Audit Push: Time To Act!

[bigbucks]

I think that's what he means as well. Although I'm really not in favor of spending the money on an audit, I do think it's a valid point that optimum hunting weather can increase the harvest above what it should be. There are days when all the deer are moving & days when none of them are moving. If those days fall during opening weekend of firearm season the harvest has to be impacted either direction.

I've said this before, but as far as I'm concerned the population in Central MN bottomed out in 2012 & has improved each of the last two years. I'm not talking bottomed out as in all time lows, but as in the lowest since the early to mid 90's. That's just in the areas I hunt, but it's definitely improved each of the last two years. I think the poor opening weekend firearms weather each of those years helped the population & lowered the kill. I hunt a lot through all the seasons & am living out in the country where I can see them regularly, no question there are more.

[hockeybc69]

I get it now.

bigbucks,

your area might be a hotspot.... my wildlife manager blames our areas lack of sightings to the fact we are in a coldspot.... year after year after year....

[bigbucks]

I hunt on multiple properties in 2 different areas, but that said, they're some pretty good spots. They are however both heavily hunted & harvested by a lot of guys.

[btheturkey]

In 2005 - 2007 stakeholders met and a 9% decrease to the state deer herd was planned.

As the harvest declined, the DNR held fast to the model which said deer numbers are not declining as harvest is suggesting.

They watched deer vehicle collisions drop in half and ignored the data. They stopped tracking fetal recruitment. They made no model adjustments for increased predation statewide. They used a magic eraser to change original density estimates to match the dropping harvest rates.

They blamed wind, rain and corn.

In 2008 Marrett Grund himself wrote 'the model is performing so poorly, I feel a recalibration is needed.' Our lead biologist knew the model was not working.

Science based herd monitoring tools were thrown in the trash because our DNR did not trust the results. And they were likely correct much of the time. $15,000 aerial surveys discarded as they did not match the model. We scheduled 18 of those $15,000 surveys for last winter. Thats $270,000 that was purposed for a tool that is not helping gauge the herd.

Throw in a couple bad winters and the herd is half the size it was.

And a bunch of us felt an audit may help straighten things out. And we are pursuing said audit.

Is it THE tool for change. Nope. Is it the ONLY tool we are using? Nope. Is it helping raise awareness? Yes.

We have slid well past the planned reduction, and the doe slaughter was not over. The collective voice helped facilitate the conservative regs we have this year. The herd has a chance to grow if we don't revert, but the herd will not grow if we do not have some wholesale changes to deer management in MN.

Over 60% of the elected we have contacted officially support the audit and changes to our deer management system because they can see the glaring issues that are right there in black and white.

Our deer model and herd monitoring are a fail, and the DNR's inability to recognize the problems and lack of initiative to find a better system led us to where we are at.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[PurpleFloyd]

In 2005 - 2007 stakeholders met and a 9% decrease to the state deer herd was planned.

As the harvest declined, the DNR held fast to the model which said deer numbers are not declining as harvest is suggesting.

They watched deer vehicle collisions drop in half and ignored the data. They stopped tracking fetal recruitment. They made no model adjustments for increased predation statewide. They used a magic eraser to change original density estimates to match the dropping harvest rates.

They blamed wind, rain and corn.

In 2008 Marrett Grund himself wrote 'the model is performing so poorly, I feel a recalibration is needed.' Our lead biologist knew the model was not working.

Science based herd monitoring tools were thrown in the trash because our DNR did not trust the results. And they were likely correct much of the time. $15,000 aerial surveys discarded as they did not match the model. We scheduled 18 of those $15,000 surveys for last winter. Thats $270,000 that was purposed for a tool that is not helping gauge the herd.

Throw in a couple bad winters and the herd is half the size it was.

And a bunch of us felt an audit may help straighten things out. And we are pursuing said audit.

Is it THE tool for change. Nope. Is it the ONLY tool we are using? Nope. Is it helping raise awareness? Yes.

We have slid well past the planned reduction, and the doe slaughter was not over. The collective voice helped facilitate the conservative regs we have this year. The herd has a chance to grow if we don't revert, but the herd will not grow if we do not have some wholesale changes to deer management in MN.

Over 60% of the elected we have contacted officially support the audit and changes to our deer management system because they can see the glaring issues that are right there in black and white.

Our deer model and herd monitoring are a fail, and the DNR's inability to recognize the problems and lack of initiative to find a better system led us to where we are at.

[PurpleFloyd]

And for Non residents in Kansas:

Quote:

9. How many deer permits can a nonresident receive?

2013 Deer FAQs

Up to seven, as listed below:

One nonresident combo deer permit, which is valid for one white-tailed buck, doe or fawn and one white-tailed antlerless deer.

As many as five Nonresident Antlerless-Only White-tailed Deer Permits

One Nonresident Antlerless Either-species Deer permit for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, and 18 only.

I bet their herd is decimated.

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

20. Can I hunt with a crossbow during the 2014 deer season?

2014 Deer FAQs

CROSSBOWS

Crossbows are now part of the legal archery equipment, which means they are legal equipment during any season. Anyone with a permit valid during an archery season may hunt during that season with a crossbow.

Holy cow, you can even hunt with a crossbow.

[mntatonka]

PF, correct me if I'm wrong or misreading the regs, but I don't believe it says you must take a buck before purchasing a doe tag. It simply says you have you BUY a buck tag before buying a doe tag.

[PurpleFloyd]

It looks like the biggest factor is that 95% of the land in Kansas is Private vs Public, over 90% of the hunters hunt on private land and over 90% of the deer harvested in Kansas are harvested on Private land.

Looks like we need to sell off the vast majority of our public hands and put it into the hands of the private individuals so they can manage it properly and get the government out of it.

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, correct me if I'm wrong or misreading the regs, but I don't believe it says you must take a buck before purchasing a doe tag. It simply says you have you BUY a buck tag before buying a doe tag.

Correction noted and apology offered

[Jameson]

PF, do you purposefully post wrong stuff in hopes that people will reply to you?

[btheturkey]

It seems that they can do everything you are telling the DNR they shouldn't let us do AND they have a great herd.

We are not in Kansas anymore Floyd.

[btheturkey]

Although I'm really not in favor of spending the money on an audit,

Wisconsin spent $150,000 on its last audit. Our DNR is scheduling $270,000 per year for aerial counts we routinely throw in the trash when they don't fit the model.

An audit seems a potential fiscally responsible move when you look at those numbers.

[laker1]

They don't do aerial counts in the northern half of the state-forested area.

Also they are highly effected by snow cover or lack of.

Also they might have thrown out some aerial counts,I don't believe they threw them all out?

[btheturkey]

They don't do aerial counts in the northern half of the state-forested area.

Only the transition zone as far as I know. Too many pines to count deer they say. But they try it on moose. And yes - they throw those counts in the trash as well.

And no they don't throw them all out. But you are not supposed to throw out science based double checks of a model. The double checks verify the model accuracy - not the other way around.

The discrepancies between our model estimates and herd monitoring techniques (aerial counts for one) verify the issues we have do exist.

[PurpleFloyd]

PF, do you purposefully post wrong stuff in hopes that people will reply to you?

No, not at all. I read that one word incorrectly and admitted that error when pointed out.

But that doesn't change the rest of the post in that residents and non residents there can still buy at least 5 tags a year and that is a core argument from the MDDI for the deer population allegedly crashed in the transition zone. And Kansas was offered in every post by one poster who uses them as an example of a state DNR that is better than ours.

[PurpleFloyd]

We are not in Kansas anymore Floyd.

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

[btheturkey]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

I know nothing of Kansas deer mgmt.

What I do know is a 9% scheduled reduction in MN has gone closer to 50%. And I would like an audit to tell me why.

Just did a quick search and saw this FLOYD.

... about 98,000 deer were killed in Kansas last year by all deer hunters, resident (82,500) and non-resident (15,300).

So when MN drops from 500,000 hunters to 100,000 hunters we can likely all have 5 tags and enjoy Kansas style hunting. Until then MN may want to manage differently than Kansas.

[SmellEsox]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

Because their deer densities are far higher than ours are or ever was. And I would argue that their system would work great in MN. Our public land wouldn't get pounded the dump out of every year and it would actually be decent hunting as most antlerless tags would only be valid on private lands.

Sell all the public land. Yeah, that sounds great. Look at all the private land in the state and compare it to the public lands. For the most part private lands are abused and managed poorly whereas public land is at least left wild. Look at private lakeshore vs. public. Look at woodlots turned into cropfields. Look at creeks straightened. Look at wetlands drained. Wild areas platted for development. Yeah, there are a few landowners creating habitat. But the vast majority destroy any wildlife value of their land for profit or aesthetics. Privatizing all the land would be a disaster for wildlife and conservation.

[laker1]

Look at Minnesota, almost half of the state is north of all of Wisconsin. Our winters our as hard or harsher than anywhere in the lower 48. So it is hard to compare states.

Also I believe we have the healthiest deer herd with less disease than any state.

But yes they have to change the modeling technique and have more than 1 method to determine populations estimates.

Also everybody wants more hunters,are public lands and private are saturated,more hunters,well than success rates have to drop so we can distribute the deer harvest.

Harvest numbers can not keep up with hunter numbers increase. It is a basic fact.

[btheturkey]

Harvest numbers can not keep up with hunter numbers increase. It is a basic fact.

Incorrect. If you manage the herd for max sustained yield we could likely harvest 2x to 3x as many deer as we did last year.

I am not saying suggesting we manage at those levels but it is biologically possible.

[delcecchi]

It looks t me like what they are doing runs against everything the QDMA/MDDI supporters have been promoting in Minnesota over the past several years.

Food for thought :

What was quoted doesn't say you have to tag a buck. You just have to buy a buck tag, and then you can buy doe tags. Presumably they want you to take a buck, but it doesn't sound like you have to.

[DaveT]

Well yeah, but I was waiting for the MDDI response to why they have great hunting while allowing up to 5 or more deer be harvested,even by non residents and still be a trophy state when tighter regulations here are blamed for wiping out the herd.

Purple, we're in zone 10 so it's 2 doe limit for us but we usually only shoot 2 or 3 off of our 300 acres, even though the law would allow us to kill as many as 12. We like having deer on our property so we don't do that, and neither do our neighbors. I have no idea what the densities are in the rest of the state, when you get out to the west side of the state I imagine they are managing more for mulies and antelope than whitetails. As Turkey pointed out, they have less hunters, therefore they need the existing hunters to take a few more deer to keep their populations from exploding. It's really just math and you're just being kind of douchey, to be honest. When you have dpsm's over 30, 40, 50, and you want to reduce that, you sell more doe tags. In MN we have dpsm's at 15 or less and we are still selling 5 doe tags. If you'd like I can post proof that Kansas deer hunting is a lot better than MN.

[btheturkey]

... and you're just being kind of douchey, to be honest.

Whats the one guy over here like to say?

Oh yeah - Nailed It!