Audit Push: Time To Act!

[SmellEsox]

One of the problems with guest hunters other than litter, trespass onto neighbors,they all, I mean all want to shoot the big one and sit in the trees all fall looking at all the deer that parade by waiting for the big one not solving population problems by harvesting anything other than the big one , Get some new ones in and first thing did you shoot any ? no im waiting for a big one . talk doesn't work gave up on that

That's surprising. I hunt public land a lot and have never seen a litter problem from deer hunters although I did find a really nice flashlight once and a really nice hunting jacket another time.

[mntatonka]

The picture came out a lot more blurry than I thought, but it still shows some of the damage we deal with. The deer have eaten the tops off most of the stalks before it can tassel. That's on 50-75% of this field, and 25-50% of the neighboring two fields.

[hockeybc69]

Localized problem that needs to be dealt with at a local level.

The entire permit area shouldnt pay the consequences.

Show us pics of other fields in the area. My guess is that most are in great shape.

[mntatonka]

Localized problem that needs to be dealt with at a local level.

The entire permit area shouldnt pay the consequences.

Show us pics of other fields in the area. My guess is that most are in great shape.

I never said it wasn't a localized problem, or that the entire permit area was this way (much of it is though). In fact, I've been an advocate of redrawing the permit areas to reflect localized high/low populations.

In the particular case of 346, it IS an entire permit area problem. Thus the reason that half of the area has an early antlerless season.

[Bear55]

One of the problems with guest hunters other than litter, trespass onto neighbors,they all, I mean all want to shoot the big one and sit in the trees all fall looking at all the deer that parade by waiting for the big one not solving population problems by harvesting anything other than the big one , Get some new ones in and first thing did you shoot any ? no im waiting for a big one . talk doesn't work gave up on that

Setup some rules for your land, each hunter much shoot a doe or three depending on your population goals or they lose the right to hunt there the next year. Have them stop by with every doe to show you the results.

[wally243]

I would assume I have permission to hunt this coming weekend????

[SmellEsox]

Farmsfulltime, I don't know how you can be helped. 5 deer limits didn't help. You don't want other hunters on your land. Driving the herd to 7 dpsm didn't help. You don't want extra tags or nuisance permits for yourself. Sounds like no matter what the management in the zone is, you are going to have too many for your liking. So why do hunters in the zone have to accept substandard hunting even though it won't help you?

[Bear55]

You could fence in all your land and kick out the wildlife if you are that desperate?

[PurpleFloyd]

I also agree with PF that the hard winters and terrible springs for fawning have had a much greater impact on deer populations than the amount of antlerless deer taken.

It is the only factor that meshes with the population swings.none of the other factors mentioned follow the harvest trend lines.

[leech~~]

The picture came out a lot more blurry than I thought, but it still shows some of the damage we deal with. The deer have eaten the tops off most of the stalks before it can tassel. That's on 50-75% of this field, and 25-50% of the neighboring two fields.

Free detasseling, some farmers have to pay for that!

[SmellEsox]

It is the only factor that meshes with the population swings.none of the other factors mentioned follow the harvest trend lines.

In the NE, probably. But research has consistently shown that hunter harvest is the single largest source of mortality for deer. And it isn't even close. OK, when you combine high antlerless harvest with a couple of severe winters, it will be worse. But more deer die from bullets than anything. Can we at least agree on that? When you have high harvest of the animal best equipped to survive these tough winters (adult does), it will have more of an impact on the population.

The problem I also have with your perusing of the harvest data is that when you see antlerless harvest decline, you assume that the population will rise. IMO, that will not be the case if you still have the same effort targeting antlerless deer. Yes, fewer permits may have been purchased, but there were still plenty of them issued to keep the herd from expanding. The only way to allow the herd to expand is to give a low enough number of permits, like we have now, so that recruitment exceeds mortality. It is kind of like lowering the walleye limit from 6 to 4 and thinking their will be more walleyes because of it. In fact, the average angler only catches 1.8 (or whatever it is) so the drop in bag will have no impact on the population. You'd have to drop the bag to 1 to have a population increase. If winter is the main mortality factor, and hunting has no impact or ability to lower a population, why have regs at all? That is kind of what you are saying. Hunting cannot drive down populations. IMO, 5 (or 7) deer limits are basically a free-for-all. With party hunting you can shoot every deer you see pretty much. I have a feeling that can drive down populations.

[smsmith]

But more deer die from bullets than anything. Can we at least agree on that? When you have high harvest of the animal best equipped to survive these tough winters (adult does), it will have more of an impact on the population.

I don't know how a rational person could argue against that

[PurpleFloyd]

It is the only factor that meshes with the population swings.none of the other factors mentioned follow the harvest trend lines.

[Archerysniper]

Sorry if this has been posted before but it is a intresting read click me

[smsmith]

Again...back to the point

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/

[PurpleFloyd]

Are zones 221-225 the only ones that matter in the state? Why is the audit push so narrowly focused on such a small section of the state?

Do you have any hard data that shows what you contend is happening in this narrow section of areas is indicative of the the state as a whole?

[Archerysniper]

I hunt 225 and 227, it is prime agriculture land and I have not seen a deer in any of the fields or roadsides in over a month. I leave my house between 5 and 6 am every work day depending on where my job site is.

Prior to our 7 deer years sitting on a stand you would see at least one deer a night, now I can sit the entire gun season and into muzzleloader season and see 2 deer. Bow season open this Sat and the way the population is around here I will be happy to take the first mature deer that comes by.

[laker1]

Not against party hunting. But statement was made party hunting doesn't increase the number of deer we take if were allowed only one.

Party hunting does on average increase the harvest of deer substantially due to the efficiency of more than one hunter helping to fill a individual tag or the party filling out.

It reality if everyone filled one tag,we would be over harvesting with over 400,000+ deer taken. There are times and places party hunting has resulted in lower deer numbers at times. Especially when the population is on the brink of being over harvested.

Example there are some groups that drive a lot,maybe 20 hunters,well if you have that many driving you will move deer(to me that is not hunting that's killing,but legal),sometimes one hunter ends up shooting 10 deer and the party does fill out.

[smsmith]

Are zones 221-225 the only ones that matter in the state? Why is the audit push so narrowly focused on such a small section of the state?

Zones 221 and 225 are NOT the only ones that matter in the state. The audit push is NOT narrowly focused on such a small section of the state, the proposed audit will look at the state's deer management practices as a whole.

I will make the statement that it appears there are major issues with the deer model and data inputs in central and eastcentral areas...with a single area manager impacting many of those areas. That's not to say there aren't issues with the deer population model and data inputs statewide...just that there appears to be more significant/glaringly obvious issues with the areas that Beau Liddell manages.

[SmellEsox]

PF, I look at the graph on the first page of the DNR Deer Harvest summary and I see little or no evidence of an increase in the statewide deer herd. Where do you see an increase under current management in the last 10 years? A slight blip in 2006 and a slight blip in 2010. Other than that the trend line in harvest is obviously precipitously down. This despite a long string of mild to average winters until 2012-2013 (which was really easy until February) and 2013-2014. This decline can only be explained by antlerless harvest IMO. And I don't know how you can say antlerless licenses are similar to historical levels. I don't know how to interpret all the different licenses over the years, but for large parts of the state, we've had the opportunity to shoot vast numbers of antlerless deer through a variety of different licenses.

I'm also not sure I agree with your 1 deer/hunter thing. Wouldn't that allow the herd to explode in number and get to nuisance levels? Do you think 1 deer/hunter would be effective in controlling deer numbers?

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, I look at the graph on the first page of the DNR Deer Harvest summary and I see little or no evidence of an increase in the statewide deer herd. Where do you see an increase under current management in the last 10 years? A slight blip in 2006 and a slight blip in 2010. Other than that the trend line in harvest is obviously precipitously down. This despite a long string of mild to average winters until 2012-2013 (which was really easy until February) and 2013-2014. This decline can only be explained by antlerless harvest IMO. And I don't know how you can say antlerless licenses are similar to historical levels. I don't know how to interpret all the different licenses over the years, but for large parts of the state, we've had the opportunity to shoot vast numbers of antlerless deer through a variety of different licenses.

I'm also not sure I agree with your 1 deer/hunter thing. Wouldn't that allow the herd to explode in number and get to nuisance levels? Do you think 1 deer/hunter would be effective in controlling deer numbers?

There are more charts than just the graph on the first page. There is much better information on the chart that shows the 20 year history of harvest broken down by season and including yearly totals for antlered and antlerless. If you read them it is obvious that the current harvest levels are in line with what they were in the 90's and with those levels we were able to increase harvest significantly in the early 2000's. If that level and thus the current level were too high to provide a stable population then the harvest levels of the 2000's would not be possible because there wouldn't be any deer left,as is contended now.

[SmellEsox]

There are more charts than just the graph on the first page. There is much better information on the chart that shows the 20 year history of harvest broken down by season and including yearly totals for antlered and antlerless. If you read them it is obvious that the current harvest levels are in line with what they were in the 90's and with those levels we were able to increase harvest significantly in the early 2000's. If that level and thus the current level were too high to provide a stable population then the harvest levels of the 2000's would not be possible because there wouldn't be any deer left,as is contended now.

The difference is that in the 90's most antlerless tags were given out by lottery. It basically gave you a HC permit, but not everyone got one. I remember waiting for the regs to come out so I could see where the closest "bonus tag zone" was located so I could shoot an extra deer. The last 12 years, I've been able to shoot anywhere from 2-7 deer in this area and they could all be antlerless deer. In the past, it was 1 deer limit here (in the 90's) and occasionally a 2 deer limit, but 1 had to be a buck. That is why the population increased in the 90's. Now, with the 2-7 deer limits, the deer herd is being suppressed. Here's an example: 221. The doe harvests (does and doe fawns) since 2003 under 5 and 7 deer limits (there was a 2 deer limit in 2012) 1480 (2003), 1455, 1370, 1661, 1948 (2007), 860, 759, 924, 832, 685, 843 (2013). You can see there will be no recovery under 5 deer limits here. The area manager wanted it to be 7 deer this fall. I know you are sick of hearing about this zone, but that is what is going on around central and east central MN. I would contend that the problem is in DNR's population estimates. I don't think harvests are accurately portraying what populations were now or back in the 1990s. I know I saw way more deer back then than I do now. Even after the tough winters in the mid to late 1990's, I saw more deer than I do now. Something isn't right and that is why I support an audit to scrutinize their model. And I hope that as a result, they pay a lot more attention to deer management instead of subsidizing all their other wildlife management. They need to invest in the most lucrative and popular game animal in the state.

[smsmith]

They need to invest in the most lucrative and popular game animal in the state.

That's the part I struggle to understand. Why our DNR wouldn't do their absolute best to keep the "cash cow" bringing in the most revenue possible is beyond me. Deer need to be looked at as valuable assets to be managed well rather than vermin that have to be dealt with.

[Jameson]

How could the DNR of gotten any more cash from their cash cow the last 10 years?

[hockeybc69]

He is pointing out the importance of deer and why the DNR doesnt have them at the top of the list for managing to the best of their abilities....