Audit Push: Time To Act!

[SmellEsox]

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

what do you mean by this? Wouldn't hunters help you save money by shooting deer that eat your crops?

[mntatonka]

A half inch of rain at the right time will have more impact on your yields and profits than deer ever could.

Really? Go back and look at the picture I posted of one of our corn fields. I can promise you that a half inch of rain at the right/wrong time wouldn't do anywhere near that much damage. Heck, even hail doesn't do that much damage.

[Farmsfulltime]

It is a factor remove the cover removes the deer think about it alittle, As far as higher crop production lowering prices lower prices just makes the deer feeding a higher percentage of the profit in fact its possible on some acres to be the only profit on low margin years and it was removed by deer or raccoons as some say

[Farmsfulltime]

The reason DNR sits down with farm stakeholders is because of case law do some research. Read carefully,,.,, The DNR is responsible for deer populations because they control harvest levels there as such they are required to take into account deer damage and control populations and work on solving those problems

[delcecchi]

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.

And if my aunt.....

Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

[Jameson]

...Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

Not to answer for the turkey, but yes and also more natural mortality. Without hunting the bucks would have less of an average life span (fighting to the death, wondering around during the rut getting hit by cars, going into winter rutted out....) than do the does. Sure the does have their own challenges, but on average they live longer. With a shorter life, and being born close to 50/50 there ends up being more does than bucks. Is it 2.5:1, or 2:1, or 3:1, not so sure.

[laker1]

The DNR works with farmers because they hope by having a reasonable deer harvest farmers and hunters will both realize a happy medium. Most farmers appreciate wildlife also.

Yes there is DNR Wildlife depredation specialist around the state whose main job is to work with farmers and to decrease crop predation,while at the same time maintain a healthy deer herd.

[btheturkey]

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.

You seem a little slower than most I deal with.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 51%. That is where I get the number from.

41% is the harvest decline.

Then we had a really bad winter that took the herd back further.

We are well past a 50% reduction of the herd.

[btheturkey]

Where does the 2.5 to one doe to buck ratio come from? Just wondering. Is it due to harvest?

2.5 is not exact, but a reasoned estimate based in science.

the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[btheturkey]

The DNR works with farmers because they hope by having a reasonable deer harvest farmers and hunters will both realize a happy medium. Most farmers appreciate wildlife also.

Yes there is DNR Wildlife depredation specialist around the state whose main job is to work with farmers and to decrease crop predation,while at the same time maintain a healthy deer herd.

They now have 2 guys in SE MN working on crop depredation issues. Clint was hoping to keep the SE zones out of intensive harvest, but something must have changed and they went back to 5 antler less this year.

Also saw a letter in the ODN on depredation tags by Alexandria. I personally would rather see a legitimate system addressing complaints at the hot spots to solve local issues vs the wide brush of managed or intensive or even hunters choice designations.

[creepworm]

You seem a little slower than most I deal with.

Deer vehicle collisions are down 51%. That is where I get the number from.

41% is the harvest decline.

Then we had a really bad winter that took the herd back further.

We are well past a 50% reduction of the herd.

I must be really slow because I don't understand why the mddi is pushing for more expensive and time consuming management tools (flyovers, hunter surveys, etc) when the leader of the mddi feels the number of car deer collisions tells the whole story?

You are basing your "more than 50% decline" statement solely on car deer collision numbers, correct?

[delcecchi]

2.5 is not exact, but a reasoned estimate based in science.

the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios http://www.qdma.com/articles/the-reality-of-doebuck-ratios

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[delcecchi]

Yeah, he was reinforcing my point and he was the first one to get douchey, if that is the word for it.

You have been saying how great Kansas is and I have no doubt it is, but you cannot look at Kansas and believe in any way that the DNR can do anything to make this state like that one is. First off the amount of private land they have (And in general much larger tracts of land per owner which allows them to have more of an impact on management makes it possible to have the hunting they do.

We do have more hunters and we have smaller tracts of land from property line to property line so you are going to have more variations in numbers and the DNR is not going to be able to micro manage the herd in the ways the MDDI wants to.

And on top of it we have winter that puts us on the northern edge of deer territory. Kansas does not have winter problems.

[btheturkey]

And on top of it we have winter that puts us on the northern edge of deer territory. Kansas does not have winter problems.

Take the 2.5 I used and change it to the 1.8 you read was average.

That means less does, and the model scenario get s worse.

If the math is too tough I can do it tomorrow.

[btheturkey]

We do have more hunters and we have smaller tracts of land from property line to property line so you are going to have more variations in numbers and the DNR is not going to be able to micro manage the herd in the ways the MDDI wants to.

Glad to hear you feel budgeting $270,000 for aerial counts we throw in the trash is a solid plan Floyd.

Cant be any better way to monitor the herd no way no how.

You are a Purple gem for sure.

Similar to a Hickey.

[laker1]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held. Not all.

Also Aerial flights with much accuracy are limited more to the farmland.

I would maybe call the flights more of a index or trend,just as their population modeling should be called. Each is a tool and sometimes either may be inaccurate.

[Jameson]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held...

Not sure if it was all of them or not, but know that a couple of them had ideal ground conditions and were thrown out.

[btheturkey]

What I understand instead of $270,000 worth of aerial counts disregarded, it was certain flights because of certain existing ground conditions when flight held.

So when Cornicelli says at the Brainerd listening session that conditions were perfect for the 'gold standard' zone 221 flight but the results are not back yet, and the next week at the Cambridge session he announces the results were thrown in the trash it was because of ground conditions.

Not likely.

9% reduction has the harvest down 41% while selling more tags and you guys don't want to explore a better way of doing things.

Some say insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results. That shoe is a good fit in this discussion.

[creepworm]

9% reduction has the harvest down 41% while selling more tags and you guys don't want to explore a better way of doing thing.

At least you quit saying the herd is down "more than 50%. It was just plain assinine for someone in your position to be using a baseless, made up number in hopes of scaring hunters into joining your fight.

[PurpleFloyd]

Glad to hear you feel budgeting $270,000 for aerial counts we throw in the trash is a solid plan Floyd.

[btheturkey]

At least you quit saying the herd is down "more than 50%. It was just plain assinine for someone in your position to be using a baseless, made up number in hopes of scaring hunters into joining your fight.

The herd is down more than 50%. If the DNR can say it is down 9% based upon a model, I can more certainly use state gathered data that shows it down 51%. Mine numbers are based upon fact. Their numbers use a flawed model. My numbers match decreases in the harvest, P&Y registrations, and sampled deer processors and taxidermists. Their numbers don't match any of the above.

Below is a graph for miles driven in MN. Miles driven are down 1% from 2006 - 2013. Total recorded collisions same years are down 1%. But deer vehicle collisions are down 51%.

What is asinine is to ignore the information that is right there in front of you in black and white. To date the only folks who have down that work for the DNR and some on this forum.

Leslie originally claimed the numbers were not collected the same as they were 10 years ago. So we asked the Dept of Public Safety. Her statement is false. The numbers are collected in the same manner. The data is solid.

I asked Merchant why we don't use the data.

So, here is what the Michigan DNR says about deer vehicle collisions: “Deer-vehicle collisions (DVC) are commonly used as an index to the deer population trend, the idea being that high rates of DVCs are correlated with high deer populations, and vice versa. Research has shown that there are other factors that influence the rate of DVCs. Habitat proximate to the roadway and highway characteristics can blur the relationship between deer population and DVCs. However, DVC data can provide useful information if contextualized as one part of a deer population assessment.

These data are provided by the Michigan State Police. Although changes may have occurred in law enforcement response and recording of DVCs over time, we assume they have remained consistent enough to provide an accurate estimate of DVC rates relative to vehicle miles driven.”

Michigan clearly values the data so long as the above mentioned factors do not influence the data. Merchant makes no mention of those factors influencing the MN data. Merchant in essence confirms the value of the data.

Below is from WI

Interest in alternative and supplemental tools for monitoring deer populations led us to assess the potential for deer-vehicle collision data to serve as a deer population index. In Wisconsin, there are several datasets related to deer-vehicle collisions, including reported vehicle crashes with deer (reports from law enforcement, data managed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation) and deer carcasses removed from roadways (data managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). These datasets were not designed to track deer populations, so the first step in this process is to simply understand the data: who collects the data, how is it collected, what influences data collection? An important feature of a population index is that it is collected the same way every year and every place. If data collection is not consistent, then we cannot be sure if changes in the numbers of deer-vehicle collisions are real or caused by changes in data collection procedures. For example, we found that sheriff departments vary tremendously in their policies for responding to deer-vehicle collisions and that some departments have changed their policies over time. This is an example of inconsistency in data collection that greatly complicates interpretation of deer-vehicle collision data. We also found inconsistency in the deer-carcass removal data. Most contractors are paid a flat fee on a monthly basis, however some contractors were occasionally paid per-deer instead. Large increases and decreases in the number of carcasses picked up by contractors coincided with changes in how contractors were paid (Figure 4). [color:#FF0000]Possibly due to inconsistent data collection, correlations between deer-vehicle collision data and deer population estimates and buck harvest are weak or non-existent. In addition, the number of carcasses collected (adjusted for traffic volume) was poorly correlated to the proportion of reported accidents caused by collision with deer in most counties. It may seem intuitive that year-to-year changes in deer-vehicle collisions will reflect changes in deer abundance, however inconsistencies in data collection reduce the value of this data for purposes of monitoring deer populations.”

MN has collected the data in the same manner for the period in question so everything in red is moot.

We do not collect/track deer carcasses so all in blue is moot.

The black font is what applies here in MN and WI seems to agree value exists there.

[PurpleFloyd]

A little background on Beau Liddell and the Little Falls Area office.

Case Study: Little Falls Area Wildlife

Quote:

Little Falls Area Wildlife Manager Beau Liddell has helped provide special hunting opportunities for thousands of people, including disabled veterans and youth. But budgets squeezed between increasing costs and declining revenues could put the future of some of those opportunities in jeopardy.

Already, Liddell's station has had to cut back on important wildlife management activities. He's had to eliminate nearly all habitat work on private lands and assistance to landowners.

Scent post surveys and other population assessment efforts have suffered. Outreach to area schools and sportsmen's clubs has been reduced 90 percent.

With inadequate resources to undertake new shallow lake and wetland surveys, opportunities for improving waterfowl habitat are being missed. Maintenance of access roads, trails and parking lots at WMAs has been pared to the bare minimum.

The capacity to work with local government to minimize wildlife impacts resulting from new developments has nearly disappeared.

"We've been able to maintain quality habitat and offer an excellent range and variety of hunting opportunities up to now," Liddell says. "But we've cut any and all fat from our plates and soon we'll have to start trimming muscle without a solution to the funding problem."

Quote:

The bottom line?

The quality and range of public hunting opportunities available in the Little Falls area will suffer without an increase in license fees.

Quote:

What We Do:

The Minnesota DNR's Little Falls wildlife area includes 1.6 million acres of public and private lands and waters in Benton, Morrison and Todd counties, providing excellent hunting and trapping opportunities for a wide array of species, including deer, turkey, pheasant, grouse, waterfowl, woodcock, doves and furbearers.

Manage habitat and facilities on 56 WMAs, cover- ing 20,000 acres, in Benton, Morrison & Todd Counties, and administer three Waterfowl Refuges, one State Duck Refuge, and one State Game Ref - uge.

Each year plan controlled grassland & woodland burns on over 2,000 acres, successfully complete burns on 500-1,000 acres on 10-15 WMAs, re- store or enhance an additional 800-1,200 acres of grassland at 20-30 sites on area-wide WMAs, and monitor and control noxious weeds on over 300 WMA acres.

Annually plan and administer over 200 acres of timber stand improvements on WMAs, and moni- tor and maintain 50 wetlands and shallow lakes covering 9,264 acres in Benton, Morrison and Todd Counties

In collaboration with conservation partners, pro- vided technical guidance and management on 6 wild rice lakes, covering 1,689 acres in Todd County.

Annually assess over 20 potential WMA land ac- quisitions.

Annually develop, maintain or improve over 200 user facilities (parking lots, gates, trails, etc.), maintain several miles of access road, conduct over 10 site cleanups, survey & main- tain up to 30 miles of boundary on area- wide WMAs, and maintain 130 miles of boundary on Camp Ripley Game Refuge.

Annually responded to over 40 major nuisance wildlife cases, including problem bears, and deer, turkey & crane crop depredations.

Coordinate and administer dove & goose banding activities, and deer, waterfowl, pheasant, grouse and predator surveys throughout work area.

Plan and administer Camp Ripley Archery Hunt, the largest event of its kind in the world, involving over 1,600 joint agency man hours annually.

Plan, administer or provide technical assistance for 10 additional annual special deer & turkey hunts, providing hunting recreation for about 100 dis- abled veterans, 200 deployed soldiers, and 150 youth.

[btheturkey]

Beau Liddel turned down a request from the Rice Sportsmens club to put a food plot for deer and other animals on a piece of state land.

That same piece was donated to the state by the Rice Club.

Don't start singing the blues for the guy who was going to put 221 and other area zones into intensive harvest with early antler less and potential earn a buck for 2014.

You will get zero sympathy from hunters in the zones he manages.

[PurpleFloyd]

Why did they donate it to the state? Wouldn't it stand to reason if they kept it in their own hands they could put the food plot in without asking permission?