Audit Push: Time To Act!

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I don't think the herd is headed toward collapse and never did.

Come hang out in the woods in the arrowhead.....You may change your thoughts.

[Bear55]

I don't think the herd is headed toward collapse and never did. The total harvest in this area is down 18-22 percent since 2003. The question is, what does that indicate population-wise? Is it down 18-20%? Or more? Maybe a decline in harvest by 18-20% means the population is down significantly more than that.

You should be jumping for joy, 2003 harvest compared to the 2013 harvest in many NE areas is down anywhere from 60-80%.

[PurpleFloyd]

that's funny.

Think about it this way. You are overseeing this huge gov't agency over the last 10 years and all this data points towards poor performance and management and loss of revenue. Yet your expenditures aren't shrinking. Are you going to go before congress with falling tax revenues and deficits and request more money or are you going to do it internally and sell more tags.

I can't look it up right now but I thought that total liscense sales have increased over the past 10 years.maybe I am mistaken but it didn't seem like a lack of revenue problem.

What I have come to believe is That any reduction in the herd was initially triggered by the CWD outbreak and the decision by the DNR that the best way to prevent a widespread outbreak was to keep densities lower than they were in the 2002-2003 period when it first surfaced.

It seems to me they had things about right with the exception of the OTC doe tags that allowed a Hunter to take excessive amounts of does.other than that, had the weather patterns stayed as they were a decade ago we wouldn't be talking about this.

[SmellEsox]

Come hang out in the woods in the arrowhead.....You may change your thoughts.

I agree with you about the NE. But that area is unique in that winter and predation do have an extreme impact on the herd there. From the transition and south, not so much. Even with last winter, which was one of the worst in the last 100+ years in central MN, we still appeared to have little mortality here. If there was significant mortality here last winter, we will see a significant reduction in buck harvest this fall.

[SmellEsox]

The question I still have, and I'm mainly talking about the transition zone where they have been so liberal with antlerless permits, is, how does the reduced harvest translate to actual population? I know Missouri has acknowledged that you can still maintain high harvests as the population is declining significantly. IMO that is what needs to be looked at. Is the population model trustworthy and accurate when it is not calibrated, ever, or very seldom. Because it sure seems like there are far fewer deer around here despite fairly flat harvest.

[B. Amish]

30 deer and 10 are shot = 20 deer

26 deer and 6 are shot = 20 deer

harvest drops 40% and population is the same.

[SmellEsox]

30 deer and 10 are shot = 20 deer

26 deer and 6 are shot = 20 deer

harvest drops 40% and population is the same.

You got it backwards. I mean population drops but harvest stays the same.

[Getanet]

That would seem to nearly impossible over the long term. Unless the population was ridiculously high to begin with.

[btheturkey]

Like I said in my original post, this audit attacks this problem from the wrong direction. An audit won't change a thing but cost more time and money, whether allocated or not.

An audit will likely result in changes. Audits identify strengths and weaknesses, and more efficient use of funds and resources.

I wholehearted disagree with your statement.

[Jameson]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

[PurpleFloyd]

How much tolerance is going to make the MDDI happy in deviating from 200k per year? If you take the average over the last 20 years, the average is very close to 200k.

[PurpleFloyd]

It seems to me that the way to get the harvest numbers that are expected by the MDDI, the only way to accomplish what they want is to go to a 100% lottery system where they regulate the number of licenses sold and limit them to a certain number that satisfies the MDDI. It seems to be working with the wolf and turkey population and it has also worked for Bear and until recently Moose. That way they can control how many deer are taken from every zone.

[DaveT]

It seems to me that the way to get the harvest numbers that are expected by the MDDI, the only way to accomplish what they want is to go to a 100% lottery system where they regulate the number of licenses sold and limit them to a certain number that satisfies the MDDI. It seems to be working with the wolf and turkey population and it has also worked for Bear and until recently Moose. That way they can control how many deer are taken from every zone.

PF, maybe in a few zones with a lot of hunters and very few deer this would be necessary, but I highly doubt it. That is exactly how most other states do manage their elk, moose, antelope, and mule deer, however. When you have more hunters than game you have to do something, don't you?

MN showed we can rebound pretty well by going to bucks only in the 70s. A couple seasons of conservative doe tags coupled with decent winters will have us back where we should be. I want to make sure the DNR doesn't make the same mistakes again, though. Left unchecked, they will go right back to the same management that got us where we are today. There are better tools out there for them to use. There are better ways for them to collect and interpret data. I want to make sure they are as efficient and accurate as possible. I'm hoping this audit and the outcry from concerned hunters will motivate them to be and do better.

I also have a healthy distrust of government and expect incompetence and complacency in everything they do, except when it comes to listening to my cell phone calls or stealing my income. However, I don't see how they could do much worse, and something has to change.

[PurpleFloyd]

Dave- your beloved state of Kansas does just that with their non resident deer permits?

Why don't you fill us in on how their license process works for residents and non residents.

[SmellEsox]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

150,000 of course! Seriously though, if hunters are funding deer management, I would rather they err on the side of conservatism rather than whacking them down too far and then trying to bring them back.

Instead of plucking that magical 200,000 number out of the sky, I would rather they just shoot for higher population goals in certain areas. The transition zone is some of the best whitetail habitat on the continent. It should be managed for more deer. Obviously the SW farm country is limited by habitat and the NE has winter and predation issues. Why not take your best habitat and manage it for great hunting?

[willyfahey]

Yes, bringing forth an audit that targets biomass models will not work because the DNR will always go back to their corrective checks and balances efforts as the point of support to make sure that their backside is covered (they did it with Mille Lacs in regards to the population decline). The models aren't the problem anyway. Like in my original post, the only grounds for structural change or accountability to the DNR can be made via the heritage amendment of the state constitution or egregious use of funds (if you can expose that then you really got something). The beauty of science is that it's acceptable to get it wrong. I see the real solution being more groups getting involved proactively within the DNR. Rather than criticizing and pointing fingers at specific people for specific actions, get involved in the programs and volunteer. Actions speak louder than words and input is better received when your standing next to someone sharing in the burden. Pheasants Forever's successes is a great example of this. The money game will not change until our hunting society changes from a standpoint of "successful" harvest(successful hunts are a contentious debate with no right answer) back to habitat and hunting heritage (access, pursuit and family). I would add, though, that as a private land owner, one should not be waiting around for the DNR to manage their property. It's your land, make it what you want it to be. If you tried and cannot, then perhaps you should have a better understanding of what it means to be a DNR biologist; spent a lot of money with little or no return.

[Jameson]

If the goal harvest is 200,000 is the DNR doing a worse job when the harvest is 290,000 or 150,000?

[hockeybc69]

From Dec 2011 article in the Pioneer Press.

Although more permits - at least about 512,000 - were sold than ever before, the number of deer killed - likely to be a little more than 192,000 - is well below last year's harvest of about 207,000.

It's also below the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' general goal of 200,000, a number that Lou Cornicelli, the agency's big-game coordinator, has called the "sweet spot" for a stable deer population.

[DaveT]

Dave- your beloved state of Kansas does just that with their non resident deer permits?

Why don't you fill us in on how their license process works for residents and non residents.

Residents are over the counter, non resident landowners (80 acres or more) can get an over the counter hunt your own land tag, general non resident is lottery by zone, based on a host of factors that their DNR considers important but I don't know what they are. They have a quality product, (a healthy deer population with a representative amount of trophy bucks)and wish to maintain that quality for their residents and non resident hunters alike. By limiting non resident tags they can make sure that areas are not over hunted and/or over harvested. It's a very logical thing to do and it's why they and other states like them can charge 4 or 5 hundred dollars for a deer tag and sell out every year. And contrary to popular belief, the entire state is not leased up by outfitters and our group has gotten free permission to hunt 5 (and counting) nearby properties.

I don't know how many non resident hunters are coming to MN but I doubt it's very many. I would fully support limiting their licenses if I thought they were harming the overall quality of hunting for MN residents. Every western state does exactly that with their game animals.

Is that what you were looking for, PF? I don't see a problem with a state limiting non residents to ensure that the residents have a quality hunt. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the audit but there's my take.

[mntatonka]

I don't know how many non resident hunters are coming to MN but I doubt it's very many. I would fully support limiting their licenses if I thought they were harming the overall quality of hunting for MN residents. Every western state does exactly that with their game animals.

roughly 14,500 non-resident hunters come to MN every year. It's been stable at that number for about the last 10 years.

[Jameson]

just for you hockeybc69, from fall of 2013...

“The season outlook this year is pretty good. Based on our harvest regulations last year the population is estimated to be up a little bit so folks should see a few more deer out there. And I expect the harvest should be about what it was last year or a little bit higher than that. The unknowns right now if we are going to get good weather conditions. The crop harvest is delayed relative to last year so folks might find a little more challenging environment.”

source: http://www.knuj.net/2013/11/minnesota-deer-season-outlook/

"Last year we had a real ideal opener and nice weather," she said. "It seems like each weekend this year has been challenging for their own reasons. Opening weekend was really windy and we've had wind and rain and last weekend was really cold."

source: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/11/29/harvest-numbers-down-as-deer-gun-season-comes-to-a-close

“The reason giving our projected harvest numbers is so difficult is that weather plays a major role in the number of hunters who hunt during Minnesota’s deer season. If the state has bad, severe weather during the season, and fewer hunters hunt, the harvest will be light. However, if our state has favorable weather conditions, we may have a really good deer harvest this season.”

source: http://www.gameandfishmag.com/deer-forecast/minnesota-deer-forecast-2013/

“Based on our population estimates, the decrease in buck harvest was not anticipated and may reflect hunting conditions more than population,” said Leslie McInenly, DNR big game program leader. “Based on the preliminary numbers, our opening and second weekend harvests from Saturday to Monday were down 4 and 13 percent, respectively, and we experienced windy conditions the first weekend and both wind and rain the second weekend.”

source: http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/201...cent-from-2012/

...

If wind, and rain, can be used as a reason for deflated harvest numbers, they can be used for inflated numbers in 2012 and any good weather year.

[hockeybc69]

ok.... And??

[Jameson]

and how bad were things already in 2012 since the numbers were inflated by the weather?

and how much does the unrecognized overly big harvest of 2012, coupled with the tough winters of 2013,2014, all play together?

I don't know....and nothing really...just frustrated.

[hockeybc69]

I do apologize, but I am not following at all.

What do you mean by inflated numbers due to weather in 2012? The harvest that year was down, just as it has been over the last several years.

[SmellEsox]

I do apologize, but I am not following at all.

What do you mean by inflated numbers due to weather in 2012? The harvest that year was down, just as it has been over the last several years.

I think he is talking about how weather conditions during season were excellent for hunting. Did that cause a higher than normal harvest because condition were so good? DNR is quick to blame weather for bad harvests but won't acknowledge that harvests might be inflated (higher than expected and have a higher impact on populations)when weather is good.