Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

Some of the reason a lot of people don't join in the call for DNR change is because the job they are doing is good enough considering what they have to work with

I'm not real happy with "good enough" (the saying "good enough for government work" comes to mind).

When the total kill this year is half or less than it was a decade ago, that's good enough? Okay...

I suppose the issue here is that many deer hunters aren't happy with good enough and would like MN to go back to the deer hunting Mecca it once was.

Ya...I know...winter, wind, rain and standing corn

[smsmith]

One more way to make your opinion known...The Office of the Legislative Auditor is the recipient, 1000 signatures is the goal but many more would be even better.

http://www.change.org/p/mn-legislative-a...ring-techniques

If you support the audit...sign the online petition. However, don't only rely on this method. Doing the following is also very important

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/

[mntatonka]

This'll show 'em! Online petitions hold so much weight, they can't possibly ignore it!

[smsmith]

This'll show 'em! Online petitions hold so much weight, they can't possibly ignore it!

Sarcasm duly noted. The musky guys used online petitions to their advantage quite well however.

As I stated...this isn't the only thing to do..just one of them

[flipper]

I wish someone would start a petition for no audit. Just another waste of taxpayer money to please a special interest group.

[smsmith]

Just another waste of taxpayer money to please a special interest group.

Wrong...the Office of the Legislative Auditor is set up to review a certain number of audit requests each year. This audit will not cost anything in addition that hasn't already been set aside for audit requests.

[flipper]

The attitude that we must spend everything we are allocated is what gets us in the fiscal mess we're in.

Personally, I think you have tunnel vision. There are a lot of factors that affect deer numbers and there are a lot of other important resources that overpopulation of deer has a negative impact on. You for sure are on a mission, your posts since you joined this sight are all about the same tired old topic. Please, please, won't someone make it easier for me to shoot a deer.

[Farmsfulltime]

What is the total number of members involved actively in deer organizations in Minnesota compared to licensed hunters, My guess is a pretty small percentage, of coarse they have valid points and passions for the sport but does that group dictate thru lobbing for certain changes to law for hunters as a whole. In other words are their value systems a good reflection on the direction deer management should go in this state, maybe not , would be a good question for that hunter survey that has been mentioned.

[smsmith]

The attitude that we must spend everything we are allocated is what gets us in the fiscal mess we're in.

Personally, I think you have tunnel vision. There are a lot of factors that affect deer numbers and there are a lot of other important resources that overpopulation of deer has a negative impact on. You for sure are on a mission, your posts since you joined this sight are all about the same tired old topic. Please, please, won't someone make it easier for me to shoot a deer.

Nice stereotype. I could have filled two tags last year (Managed unit) and chose not to. I don't want it easier to shoot a deer, I want a more pleasant hunting experience for young and new hunters. When those hunters in their 50's+ start leaving the sport/dying (yep..that's the reality) who's going to replace them? Kids that got totally disinterested in the sport due to lack of deer sightings?

If you have a problem with me and my posts, ignore me. Pretty sure its a choice on your part to pay any attention to what I have to say.

For the record...find any governmental or private corporation who gets government money for a fiscal year that DOESN'T spend it all. Not gonna happen. If they don't spend it, they don't get it the following year. Want to change that? Sounds good to me, let me know when you take action to do so.

[willyfahey]

Proposing costly new methodology for deer density and population estimates does not fix the primary issue to your concerns. If it's one thing we all should know is that throwing a bunch of money at a problem is not the answer. It wastes time. The issue you are trying to address is a fundamental, structural change to how the DNR operates and manages deer hunting. That kind of change will only come from the Congress, Governor's office, or Constitutional amendment redirecting the DNR's focus. (There's not enough money to micro manage deer hunting.) All the audits, surveys and data in the world do not make those kind of changes. It's grass roots organizing of clubs, organizations, non-profits, etc participating in a proactive manner in the process that achieves that kind of change, not finger pointing and criticism. We can all find fault in anything.

I find you have an up hill battle going at this the way you are. As I stated before, your objectives do not parallel the outdoor heritage that MN voters made part of our state's constitution. In other words, the majority of the state's voters do not see things the way you do. I am not sure hunters will either because what you're talking about will cost a lot of money. You have yet to provide any total cost estimates. But my guess is you are looking at needing to increase revenue by 2-3x's it's current level to support the staff and infrastructure changes. I am not on board with paying $100 or more to deer hunt.

[PurpleFloyd]

Wrong...the Office of the Legislative Auditor is set up to review a certain number of audit requests each year. This audit will not cost anything in addition that hasn't already been set aside for audit requests.

We could always bring up the opportunity cost. But aside from that while the OLA does have a set number of audits in the budget, the cost of the legislation and administration is not factored in and will cost more. To find your proposals we either need to cut spending in other areas of the dnr budget or increase liscense fees to cover it. And if bonus tags are eliminated there will be a pretty steep drop in deer license revenue as well.

[PurpleFloyd]

I suppose the issue here is that many deer hunters aren't happy with good enough and would like MN to go back to the deer hunting Mecca it once was.

Ya...I know...winter, wind, rain and standing corn

Mecca? Like the 70's when they closed the season or the 80's when seeing an 8 point buck was something to tell your buddies about on the c.b?

[smsmith]

Mecca? Like the 70's when they closed the season or the 80's when seeing an 8 point buck was something to tell your buddies about on the c.b?

Now its something to tell your buddies about on the internet

[Jameson]

....You have yet to provide any total cost estimates. But my guess is you are looking at needing to increase revenue by 2-3x's it's current level to support the staff and infrastructure changes. I am not on board with paying $100 or more to deer hunt.

An audit is going to be conducted no matter what. We citizens just get to suggest what gets audited. I suppose we could argue we shouldn't have audits all together, but if you want to have that conversation please start a new thread in Silly Town. So the cost to do the audit is irrelevant. Currently somewhere around $18 million is brought in annually from deer license sales, and roughly $3.5 million is spent on deer management. There should be no need to increase revenue 2-3x's it's current level. It might end up costing more to fish, or hunt pheasant, but deer license revenue has plenty of room to absorb more being spent on deer.

An audit might find that our current revenue stream isn't sustainable. We might start to only bring in $10 million a year.

Also an audit might find out that we are wasting money on stuff and our annual deer management budget might actually drop from it's current levels, too.

Who knows?

I'm still upset the doe lottery results aren't out yet. AUDIT!!!

[smsmith]

Proposing costly new methodology for deer density and population estimates does not fix the primary issue to your concerns. If it's one thing we all should know is that throwing a bunch of money at a problem is not the answer. It wastes time. The issue you are trying to address is a fundamental, structural change to how the DNR operates and manages deer hunting. That kind of change will only come from the Congress, Governor's office, or Constitutional amendment redirecting the DNR's focus. (There's not enough money to micro manage deer hunting.) All the audits, surveys and data in the world do not make those kind of changes. It's grass roots organizing of clubs, organizations, non-profits, etc participating in a proactive manner in the process that achieves that kind of change, not finger pointing and criticism. We can all find fault in anything.

I find you have an up hill battle going at this the way you are. As I stated before, your objectives do not parallel the outdoor heritage that MN voters made part of our state's constitution. In other words, the majority of the state's voters do not see things the way you do. I am not sure hunters will either because what you're talking about will cost a lot of money. You have yet to provide any total cost estimates. But my guess is you are looking at needing to increase revenue by 2-3x's it's current level to support the staff and infrastructure changes. I am not on board with paying $100 or more to deer hunt.

Thanks for your thoughts. The current push isn't "mine"...its the MDDI's.

[jkcmj]

I think the DNR utilize the best they find for population data...ELS harvest data isn't as accurate a factor as it used to be here in SE MN. We have so many vast property owners now that let deer numbers go crazy on their 1000 acres that it affects the population estimates. We have a vast property owner here in the Wiscoy/Houston MN area where you can often count 100 plus deer as the fall harvest goes out, yet 3 miles away you can sit without seeing a deer all season...It's simply a matter of large tracts holding deer do to low pressure, large food plots, etc, where a very small number are getting harvested.

I don't know what the answer to that one is...

Our land was hard hit by us, back when it was a limit of 5, so we suffered for it. Now, after 4 years of taking no does, we finally have a visible deer herd again...we will be more careful in the future, I think that is the real answer. Controling yourself when localized populations are not as strong as the zone as a whole.

[jkcmj]

Way to many posts in this thread for me to read, but with a quick scan...

State deer collision numbers are going to be way off. Insurance claims are far more accurate. A collision is reportable to the state if it is over $1200 I believe...most people on the way to work will call the cops to report if the vehicle is disabled perhaps, but otherwise no. They are almost always going to file a claim on their comp coverage.

Obviously for the thousands of beater truck and cars with no comp coverage, neither the state or the insurance will hear about it.

I still see the car hits as a great population indicator, much better than harvest data, although both should be utilized in the grand scheme of things. Harvest data is just too skewed by tag availability, hunter access, wether, etc to be of much value in my opinion.

[hockeybc69]

Hotspots in a zone are a problem.

In the past my wildlife manager has told us that the reason we arent seeing deer is because we are in a cold spot.

I think the hotspots in the zones are more the problem, just as you are pointing out jkcmj.

I also know of a landowner down in the Houston county area exactly as you describe. Maybe even the same landowner. They have thousands of acres down there. They bring people in during muzzleloader season to harvest some does. My neighbor went down several years ago, and he saw in excess of 100 deer over the weekend.

I dont know what the answer is either, but it surely is a part of the puzzle for many areas.

[hockeybc69]

The MN DPS shows car deer collisions down nearly 50% over the last 10 years.

State Farm says car deer collisions are up 42% over the same span.

Try and figure that one out.....

[jkcmj]

At the APR meetings last year they announced some sort of local deer population position in SE MN that was appointed to deal directly with individual farmers, etc to better assess localized population issues for deer management. I imagine that is part of the reason they announced the 5 deer limit again in zone 346. I can tell you though, that large tracts are what that is all about. Most areas in 346 were brought way down, and unfortunetly, they will be brought down further as a result of the 5 deer limit being brought back...and I'd wager the large tracts will continue to bulge with overpopulated deer as always.

[jkcmj]

I just wish they'd let me shed hunt those large tracts full of deer

So far I have been rejected every time I have asked...

[mntatonka]

At the APR meetings last year they announced some sort of local deer population position in SE MN that was appointed to deal directly with individual farmers, etc to better assess localized population issues for deer management. I imagine that is part of the reason they announced the 5 deer limit again in zone 346. I can tell you though, that large tracts are what that is all about. Most areas in 346 were brought way down, and unfortunetly, they will be brought down further as a result of the 5 deer limit being brought back...and I'd wager the large tracts will continue to bulge with overpopulated deer as always.

You're talking about Clint,a very nice guy that wants to help farmers with their deer problems. We worked with him last year and he was a great help. If you can prove that you have large amounts of deer damage to to a locally high population, they were willing to give inexpensive anterless tags. But now that it's a 5-deer limit again, he has no power to do that again in the area.

[smsmith]

You're talking about Clint,a very nice guy that wants to help farmers with their deer problems. We worked with him last year and he was a great help. If you can prove that you have large amounts of deer damage to to a locally high population, they were willing to give inexpensive anterless tags. But now that it's a 5-deer limit again, he has no power to do that again in the area.

I wasn't aware of that...could you explain?

[mntatonka]

I wasn't aware of that...could you explain?

he's not allowed to give depredation tags in an intensive harvest area apparently. I imagine the DNR wants their $15/tag that no one is willing to buy 5 of.

[smsmith]

he's not allowed to give depredation tags in an intensive harvest area apparently. I imagine the DNR wants their $15/tag that no one is willing to buy 5 of.

So does Clint (think there's another guy doing the same thing this year?) spend his time working in units other than 346 and 349 then?