Audit Push: Time To Act!

[btheturkey]

Forgive me if things don't seem to add up.

We forgive you Floyd. Your math may not be sharp, but we forgive you.

[laker1]

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.

[DaveT]

Your saying 480,000 deer a year? We over harvested at 200,000. You couldn't do it year after year.

It depends on some variables, but yes. If the average dpsm is 15 and we harvested 200K, it would stand to reason we could harvest 400K if our dpsm was 30. That's over simplifying things, but you get the gist.

[delcecchi]

And if the average DSM were 60, we could harvest 800,000.

Of course that might require some supplementary feeding......

[ANYFISH2]

Ok, are we really talking about sustaining a higher deer population or wanting hunters to harvest more?

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

If you guys want something other than sustaining a healthy exceptable population, then you lost me.

[btheturkey]

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

Cornicelli himself said a sustained harvest of 210,000 - 220,000 may be the sweet spot. 250,000 would be doable.

[SmellEsox]

Ok, are we really talking about sustaining a higher deer population or wanting hunters to harvest more?

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

If you guys want something other than sustaining a healthy exceptable population, then you lost me.

We all hear how we could never sustain that type of harvest here. Why is that? Why is it socially acceptable in some states but not here? I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

[btheturkey]

I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

There was no social outcry. Even the 9% herd reduction that came fro the 2005 - 07 stakeholder meetings was a sham. Some of those meetings were actually shut down when the teams refused to accept the talk info the DNR put on the table. DNR cancelled the meetings and set their own numbers.

SE MN last winter saw a super majority vote for a goal of 18 dpsm thrown out and changed to 16 because 'the habitat could not support that number' (Leslie Mc). The statement is a flat out lie. What Leslie meant is 'that would be above the 25 dpsm of deer habitat that we are using as the benchmark in modern deer management. 25 dpsm of habitat keeps us below a mythical line where deer human 'conflicts' escalate (crops, cars)'

I ran the numbers for SE MN using the 25 dpsm of habitat number and came within 2% of the goals selected last winter. Coincidence? I am betting not.

And as the process rolls further north, that 25 dpsm will likely change to 22, or 20 dpsm of habitat.

You take some of those hotbeds of deer densities around Ottertail county where they had 42 deer per square mile in 2007 and the teams voted to keep them stable. The model says those same zones are at 19 dpsm now. How the hell is dropping from 42 dpsm to 19 dpsm stabilizing the herd? The harvest is down around 40% in some of these zones. Stabilized? Hardly.

I am hoping the hunters get off their hands so I am wrong, but if I was a betting man I would say the odds are very high that my doom and gloom is spot on.

[mntatonka]

We all hear how we could never sustain that type of harvest here. Why is that? Why is it socially acceptable in some states but not here? I'd still love to see the social outcry that called for the axing of the herd back then. I honestly believe it wasn't socially unacceptable, it was DNR Wildlife unacceptable. If I were in charge, that's where I'd set my harvest goals. 250,000.

There's a point when the population becomes a problem for the rest of the people. Sure, it's nice to have that many deer to make it easier to hunt them, but with that many extra deer there's a lot more car/deer accidents (which can cause injury or death), there's a lot more damage to crops and gardens, and there's always more potential for disease. That's the social aspect of managing a deer population.

[btheturkey]

There's a point when the population becomes a problem for the rest of the people. Sure, it's nice to have that many deer to make it easier to hunt them, but with that many extra deer there's a lot more car/deer accidents (which can cause injury or death), there's a lot more damage to crops and gardens, and there's always more potential for disease. That's the social aspect of managing a deer population.

So if there is a 'point where the deer population becomes a problem' and we manage socially, why doesn't the DNR track deer vehicle collisions or grower complaints?

Our DNR uses State Farm estimated crash stats over MN Dept public safety numbers. State Farm estimates say deer vehicle collisions are up 41% in the past 10 years. Dept Public Safety says they are down 51%. Which set matches the 41% harvest decline? Not the set the DNR wants to use.

The social aspect of managing the herd appears to keep cutting the numbers until the hunter numbers decline (revenue), or the hunters make enough ruckus that we can not reduce the herd further.

Evidence a 9% announced reduction that has gone past 50%.

[mntatonka]

So if there is a 'point where the deer population becomes a problem' and we manage socially, why doesn't the DNR track deer vehicle collisions or grower complaints?

Our DNR uses State Farm estimated crash stats over MN Dept public safety numbers. State Farm estimates say deer vehicle collisions are up 41% in the past 10 years. Dept Public Safety says they are down 51%. Which set matches the 41% harvest decline? Not the set the DNR wants to use.

The social aspect of managing the herd appears to keep cutting the numbers until the hunter numbers decline (revenue), or the hunters make enough ruckus that we can not reduce the herd further.

Evidence a 9% announced reduction that has gone past 50%.

I agree the population dropped way too far, and that our DNR is way too reactionary instead of looking ahead. A harvest of around 200,000 definitely seems to be a sweet spot between social and biological. Granted, it's got to average out properly across the state, which isn't happening now.

[btheturkey]

The fact set our DNR uses in this 'social' process is disurbing. It is a legitimate way to manage, but the way the numbers will be spun in the stakeholder meetings is appalling.

In SE MN the DNR said 'area farmers estimated 3 million dollars crop damage'. MN does not document or track grower complaints, so we give the public 'farmers guesses' to use as data.

WI legitimately tracks and their statewide crop depredation number is $1.25 million. And they have twice the deer MN has.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 50%, while total collisions have remained steady. The crash numbers are collected in the same manner during the period quoted. Its never good when a vehicle and deer collide, but where do you draw the line? Deer vehicle collisions represent less than 3% of all collisions recorded in MN.

If you want to make deer management a social process, you have to track the social 'issues' deer create. MN does not even attempt to legitimize the process. You can't just make stuff up and blow smoke at the hunters of MN. (or maybe you can. its worked the last 10 years)

[ANYFISH2]

Guys my point is we keep refering to overall harvest as a goal. We achieved 250+ thousand wish the issuance of doe tags in the mid 2000's. When I personally heard and seen that the deer where too numerous. I had sits for an entire season seeing 20+ deer being the norm and never seeing less than ten, all on 80 acres.

Now in the same breath some are saying we issued too many doe tags back then, but some how think we are going to get too 250 thousand harvested deer without such issuance of doe tags? I don't get it or follow how it will happen without issueing tons of doe tags.

The transition zone can and should support a higher deer population, the reason I have been supporting all of this, however, it is only 1/3 of the state. The NE can not sustain 25-30dpsm because of predation and winter mortality. The SW also can not due to lack of habitat imparticular security cover. So the "states" harvest would need to be supported by the transition area. That sucks, I want more deer, not record harvests.

[Farmsfulltime]

Looks like the audit push stands at less than 500 has not moved much in a few days I even signed to try to put an end to all the complaining , would probably hear more complaints in any bar on opening night in Minnesota than the audit will get

[hockeybc69]

As if the petition is the only method being used to gain support..... Have you seen the Outdoor News ads?

Gaurantee you there are plenty of people that are not on this forum or any others that are behind it. Plenty....

[btheturkey]

Guys my point is we keep refering to overall harvest as a goal. We achieved 250+ thousand wish the issuance of doe tags in the mid 2000's. When I personally heard and seen that the deer where too numerous. I had sits for an entire season seeing 20+ deer being the norm and never seeing less than ten, all on 80 acres.

Now in the same breath some are saying we issued too many doe tags back then, but some how think we are going to get too 250 thousand harvested deer without such issuance of doe tags? I don't get it or follow how it will happen without issueing tons of doe tags.

The transition zone can and should support a higher deer population, the reason I have been supporting all of this, however, it is only 1/3 of the state. The NE can not sustain 25-30dpsm because of predation and winter mortality. The SW also can not due to lack of habitat imparticular security cover. So the "states" harvest would need to be supported by the transition area. That sucks, I want more deer, not record harvests.

You are absolutely correct that diff areas of the state have diff capacities. Spot on. The DNR will likely never let us get back anywhere near 250,000 deer per year.

Deer biology says you need to take 20 - 30% of adult does to stabilize the herd. Lets use 20% as we are at the northern extremes of the math.

If we have 1 million deer at the start of season, about 625,000 adult deer. At a 2.5:1 doe to buck ratio, thats 60% does or 375,000 adult does.

Kill 20% of those adult does thats 75,000 does killed

Kill 50% of the 250,000 bucks, 125,000 bucks killed

Add in the yearling harvest

The math is by no means exact, but if you have 1 million deer, you can likely kill 20 - 30% of the adults (1.5 plus) and still keep pumping out the numbers.

Start killing over 20% (not an exact percentage but somewhere close) of the adult does in MN and the herd will decrease. We did that in 2003 - 2008, and that is when the major reduction of the herd occurred. We have not killed 74,000 adult does since 2008.

And 2009 was the first year MDHA started telling the DNR there were problems, but we kept selling too many doe tags. Because the model and lack of herd monitoring failed us. Or there was an agenda.

With a herd of 1 million deer, a harvest of 200 - 250,000 should be attainable.

[btheturkey]

Looks like the audit push stands at less than 500 has not moved much in a few days I even signed to try to put an end to all the complaining , would probably hear more complaints in any bar on opening night in Minnesota than the audit will get

Very surprised the signatures area that low. I thought they would come quickly.

We have thousands of paper signatures that will be delivered to the OAL.

Support for the audit will be proposed at the MDHA state meeting next winter.

Elected are officially on board supporting the changes.

Key elected on committees are in the loop and in support.

Thousands of dollars have been donated to educating the public and the elected.

Pressure is being applied from all different directions to make the changes.

The sum of the pieces will bring whatever change occurs. The online petition is only a dimple on the face of the initiative.

[creepworm]

You can't just make stuff up and blow smoke at the hunters of MN.

Really? I have asked this before and you refuse to answer but I will ask again. Where does this "beyond 50% reduction in the deer herd" number come from.

Plenty of smoke being blown at the hunters of mn, and a majority of it has come from mddi.

[btheturkey]

Really? I have asked this before and you refuse to answer but I will ask again. Where does this "beyond 50% reduction in the deer herd" number come from.

Plenty of smoke being blown at the hunters of mn, and a majority of it has come from mddi.

No smoke - only state collected data. Here is a letter I sent to Steve Merchant today.

We don't make this stuff up.

Enjoy-

Steve,

As part of a public awareness campaign, I plan on sharing some MN Department of Public Safety data on deer vehicle collisions. In an effort to make sure the data is presented accurately, I am giving you a chance to explain why the MN DNR does not accept the trends and data represented in the reports as accurate, or of value.

In 2006 the Department of Public Safety recorded 78,745 crashes, and 4,138 were deer related.

In 2013 the Department of Public Safety recorded 77,707 crashes, and 2,096 were deer related.

So from 2006 to 2013 the total recorded crash rate is down 1%, but deer vehicle collisions are down 51%.

Deer vehicle collisions are a primary herd monitoring tool in at least one state, and my interpretation is the herd is down close to 50% on the heels of a 9% scheduled reduction.

I am aware that not all crashes are reported for either set, but have email confirmation that the data has been collected in the same manner for the years referenced.

My print deadline is Tuesday, and if you can provide legitimate reasons the data should not be presented I can revise the content. If you can not provide legitimate reasons the data should not be used, I will be sharing it in print, and continuing to use the data as part of a push for an audit of the MN DNR deer model, and herd monitoring techniques.

Thank you for your time,

Brooks Johnson

MNBowhunters Inc

[creepworm]

WHERE DOES THE 50% COME FROM? I do not see how you can state that number as a fact, and have nothing to back that up. And no, a 41% decline in REPORTED car deer collisions does nothing to convince me the deer population is down over 50%. I sure hope for your sake you have better proof than that, otherwise anyone with anyone with any skepticism, will be turned away from the mddi initiative.

[delcecchi]

Ok, are we really talking about sustaining a higher deer population or wanting hunters to harvest more?

We can not sustain 250,000 + deer harvested annually while maintaining a socially exceptable population in minnesota. You guys are talking about allowing harvests that got us where we are today. Makes no sense.

If you guys want something other than sustaining a healthy exceptable population, then you lost me.

That was the point of my comment. The harvest is limited by the carrying capacity of the habitat and the deer population that is acceptable to the people of the area. Hunters and Farmers and Insurance companies all have different opinions about the proper population level.

[DaveT]

Hunters and Farmers and Insurance companies all have different opinions about the proper population level.

True, hunters want enough deer around so that they see a few and have the opportunity to shoot one. Farmers and insurance companies want zero deer.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/10/dirty-politics-deer-management

[Farmsfulltime]

This is what explains the removal of fence rows, clearing groves and draining remove the cover and you remove the deer consuming your crops and produce more product pretty simple really . The DNR is responsible for deer damage on crop fields as they have control of the population thru harvest limits. You want to see cover disappear in farm country raise the deer population to unacceptable levels the farmers will doze all the cover to get rid of the deer its already happening don't speed it up

[Farmsfulltime]

Get asked all the time to hunt , everyone wants the milk no one wants to buy the cow . Their happy to let you buy it grow crops pay taxes but we want to play here for free

[DaveT]

This is what explains the removal of fence rows, clearing groves and draining remove the cover and you remove the deer consuming your crops and produce more product pretty simple really . The DNR is responsible for deer damage on crop fields as they have control of the population thru harvest limits. You want to see cover disappear in farm country raise the deer population to unacceptable levels the farmers will doze all the cover to get rid of the deer its already happening don't speed it up

Are you threatening us? Most of you are clearing cover non stop, like a few more deer is going to speed that process up?

I wasn't aware that the entire country was void of all wildlife when you started farming. It must have been a huge shock to you to see that first deer or raccoon. Did you run for the hills thinking Martians were attacking Earth?

If you don't like losing some crops to wildlife, build yourself a greenhouse or shut up, it's part of the business you chose and your buddies all deal with the same losses, therefore it's reflected equally in the market. Remove all the deer and everybody's yields go up, not just yours. What happens when yields go up? Prices go down. A half inch of rain at the right time will have more impact on your yields and profits than deer ever could.