Audit Push: Time To Act!

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, don't pretend that you know us and what we believe. I don't even know us and what we believe.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Make check out to Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc.

Note "MDDI fund" on check and mail to:

Minnesota Bowhunters Inc.

MDDI Fund

1769 Lexington Ave. N #138

Roseville, MN 55113

Thank you for the free advertising.

[Bureaucrat]

Close! Very good post.

One more reply and I've gotta get to bed...

*I want to know why one model says the population is 24 in a DMA, then the aerial survey says there are 8. The 8 is ignored and a reduction is put in place with the assumption there are 24, when the aerial survey is regarded as the most effective survey method.

*You are right. Answers have been provided. It's the answers to the point above that I can't wrap my head around and accept.

*MBI is the only org that would get involved. Of the few people I know that are part of MDDI, none of them are bowhunters or members of MBI other than the guy that's helping collect data. I am not a member of MBI. QDMA went as far as threatening their local chapters if they openly supported the MDDI with their name. I'm not sure how all that shook out since I quit QDMA over this, along with many others.

*This isn't a people problem, it's a government problem. The notion of personal restraint and hope as a management plan has never worked. I have frequently referenced Hardin's "Tragedy of the commons" as proof this cannot be done. The DNR exists to manage these resource, much like the Federal Reserve (from one Libertarian to another) has been charged with guarding the country's gold reserve. Should we not expect transparency and effectiveness from the DNR like we want from the Federal Reserve, the health care exchanges, public schools etc? In my opinion the DNR is doing poorly and I want some answers.

***I have to keep going on the previous point... I have personally witnessed en mass, the wiping out of resources (within the limits set by government) overwhelmingly to each willful act of conservation and restraint. Word gets out about a hot bite on a 250 acre lake and 300 houses show up and haul limits outta there until it's dead. When that lake is dead, word gets out about another lake and it happens there too. Mushroom hunters that don't care about using a mesh bag. In my youth, I witnessed (and sad to say was part of some) groups that go through a woods and kill everything they see. When asked if they would push their own woods like that, the response was "I won't do that at my place."

***Still have to keep going... With public resources, once something is killed off, the herd moves. Some in my group have already given up on northern MN and are heading to zone 3 to bowhunt. Pressure is going to move around where the deer are, and one day word will get out that there are deer "there" and more will come and shoot (again within the limits allowed by law) until they are gone. The pressure will build and the problem will continue to shift.

*It is a state agency problem. I am not concerned with changing harvest regs in every zone in the state. I am concerned with mismanagement in my area, and the pursuit has led to a methodology problem that can impact every corner. I think the people in each zone should have the ability to be part of the decision making process for their area.

*Audits are not more government. Audits are the checks and balances on government. Personally, I'd love to see many more audits because I believe many agencies and programs are colossal failures and wastes of money. Without periodic review, we would end up with horrendous problems far worse than what we have today. If the public stuffing their head in the sand was the way to get results, MN would be a utopia.

*I see your point on the people that were and still are taking extra deer. The wives and girlfriends that I know, quit "hunting" when the zones went management and intensive. I suspect many will get back into it this year again. I think the one flaw in your thinking is that the multiple meat deer guys are now the MDDI guys. There may be some and I can't prove it one way or another. But I do know the meat guys I know, are still meat guys and they couldn't give a dam about the MDDI. They will focus their energy on simply going somewhere else and shoot the first thing they see without any consideration for what condition the herd is in.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Interesting. This summer at the cabin I saw a fair number of deer in the yard and while going for walks. I can't say that it was as many as last year (although it got so a guy had to watch where he walked on the lawn) it certainly was true that deer were around. This was near west end of lake vermilion

Sure, there are generally a lot more deer when you get near inhabited areas where deer have a better go at it during winter with plowed roads/driveways and a good portion of year round residence feed them all winter.

What you see on the west end of Vermilion is NOT a representation of the northland deer herd.

[smsmith]

Sure, there are generally a lot more deer when you get near inhabited areas where deer have a better go at it during winter with plowed roads/driveways and a good portion of year round residence feed them all winter.

What you see on the west end of Vermilion is NOT a representation of the northland deer herd.

Exactly. I get a kick out of folks from the Metro or further south who think the "cabin deer" they see are anything near representative of what its like in the actual "woods".

Driving around Nisswa last weekend and saw plenty of deer, the rich folks there are having problems with "too many" deer and therefore think the whole state is crawling with 'em.

[SmellEsox]

So look, yes, we have been through this all. I am not asking to not shoot does and i am not against increasing populations of deer. I am for understanding the biology and science that is behind the changes so you can evaluate the merits of a proposal on it's face and decide whether it has merit.

So are we. Do you trust DNR's population modeling? We think there is some fuzzy math going on with their science. Their models aren't being properly calibrated and when they are, they don't believe them themselves. And we will continue to disagree on the "people problem" vs the "DNR too many permits" problem. People aren't going to check themselves when it comes to deer harvest. They are going to follow what DNR tells them to do. In a perfect world (apparently that is in a libertarian fantasy utopia where a DNR wouldn't even be needed), people would take responsibility. But the world is far from perfect (and unfortunately needs government intervention) and greed usually supersedes personal responsibility.

[Getanet]

We have all been very straight forward with what we're advocating. A few more fiery than others. But that's grass roots. We don't have conference calls, talking points, or PR people.

You say this, but Brooks said this in the “Expanding APR In MN” thread I on posted:

“Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection. It's time to reevaluate the state of the deer herd in MN. The legislature can make the DNR do it, as the DNR does not appear to be real big on checking it themselves. The dissertation of the formal message is still being worked by a professional agency, and there will be cash behind it.”

Now I know, this is ancient history, being last deer season and all. But if you read through that discussion thread it’s clear those conversations planted the seed that sprouted the MDDI. Brooks is clearly the leader and spokesperson for the MDDI, is he not?

I’ve never met Brooks and have nothing against him personally. But I do know his values don’t align with mine when it comes to hunting. He is all for spreading APR (his words, not mine). I also know his group, MN Bowhunter’s Inc., supports the elimination of party hunting (again, their words, not mine).

[btheturkey]

You say this, but Brooks said this in the “Expanding APR In MN” thread I on posted:

“Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection. It's time to reevaluate the state of the deer herd in MN. The legislature can make the DNR do it, as the DNR does not appear to be real big on checking it themselves. The dissertation of the formal message is still being worked by a professional agency, and there will be cash behind it.”

Now I know, this is ancient history, being last deer season and all. But if you read through that discussion thread it’s clear those conversations planted the seed that sprouted the MDDI. Brooks is clearly the leader and spokesperson for the MDDI, is he not?

I’ve never met Brooks and have nothing against him personally. But I do know his values don’t align with mine when it comes to hunting. He is all for spreading APR (his words, not mine). I also know his group, MN Bowhunter’s Inc., supports the elimination of party hunting (again, their words, not mine).

Your consensus lacks the background that got us where we are. Many areas of central, and east central MN were in a perpetual state of intensive harvest. The DNR kept claiming we were over goal for numbers. APR's are a biology based solution for too many deer. It shifts the focus to the does for meat hunters. If there truly were too many deer in those areas, APR's would have been a good fit.

As we began meeting with hunters and groups of the affected area discussing APR from a social side, it became obvious that there were not too many deer. The isolated cold pockets everybody was told they were in were apparently very widespread. The DNR's magic eraser had cut the herd substantially. Fighting for APR's in areas with depressed deer numbers and more tags sold than adult deer in the area was going to be a lost cause. I don't enter fights I have no chance of winning.

So the focus changed and we shifted gears to deer numbers as that was the main issue. 95% of the guys in the circles I run in love big bucks. 4% claim they don't but are not fooling anyone, and 1% are clinical. We all love big bucks. But MDDI is not about big bucks. It is about deer numbers, and as we moved forward we discovered that the model and the herd monitoring techniques are failing us.

And as we pointed out those shortcomings to the DNR they refuse to admit there is a problem.

So we have taken the issue to our elected for help. An audit is a tool the elected use to judge the state agencies performance.

And that is where we are at.

Since you like mining for quotes online, I can give you a mission. Find a quote since the inception of MDDI where I advocate for APRs or anything other than deer numbers, the model, and our herd monitoring. Got a box of Hamms says you can't do it.

You guys can sit and try poke holes in the our plan, but we have nothing to hide. Everything is in the wide open an on line to read. Has my focus changed since I started digging 3 years ago? You bet.

I do not need APRs where I own land. We have enough acres tied up in our ex QDMA club that the number of bucks that make it to 2.5 and bigger is better than many areas of the state. But we do have some real problems in the area with deer numbers. Guys that don't plant plots and manage ground see few to zero deer any more, while guys like me have hunt able numbers.

MDDI is group trying to help and advocate for the hunters of MN. It is supported by MDHA chapters, QDMA chatters, MBI, SCI chapters and on and on.

The few select bozos I have run into on this forum seem to have issues holding the state agency tasked with managing the deer herd responsible, and continue to ignore the fact that a 9% scheduled reduction has cut the herd in half. Some of you guys sound like you work for the DNR much of the time. Boggles the mind.

[btheturkey]

Youtube explains whys and what of the proposed audit.

[laker1]

I don't think the Modeling is correct,but I honestly believe some in the DNR do. I believe they are honest about it but not correct.

Not all Area offices agree with it either.

The biggest thing many area quoto's(sp)are too low and should be adjusted by real carrying capacity noted,than adjust to socially acceptable carrying capacity by all clientele participating.

[PurpleFloyd]

So are we.

Good. Then explain the biology behind the MDDI. Also, explain to me if the MDDI represents all hunters, why all of the data they use comes from Zones 220-225? There may be a stat from a 300 zone somewhere but for the most part it looks to me like all the problems are isolated to a small area between the north metro and Hinckley. And they seem to m be singling out Beau Liddell as the person who is at fault to the point where it seems that it is a vendetta against one DNR employeee.

But if we are hung up on stats, can someone please post the actual number of hunters who buy 5-7 bonus tags a season and how many fill those 5 tags? Since the hunter success rate is at about 33% give or take I would guess the total number of people who actually fill their tags is very small.

[PurpleFloyd]

Your consensus lacks the background that got us where we are. Many areas of central, and east central MN were in a perpetual state of intensive harvest. The DNR kept claiming we were over goal for numbers. APR's are a biology based solution for too many deer. It shifts the focus to the does for meat hunters. If there truly were too many deer in those areas, APR's would have been a good fit.

As we began meeting with hunters and groups of the affected area discussing APR from a social side, it became obvious that there were not too many deer. The isolated cold pockets everybody was told they were in were apparently very widespread. The DNR's magic eraser had cut the herd substantially. Fighting for APR's in areas with depressed deer numbers and more tags sold than adult deer in the area was going to be a lost cause. I don't enter fights I have no chance of winning.

So the focus changed and we shifted gears to deer numbers as that was the main issue. 95% of the guys in the circles I run in love big bucks. 4% claim they don't but are not fooling anyone, and 1% are clinical. We all love big bucks. But MDDI is not about big bucks. It is about deer numbers, and as we moved forward we discovered that the model and the herd monitoring techniques are failing us.

And as we pointed out those shortcomings to the DNR they refuse to admit there is a problem.

So we have taken the issue to our elected for help. An audit is a tool the elected use to judge the state agencies performance.

And that is where we are at.

Since you like mining for quotes online, I can give you a mission. Find a quote since the inception of MDDI where I advocate for APRs or anything other than deer numbers, the model, and our herd monitoring. Got a box of Hamms says you can't do it.

You guys can sit and try poke holes in the our plan, but we have nothing to hide. Everything is in the wide open an on line to read. Has my focus changed since I started digging 3 years ago? You bet.

[laker1]

At least in the next decade you will never have like so many points on the bucks before you can shoot them up north,I like everyone else likes seeing big bucks but the northern half the state people like it if it is a buck shoot it.

It wouldn't matter to me either way,but you would have to carry a higher deer density of animals not hunted in a specific year,each year

Always said,reduce the buck harvest,just remove the season from the rut period.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Man PF, you sure do have a lot of time on your hands. Do you do anything else but argue on HSO all day every day?

[hockeybc69]

I have posted the facts on here over and over for permit area 240.... Should I do it yet again?

This isnt confined to Beaus areas.... There is a lot of splainin' to be done in other areas....

Fact.... as Brooks has stated over and over... 9% herd reduction was what was agreed to in 2007.

Then why is the harvest down statewide over 40%?

Nah, I dont need to point out the facts to PF yet again. He will just continue to refute it with spin doctor tactics as usual.

[btheturkey]

9%!scheduled reduction.

Herd cut in half.

Agend to find out why and make sure it does not continue.

About sums it up.

[Farmsfulltime]

The mddi should thank pf for keeping the discussion going this long , for more prospects to view and get your agenda out there . If this fell quiet and there was no discussion im sure the subject would get pretty stale. The way your petition drive is going I don't think the dnr will hear your cries very long either . This certainly is not mainstream for the average deer hunter sorry just a quik observation . When I call the dnr they return my calls but maybe I call different people than you . Good Luck you will need it

[B. Amish]

saw 12 deer on a hunt the other night. haven't seen 12 deer on one sit for at least 5 years.

[96trigger]

Quote:

The herd in the southern 1/3 of the state has not been cut in half and I drive a very large area down here, talk to a lot of hunters and I have yet to hear anyone say that the deer numbers are hurting. The overwhelming consensus is that it is as good as it has ever been. Then again maybe we just worry about hunting and don't sit around pouting all off season about how good it could have been.

Wait....What? Care to explain this a little more PF?

[hockeybc69]

saw 12 deer on a hunt the other night. haven't seen 12 deer on one sit for at least 5 years.

How soon we all forget that your hunts successes or failures are the barometer for the rest of the state.

[DaveT]

The mddi should thank pf for keeping the discussion going this long , for more prospects to view and get your agenda out there . If this fell quiet and there was no discussion im sure the subject would get pretty stale. The way your petition drive is going I don't think the dnr will hear your cries very long either . This certainly is not mainstream for the average deer hunter sorry just a quik observation . When I call the dnr they return my calls but maybe I call different people than you . Good Luck you will need it

Thanks Purple!

[Jameson]

A quick thought without any researching....the areas of the state that are consistently lottery and zone 3 maybe haven't had their deer herds cut in half (or by 40%, whatever), but that only means that the other areas have had their herds cut more than half. The other areas being the areas of the state that have traditionally had the most deer and have had Intensive/Managed/Early Anterless regulations in recent years. Now they have the least deer, and still have a lot of hunters.

Could very well be wrong, but thought it was something to consider.

[Getanet]

I think that was what the DNR was attempting to say when they replied to Brooks with:

"It is not meaningful to say the “2005-2007 stakeholder process called for a 10% reduction of the MN deer herd” because we don’t manage deer on a statewide basis. We manage deer on a permit area basis so it is more appropriate to discuss population changes at the permit area level or in a group of permit areas. For example, the goal for permit areas 221, 222 and 225 is to reduce the population by 25% from fall 2005 levels. It can be misleading if you discuss areas like that in the context of a 10% statewide deer reduction."

In short, it's a little more complicated than a blanket statement that covers the whole state.

[B. Amish]

How soon we all forget that your hunts successes or failures are the barometer for the rest of the state.

lol... isn't that was this is all about...?

[btheturkey]

I think that was what the DNR was attempting to say when they replied to Brooks with:

For example, the goal for permit areas 221, 222 and 225 is to reduce the population by 25% from fall 2005 levels. It can be misleading if you discuss areas like that in the context of a 10% statewide deer reduction."

I am not discussing areas 221, 222 or 225 when I make the statement

'A scheduled 9% herd reduction has the statewide harvest down 41%'

The DNR does not like us using the stats because it flat out shows they have lowered the herd much further than they said the plan was.

It spells out in the simplest terms the issues our model and monitoring techniques are having