Audit Push: Time To Act!

[BLACKJACK]

it sounds like the APR drums may start getting beat in SW MN sooner than that.

I just don't see how APR's can work in a low deer population area. SW MN doesn't have the habitat for large deer populations, its always going to be a lottery zone, then you start restricting what bucks people can shoot, you're going to have a lot of unhappy deer hunters, and you'll probably start losing deer hunters.

[Bear55]

Dennis Anderson has an article in the Strib about the audit. I am not confident in the responses by our new big game coordinator. I don't want to be critical of the DNR, but there is a problem somewhere. They keep using computer models that should work, but they are not correlating to what the people in the field are actually seeing. I guess the fact that they are looking into it shows something.

I think the a few of the DNR guys admitted that their models were off, I attribute it to learning on the job. The population decline is across the whole country, its not just us. I think a lot of other states got a little to tag happy and now have to live with the consequences. The bad winters just made the problem that much more noticeable. Hopefully everyone can learn from this and they go back to the drawing board with some new ideas.

[Bear55]

I won't argue. But when you can go hunt neighboring states on public land and see them it makes you wonder. Are mature bucks here smarter than mature bucks in other states for some reason? Is there a smart gene in MN deer? I just think they are much rarer in MN and the average hunter has very little if any access to hunting them. They shouldn't be that rare.

There can be more but a lot of those things are out of our control. Iowa has less than half the hunters we do. We also have more bigwoods areas and harsher winters than all of the big buck states. Many other states keep their bow seasons out of the rut and the overall mentality of hunters seems to focus on letting younger bucks walk. Until our mentality changes we will just have to work a little harder. I don't think its wise to force change, it only benefits a few people and could turn people away from hunting. Right now we have population issues, lets work on those first and the management later on. I've always said give me a decent population to work with and I can find mature bucks to hunt.

[smsmith]

I just don't see how APR's can work in a low deer population area. SW MN doesn't have the habitat for large deer populations, its always going to be a lottery zone, then you start restricting what bucks people can shoot, you're going to have a lot of unhappy deer hunters, and you'll probably start losing deer hunters.

I have zero experience in SW MN so I can't really comment. It sounds like there's a narrow majority of hunters who would like APRs (according to the DNR surveys) or some kind of management to allow more yearling bucks to survive.

Personally, I'd like our DNR and deer groups to begin an educational effort rather than implementing new regulations. Mandatory APRs will always be a hot button topic. Get a majority of hunters to implement buck management/APRs/sight aging of bucks/whatever voluntarily and we'll have a better chance at long term, meaningful changes in deer herd structure as well as hunter attitude/happiness.

[Getanet]

The population decline is across the whole country, its not just us. I think a lot of other states got a little to tag happy and now have to live with the consequences.

Certainly agree with this. I had posted some links to stories this past winter about hunters in nearly every state complaining about lower harvest numbers and fewer deer seen. Pretty much every state that is considered a "mecca" had hunters up in arms over a lack of deer, including Iowa, WI, Missouri, Kansas, etc. There were different theories tossed around, and certainly some specific reasons such as EHD - but pretty much every state is seeing lower populations and declining hunter satisfaction.

[smsmith]

Certainly agree with this. I had posted some links to stories this past winter about hunters in nearly every state complaining about lower harvest numbers and fewer deer seen. Pretty much every state that is considered a "mecca" had hunters up in arms over a lack of deer, including Iowa, WI, Missouri, Kansas, etc. There were different theories tossed around, and certainly some specific reasons such as EHD - but pretty much every state is seeing lower populations and declining hunter satisfaction.

Absolutely true. This fact led to the creation of the National Deer Alliance. Has anybody been following or joined the NDA? I'm curious to hear others' opinions

[SmellEsox]

There can be more but a lot of those things are out of our control. Iowa has less than half the hunters we do. We also have more bigwoods areas and harsher winters than all of the big buck states. Many other states keep their bow seasons out of the rut and the overall mentality of hunters seems to focus on letting younger bucks walk. Until our mentality changes we will just have to work a little harder. I don't think its wise to force change, it only benefits a few people and could turn people away from hunting. Right now we have population issues, lets work on those first and the management later on. I've always said give me a decent population to work with and I can find mature bucks to hunt.

IA has half the hunters, but way less than half the habitat. I do agree with other things you've said. The mentality thing first and foremost. The MN hunting tradition was built around procuring meat. I think the IA mentality is different because their hunting traditions developed way more recently. I wish our mentality would change, but it is extremely slow. So I am definitely with you on the "at least give me a decent population numbers-wise", theory.

[SmellEsox]

I just don't see how APR's can work in a low deer population area. SW MN doesn't have the habitat for large deer populations, its always going to be a lottery zone, then you start restricting what bucks people can shoot, you're going to have a lot of unhappy deer hunters, and you'll probably start losing deer hunters.

I was thinking the same thing. But, I believe buck harvest would only fall off for one year, and then resume at a similar harvest rate after that one bad year. Then, the lottery would actually help maintain a healthy doe population assuring that there will be many new bucks made every year. APR with lottery may be better than what we have in the SE if populations continue to slide down there.

[B. Amish]

I think the a few of the DNR guys admitted that their models were off, I attribute it to learning on the job. The population decline is across the whole country, its not just us. I think a lot of other states got a little to tag happy and now have to live with the consequences. The bad winters just made the problem that much more noticeable. Hopefully everyone can learn from this and they go back to the drawing board with some new ideas.

i think the 'little white lies' of getting the wife, mom, daughter a deer tag so the burly hunters can get another doe and keep their precious buck tag open is more widespread than anyone wants to admit.

also, shooting dem does in the lottery zone and reporting them in the managed or intensive zone that is just across the highway happens way more than folks want to admit as well.

or just shooting that early doe without tagging or reporting it at all.

these things would easliy throw off even the best model. quickly.

[SmellEsox]

i think the 'little white lies' of getting the wife, mom, daughter a deer tag so the burly hunters can get another doe and keep their precious buck tag open is more widespread than anyone wants to admit.

also, shooting dem does in the lottery zone and reporting them in the managed or intensive zone that is just across the highway happens way more than folks want to admit as well.

or just shooting that early doe without tagging or reporting it at all.

these things would easliy throw off even the best model. quickly.

They may factor some level of illegal harvest into the model. I'd be surprised if they didn't.

[smsmith]

Just bringing this back to the forefront for anybody who's late to reading the thread

If you want to help push the audit forward, simply copy/paste the below, add your legislator's name to the top, and your name to the bottom of this email and add [email protected] to the cc so he can add the elected to the list. Forward any replies you receive from your elected to Brooks using the basecamp addy^^-

ELECTED NAME,

Many in MN are very concerned with the decline in deer numbers in the last 10 years, and in working with the DNR have discovered they either don't know or don't believe the herd has been taken back so far.

Please review the following information, and let us know if you can support the audit described that will be up for review next session.

http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

Thank you for your attention, the residents of MN can use your support on this issue.

YOUR NAME

You can find who represents you and how to contact them here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[daydreamer]

I've only heard crickets since I've forwarded this to my elected about three weeks ago. Might be time to send it off again. Thanks for bringing it back to the top.

[smsmith]

I've only heard crickets since I've forwarded this to my elected about three weeks ago. Might be time to send it off again. Thanks for bringing it back to the top.

Thank you for sending it the first time...and yes, please re-send it. What we're hearing from some legislators is that they're waiting to commit one way or the other based on whether or not their constituents are serious enough to push the issue.

[NWKR]

Figured I could stop lurking and make my first post. One thing that bothers me with the DNR numbers is what their data shows for Permit Area 156 where I hunt. The latest DPSM listed on the main MN DNR Deer Hunting page is for 2011:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/deer_density_prefawn_spreadsheet11.pdf

2011 shows a DPSM for permit area 156 of 22 DPSM pre-fawn and it was an intensive harvest area. In areas that have farmland I believe it could be that high but I think much of the permit area would be much closer to 15 or less. There are huge areas of woods and swamp that have plenty of wolves and bears.

The DNR did not post the 2012-2013 numbers on the deer hunting page but with a little searching you can find them. They made some large adjustments to the prior year amounts in 2012 reports.

Those reports can be found here:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/index.html

Here is the 2012 Report, deer #s start on page 22:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/population2012/1-farmland-wildlife.pdf

2011 report showed we had 22 dpsm.

The 2012 report has historical #s going back to 2007. They changed the 2011 DPSM of 22 DPSM to 13 DPSM! Some how their numbers were off by 9 dpsm in 2011, about 40% of their previous guess?

Check your permit areas on those lists! Some show no change when comparing the 2012 report to the 2011. But some show changes as big as the one for our permit area.

Based on reports I have seen that Brooks and Stu have got from the DNR the goal for our area was 11-14 DPSM if I remember correctly. We were still managed in 2012 AND 2013 even though we were at goal based on the DNR's adjusted numbers. In 2013 the harvest dropped 24% from 2012. My understanding is that the harvest is expected to remain steady or increase when having the same harvest designation as the year before. A 24% decrease is definitely significant.

Sounds like a good reason for an audit of the deer management practices to me.

[hockeybc69]

Great post NWKR.

Just another real world example that things dont add up.

Add it to the list. Time for an audit and someone to be held responsible to answer those questionable management practices as well.

[PurpleFloyd]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

[smsmith]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

Mixed farmland, tamarack/alder/willow/dogwood swamps, forests, grasslands, etc....like the transition zone is comprised of. Plenty of areas along the St. Croix River all the way to Duluth also fit that description. Those areas could easily sustain 22 dpsm pre-fawn. They could easily sustain more than that.

[SmellEsox]

What farmland holds 22 DPSM? They can't live on black dirt

One word. Iowa. Although they don't have 21, its probably closer to 30-100 depending on where you are.

[SmellEsox]

Take a wide swath from SE MN and angle all the way up to NW MN and you have ag mixed with forest that can easily handle 20+ dpsm.

[hockeybc69]

We just had a private forester finish up our Stewardship plan on our property in the heart of the transition zone.

I asked him his thoughts on the carrying capacity of the general Ottertail County lands and if in his personal opinion if the landscape should be able to hold more than 15-19 dpsm that the DNR currently manages for.... He said Absolutely!

Just one guy that walks properties for a living in the transition zone.... Take it for what its worth.

[smsmith]

Ottertail and Todd counties have some of the best deer habitat I've ever seen. Absolutely zero reason why those areas can't be managed for 25 dpsm pre-fawn. The same holds true for many areas in central, eastcentral, and westcentral MN.

[bigbucks]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

[SmellEsox]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

Farmers in other states manage with far higher deer densities than what we are discussing. They will sustain more loss no doubt, but HAMMERED? Not so sure about that.

[bigbucks]

I have a buddy in 214, they've been shooting double digit deer off his 300 acres for 20 years. He had a small cornfield last year he quit picking because it wasn't worth picking. He trapped most of the coon off it, not to mention you can tell the difference. Some of the farms in the area are the only ones close to wooded areas so they get drilled.

[smsmith]

Absolutely they could, but there's no question the farmers would be getting HAMMERED if they did.

No...they wouldn't. Most of Todd already is managed for 20 dpsm pre-fawn. Todd has averaged 2 crop depredation complaints annually for the last decade (that from the DNR...they do not claim their own data is accurate however).

Farmers are not going to get "hammered" with 25 dpsm in Todd or Ottertail counties.