti-audit group sprouted to counter the pro-audit group?

[SmellEsox]

It is totally likely that there are going to be discrepancies between the actual and estimated deer numbers. If you think about it, we track humans in this state Waaaay too closely already and even so the population numbers that are posted are way off in many areas. IMHO the methods needed to achieve the type of accuracy hunters on here are asking for would be far too cumbersome and costly. personally I am a small government type and like to have them have access to and control over as little as possible because the more you ask and the more you expect, ultimately the more you will be disappointed with the results.

In the end for me it boils down to understanding that in nature you have no way of controlling things to the degree that I see guys advocating for and if you leave that job to the government you set yourself up for double disappointment.

If you look at the data in here

2013

You can look at the micro data and find fault with individual areas but on the macro scale while we might be down in terms of harvest from 5-10 years ago, we are really sitting in the middle when compared to the past 20 years.

And if you want to go back to the time period of the 70's and 80's when I first started hunting the current situation actually looks quite good. In the 70's when I first started hunting you were very lucky to get a doe permit and many times when you did you were not able to fill it and even seeing deer at all was something you talked about for a while. We are a very long ways from those days.

I've read that report over and over PF. The most telling statistic is the graph on the first page. The herd has been deliberately driven down by the issuance of excessive antlerless tags. They've gone too far and now bad winters have exacerbated the situation. They went too far. Simple as that because their model said to keep hammering the does. The model needs calibration or adjustment. DNR also needs to start caring about deer. I don't think they do right now. And I think they're upset that now they have to start making it more of a priority. I also don't think it would take a huge increase in the size of government. They can do it with the staff they have. They spend little time with deer management now.

[B. Amish]

And if that many deer are passed up to survive, the population would be on the increase.

DNR says populations are stable.

So what you say is kinda what I am saying.... if fewer deer are being shot, the population should be on the increase....

OR..... the population is not what the DNR says that it is.

i think there's a disconnect between what hunters call the population and what the dnr calls the population. in other words, hunters seem mostly interested in the population before and during hunting season. while the dnr is moslty interested in the popualtion before fawns are born.

that disconnect is also probably driven by outdoor media not understanding the differnce either.

[PurpleFloyd]

It is totally likely that there are going to be discrepancies between the actual and estimated deer numbers. If you think about it, we track humans in this state Waaaay too closely already and even so the population numbers that are posted are way off in many areas. IMHO the methods needed to achieve the type of accuracy hunters on here are asking for would be far too cumbersome and costly. personally I am a small government type and like to have them have access to and control over as little as possible because the more you ask and the more you expect, ultimately the more you will be disappointed with the results.

In the end for me it boils down to understanding that in nature you have no way of controlling things to the degree that I see guys advocating for and if you leave that job to the government you set yourself up for double disappointment.

If you look at the data in here

2013

You can look at the micro data and find fault with individual areas but on the macro scale while we might be down in terms of harvest from 5-10 years ago, we are really sitting in the middle when compared to the past 20 years.

And if you want to go back to the time period of the 70's and 80's when I first started hunting the current situation actually looks quite good. In the 70's when I first started hunting you were very lucky to get a doe permit and many times when you did you were not able to fill it and even seeing deer at all was something you talked about for a while. We are a very long ways from those days.

[smsmith]

I'll agree with you that the "shoot a doe and save a young buck" mindset is at least part of the problem PF. I'll also state that QDMA did not stay on top of the apparent nearly nationwide herd reduction that has occurred over the last decade or so.

Let's not kid ourselves though....those conversations will continue. I know and talk to plenty of guys in central MN who are still advocating an expansion of APRs.

[SmellEsox]

PurpleFloyd wrote: I am open to what you are saying but I just can't look at that chart and come to the conclusion that the cause for the drop in harvest is because of the number of antlerless permits they gave out.

First off, a few pages down there is the chart that shows the number of antlerless permits given out has actually been slashed significantly in the last few years. While the number of bonus tags has gone up significantly over the last decade or so (And I have no problem ending them) the actual number of antlerless deer harvested during the firearms season has been historically modest over the past 5 years when it is claimed that the does have been being exterminated. Only 2 years over 80k since 2009 and only 67k last year. That is right in line with the antlerless harvest in the late 90's leading up to the explosion in harvest numbers in the early 2000's and then we were issuing 4x the antlerless permits (excluding bonus tags). Not sure what the difference is between an antlerless tag and a bonus permit. They both allow the same thing. You can't argue that antlerless harvest pressure isn't higher now than ever before. In managed and IH areas, you can use your regular tag as an antlerless tag. Muzzy hunters can shoot either sex statewide. Youth hunters can shoot antlerless deer. Just curious why you think that because antlerless harvest has declined that we should have more deer or the population should increase. Maybe it is because there are fewer antlerless deer out there and we continue to suppress the population even with fewer antlerless deer harvested. It stands to reason that as the population is decreased, it will take less harvest of antlerless deer to keep it decreasing or down. Right??? In my opinion, it seems like you have to back off antlerless harvest drastically to reverse a declining population.

I personally think we need to look at the hunters themselves and what they bought into over the years. We had a big push for the whole APR/QDM thing and the vast majority of hunters didn't have a clue what either were but jumped on the bandwagon and started to promote things that they just didn't understand. I know that I personally got called every name in the book in the past because I questioned people on the wisdom of "putting a doe in the freezer to save a young buck". But I understood what happens when you remove a doe.I don't really think that what you read on here is an accurate reflection of the general deer hunting public. If I mentioned APR to the average deer hunter, he wouldn't know what I was talking about. Same thing with QDMA. While I don't doubt that doe harvest has increased due to the kill a doe, save a buck mentality, I don't think it is the driving force behind increased doe harvest and the decline of our herd. I think that rests solely on the shoulders of DNR's liberalization of antlerless seasons and harvest. And the too many deer are bad brainwashing of the MN deer hunter.

Here is a classic example of what I am talking about in a post from 2009. Read it and tell me how this mentality was good for the deer population and how this sort of mindset may have LED to an overharvest of does and a reduction in the population.

[Jameson]

...That was the mentality I have been trying to point out is more harmful to the herd and the sport than taking a young buck. I for one am at least glad the conversation is changing.

So you are saying we shouldn't ever shoot a doe, only young bucks. Then the herd would explode and be too large. An overpopulated herd is ripe for disease and destroys habitat. That is what you consider better for the herd and the sport. nice.

[Getanet]

Let's not kid ourselves though....those conversations will continue. I know and talk to plenty of guys in central MN who are still advocating an expansion of APRs.

No doubt. Here's a comment from yesterday by one of the gents on the APR Facebook page, who is supposedly pretty well respected by the group:

"we need to tell them [the DNR} were sick of there managemenet and onnly shoot does..."

The APR page had quieted down over the summer, but seems to be picking up a bit more steam as hunting season approaches. I really scratch my head how anyone thinks shooting more does is a good idea right now.

[smsmith]

I really scratch my head how anyone thinks shooting more does is a good idea right now.

On a statewide basis, I totally agree with you.

The exceptions are good sized parcels of private land (either single owners or co-ops of like minded owners) where they are managing their own deer herd. If you are attempting to bring your buck/doe ratio to 1:1.5 or so, then shooting does may be necessary.

Those instances are relatively few and far between in MN (outside SE MN anyway).

[LandDr]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

[mntatonka]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

good question. considering how many does a buck will breed, there's no reason to have a ratio anywhere near 1:1. Heck, with cattle (not a great comparison obviously, but still a valid point), a good ratio is 1 bull to 20-30 cows.

[Jameson]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

When a 1 buck to 5 doe ratio exists the hunting during the rut for bucks can be pretty poor compared to a hunt during the rut for bucks in an area with 1 buck for 1 doe. With a 1:1 ratio there isn't enough hot does for all the bucks at one time so that leads to a lot of activity by the bucks competing/marking of territory with each other and seeking out the current hot doe. Compared to the 1:5 ratio where there is a hot doe behind every tree for every buck and thus not much activity by the bucks. Hunters who have experienced both situations usually prefer more buck activity compared to less.

[Bear55]

More bucks = more competition = wild rut = more buck movement. However I'm not sure its a realistic number in most of the country. Give me a few thousand acres of public land with 3-5 mature bucks and I will be happy.

[B. Amish]

1 buck to five does doesn't exist. it's a myth, like the easter bunny.