Audit Push: Time To Act!

[Jameson]

It doesn't matter about deer reports, the deer hunters will still go hunt.

I can't see how the DNR could have managed to get any more cash from their cash cow the last ten years. They have managed the cash cow perfectly.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

You have no argument from me in regards to the DNR policy of letting hunters buy multiple licenses and in no way do I support allowing 5-7 permits.

I think that where we are not meshing is you are looking at the micro in that you see the problem in those few counties between the Metro and Hinckley while I am using statewide stats(Macro) that tends to balance things out.

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

If your area continues to have that high of a limit I would look into how many hunters are actually hitting this number and taking that many deer considering the consensus is that in that area you probably won't see more than one deer in a season anyway. If people are buying 7 bonus licenses and only seeing one deer, it may not be impacting the population any more. That being said it seems to be a foolish practice.

But as I said, the state as a whole is diverse and reports from my relatives in this area that farm say that the population looks to be higher than last year and we had one of the best years ever.(Micro in relation to my area) We could actually use a few more does harvested around here but I won't complain if we have a few more left at the end of the season.

[smsmith]

They have managed the cash cow perfectly.

You don't anticipate a significant reduction in deer license revenue this year? I do. Doesn't seem "perfect" to me

[Bureaucrat]

In our party, the DNR is down two non-resident licenses already.

[smsmith]

In our party, the DNR is down two non-resident licenses already.

Down one archery license from me. My buddy from WI comes up to firearm hunt with me, so...no reason to give the DNR another $30 this year. The only reason he pays the non-res cost to hunt here is because he heads to the Dakotas to pheasant hunt after he deer hunts here a few days. He used to pheasant hunt in southern MN before and after deer hunting here, but won't be doing that anymore due to the lack of birds. It won't be long and he won't be paying to hunt deer in MN anymore either.

First year since '85 or '86 I haven't bought an archery license.

[ANYFISH2]

Purple, it is not so much at a micro level. It is about Our DNR using the tools they have, in the most effective manner, managing the population at the most exceptable level (debatable where that is between interests), and maintaining that level the best mother nature will allow.

This pertains to the entire state, every unit, zone, and permit area should be managed accordingly and with accountability.

The talk of excess permits of course is talk of past years. The DNR's VERY conservative limits/permit allocation this year is a big step in the right direction (WAY more conservative than I imagined). But I feel it was directed this way because of the sudden outcry this past winter, more so than what any of thier models showed or what thier intentions were last fall.

I honestly believe Minnesota has some of the best biologists around, they just need to clean up some of the inaccuracies that a neglected model has created.

[laker1]

Statewide us hunters pretty much got the season we asked for this winter. Now some will complain they can hunt only one season because they shot a deer already. That is the way it was for decades.

We went thru a period in almost all midwest states and eastern whitetail states of very liberal seasons due to fear of over population and CWD etc.. Many other states are also going back to a conservative season setup.

One thing we can still look at is we have one of the most disease herds in this Country. Maybe the season types we had made a difference?

[Jameson]

...You don't anticipate a significant reduction in deer license revenue this year? I do. Doesn't seem "perfect" to me

The deer hunters will hunt deer no matter what the deer reports are.

Losing every archery license wouldn't be significant IMO. Make a huge dent (50%)in the firearms buck tags and you make a significant dent in the license revenue.

Hunters here have been trained that we can't kill too many bucks. The hunters don't have any moral conflicts about going hunting for bucks. A very few may wonder if it's worth the cash for a hunt with so slim chances of success, but many more just care about seeing family and or getting away from family. It's not really much about the actual number of deer in the woods for most. So, no I don't see a significant drop in license sales.

[smsmith]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

[mntatonka]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

there will be a slight reduction in revenue, but I don't think it'll be significant. I'd bet hunter numbers will still be roughly the same though. They'll still sell roughly 375-400k resident firearms licenses, 90k resident archery, and 50k muzzleloader.

After looking at it again, the bonus permit sales will probably be down by about half, maybe more. That equates to roughly $750,000 in lost license revenue from deer hunting, or a loss of less than 5%, especially once you include non-resident, which is $2million on average.

[SmellEsox]

You have no argument from me in regards to the DNR policy of letting hunters buy multiple licenses and in no way do I support allowing 5-7 permits.

I think that where we are not meshing is you are looking at the micro in that you see the problem in those few counties between the Metro and Hinckley while I am using statewide stats(Macro) that tends to balance things out.

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

If your area continues to have that high of a limit I would look into how many hunters are actually hitting this number and taking that many deer considering the consensus is that in that area you probably won't see more than one deer in a season anyway. If people are buying 7 bonus licenses and only seeing one deer, it may not be impacting the population any more. That being said it seems to be a foolish practice.

But as I said, the state as a whole is diverse and reports from my relatives in this area that farm say that the population looks to be higher than last year and we had one of the best years ever.(Micro in relation to my area) We could actually use a few more does harvested around here but I won't complain if we have a few more left at the end of the season.

Yes, I agree I am focusing on my little world here. It frustrates me because it is some of the most fantastic whitetail habitat on the continent and it is managed terribly. Goals are set low and most hunters believe the actual population is below that goal. Harvest intensity is kept high so the population is low and young. Hardly a desirable deer herd.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Yes, I agree I am focusing on my little world here.

And I am supporting his little world because I dont want to see whats happening in that area, end up happening in other areas. This craziness needs to stop.

[Getanet]

there will be a slight reduction in revenue, but I don't think it'll be significant. I'd bet hunter numbers will still be roughly the same though. They'll still sell roughly 375-400k resident firearms licenses, 90k resident archery, and 50k muzzleloader.

After looking at it again, the bonus permit sales will probably be down by about half, maybe more. That equates to roughly $750,000 in lost license revenue from deer hunting, or a loss of less than 5%, especially once you include non-resident, which is $2million on average.

I would agree with this take. Revenues might be lower, because they won't be offering nearly as many bonus permits as in the past. But I don't expect there to be any noticeable difference in the number of hunters in the field.

[SmellEsox]

My opinion on the lottery is that it is working well and the number of them issued is down pretty sharply and on the low end of the 20 year average so that is why I make the case that further reductions of the lottery process are not necessary.

I'm not sure I am following you here. I think the herd was in much better shape when they used the lottery system. With the current system harvest pressure has increased dramatically. They went from pruning to mowing so to speak. I think the current management system (IH, Managed, HC, Lottery) is a good one, but seems like they don't know when to step off the gas pedal. In other words, they are keeping harvest pressure high even when we've dropped below goal. They err on the side of liberal rather than conservative. They also need to raise those goals as most of us in this area have been bellering about for years now. In all honesty, compared to the 1990's, the regs for this year in this area are still liberal. Going HC has basically given everyone an antlerless permit. It will be interesting to see if this is conservative enough to allow the population to increase. I hope it does and it probably will if the weather cooperates. But HC definitely allows considerable antlerless harvest.

[PurpleFloyd]

By the lottery I am talking about the statewide process of applying for a limited number of doe tags allocated across the state.

Those numbers are lower as a whole across the state and if those alone are issued the population will be fine.

The bonus tags you talk about where guys are buying additional tags to take 5-7 deer are no issued state wide. I cannot get them where I hunt and they are only used in select areas of the state.Those are the tags that should be issued sparingly if at all and only in very small areas where population numbers are too high. Your area sounds like it fits that descririon and if it is the case I agree with you that those bonus tags should be eliminated unless it is shown that normal hunting seasons are not controlling the population.

[PurpleFloyd]

I don't know how there can't be significant reduction in deer license revenue this year?

Probably. But that is a good thing,correct?

[SmellEsox]

Outdoor News, Bowhunting forecast article. Leslie quotes, "A reduced harvest this year doesn't mean the state's deer herd is down. It will be more a reflection of conservative regulations".

Seriously!!? These people are out of touch and their model is awful.

[smsmith]

Probably. But that is a good thing,correct?

"Good" for our future deer herd...hopefully yes. "Good" for the DNR...no.

That was my point from previous posts. Managing their largest revenue generating species poorly enough that it impacts revenue...not exactly "perfect". More than 75% of deer license revenue went to non-deer management activities within the DNR last year (and does historically as well), managing our deer herd so as to not maximize its long term revenue stream is pi$$ poor management IMO.

I'll agree with Jameson that up until this year the DNR likely did maximize deer license revenue. The problem (as I see it) is that they did so at the risk of the long term revenue stream. If they maintain a more conservative season structure and we get some "normal" winters/springs, this may just be a 1-3 year loss of revenue. If they don't, then they'll continue to jeopardize the cash cow.

[smsmith]

Outdoor News, Bowhunting forecast article. Leslie quotes, "A reduced harvest this year doesn't mean the state's deer herd is down. It will be more a reflection of conservative regulations".

Seriously!!? These people are out of touch and their model is awful.

Exactly the kind of dump that makes me think an audit is the only way we're ever going to get a change of thinking within the DNR deer management folks.

That statement also leads me to believe that the conservative regulations we have this year are going to be "one and done". We'll be right back to the slaughter next year.

Edit..it also makes me think the DNR is kicking in the PR machine for the upcoming stakeholder meetings. It would be a tough sell for them to maintain our current herd size (which I strongly believe is their desire) if they're releasing statements saying the herd is down.

[Farmsfulltime]

cynical ? ok we agree on two things now ,as ive said do the audit that will clear up any hard feelings some have for the DNR , or are we destined for this process to be not good enough no matter who does it ? Can some accept the process no matter the outcome . No matter the outcome Im sure there will still be plenty of deer to hunt .

[smsmith]

cynical ?

Your cynicism is my pragmatism

[SmellEsox]

cynical ? ok we agree on two things now ,as ive said do the audit that will clear up any hard feelings some have for the DNR , or are we destined for this process to be not good enough no matter who does it ? Can some accept the process no matter the outcome . No matter the outcome Im sure there will still be plenty of deer to hunt .

I'll be fine with whatever outcome. If they are way off, I'll be happy if they correct things and better hunting is a result. If the model is accurate, then we push for higher goals because current goals are providing unsatisfactory hunting.

[willyfahey]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose. If you want less deer, bring in as many hunters as possible with tags and have at it. If you want more deer, take the time and money to invest in your property to provide for you what you can get out of it. But, it's all about what you want yet there's always someone that wants something different. I just don't get why some of you think that a large bureaucratic agency is going to make a difference one way or the other. This type of reliance on the government to solve your issues is what the real problem is. The DNR does not have the resources to micro manage our natural resources. As far as from a public lands perspective, it's a different story. Their focus should be preserving, maintaining and even growing the public lands and not everybody's individual properties.

Reality is the DNR operates as on a business model; what can be done to increase incoming revenue. If you want change, audits are not the answer. Especially if you already "know" the outcome of said audit. There is a heritage of hunting in MN that goes back over 100 years (and it's not for the biggest buck) and that's the only grounds of accountability the DNR has to the citizens of this state. Everything else is all conjecture. The problem is most of you have lost sight of that and want the state managed like a ranch in Texas. Hunting has(or shall I say had) a tradition in this state of sustenance and family, not a business or a sport. The same agency you want audits for is the same one that con'd you into believing the latter.

[Jameson]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose.

Because they are not happy. Why else does anyone complain?

The state owns the deer until they are shot by a hunter. Landowners own land.

[smsmith]

So why is it that we have complaints from private land owners, again? If you own your own property, you can manage it yourself for whatever outcome you so choose. If you want less deer, bring in as many hunters as possible with tags and have at it. If you want more deer, take the time and money to invest in your property to provide for you what you can get out of it. But, it's all about what you want yet there's always someone that wants something different. I just don't get why some of you think that a large bureaucratic agency is going to make a difference one way or the other. This type of reliance on the government to solve your issues is what the real problem is. The DNR does not have the resources to micro manage our natural resources. As far as from a public lands perspective, it's a different story. Their focus should be preserving, maintaining and even growing the public lands and not everybody's individual properties.

Reality is the DNR operates as on a business model; what can be done to increase incoming revenue. If you want change, audits are not the answer. Especially if you already "know" the outcome of said audit. There is a heritage of hunting in MN that goes back over 100 years (and it's not for the biggest buck) and that's the only grounds of accountability the DNR has to the citizens of this state. Everything else is all conjecture. The problem is most of you have lost sight of that and want the state managed like a ranch in Texas. Hunting has(or shall I say had) a tradition in this state of sustenance and family, not a business or a sport. The same agency you want audits for is the same one that con'd you into believing the latter.

And once again the public land hunter takes it in the shorts from the DNR and private land owners. Completely against the North American Model of Wildlife Consevation...that's how we manage now? May as well move to Europe