Audit Push: Time To Act!

[hockeybc69]

Lets ensure long term change in management. Not just a blip on the radar because they feel the heat today and lowered permits due to a greatly increased public pressure this year.

Do you think that slashing permits this year will fix things in the long term?

You ask a lot of questions, but what do you think the answers are to all those questions you asked. I am curious.

Why do you think the audit would be a problem? When was the last time the DNR was audited? Would an audit expose areas that could improve the way the DNR works today? If the DNR audit found errors in their ways, would it lead to an improved DNR which could result in more revenue for the DNR?

I have just as many questions as you do.

Status quo is not the answer any longer.

Change is never easy. The time for change is now.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

As long as we are talking about reducing the does shot, I think it would be proper for the bow hunter groups to propose that they too are included in the lottery rather than getting to shoot whatever sex they choose.

We are not lottery. We are hunters choice where I live and where we hunt in Ottertail County.

Dont worry, I already have told everyone that hunts our land, zero antlerless deer this year except my daughter who is hunting her first year at 12 years old.

We are well aware of the problems and willing to step up to help out. You are preaching to the choir here.

[Bureaucrat]

Purple Floyd, I'll bite:

What exactly happens with an audit like this?

First, questions get answered. For example: Why would you move forward with a goal setting process assuming 25 DPSM when you just did a survey that only showed you had 8? Why would you set a reduction goal based on 25 when you only have 8? Second, methods could be reviewed. Wisconsin partners with schools, citizens, conservation groups and land owners to gather data and camera observations. Our DNR for the most part does not, at least not to the extent Wisconsin does. Third, data on collisions, crop damage, forestry impact could be unbiasedly analyzed.

Who does it?

The legislative auditor. It's about the only thing they do. They audit government programs and agencies. To learn more about the Legislative Auditor, please visit http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/mission.htm

how is it done?

That's a great question for the Legislative Auditor. I wouldn't get too bogged down in the "Inside Baseball" of it. They tackle lots of issues that span the entire spectrum of government operations. You can visit this site within the Auditor site that discusses programs and agency evaluation: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/resmeth.htm

How do they know when they do or don't find a problem?

Harvest records and discarded population data can be compared against prior years data to analyze herd impact vs regulation changes as well as other stimuli that have impacted the population and harvest levels.

What are you specifically looking for?

Answers to questions that don't add up. How can we keep up such liberal harvest limits when there aren't deer there? Some stability in population. We all realize there will be ups and downs, but wild swings in population need to be moderated with faster action on hunting regulations, tag allotments, and goal setting.

If you find it, then what happens?

That's a question for the governor and the legislature and the commissioner of the DNR. They are the stewards and oversight of these resources. They need to deal with it. If they don't, then the voters need to.

What happens if you don't find what you think you are going to find?

Then apparently all is good and this shall be the new normal. I'll be canning deer tags instead of venison.

Who is the person directly in charge of the procedures?

The Legislative Auditor would make those decisions and appoint a person or team to conduct the audit. http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/resmeth.htm

Is there a disciplinary process that can be triggered in said DNR official is found negligent or incompetent?

The DNR Commissioner is appointed by the governor. How would we deal with any other department head that may not be performing to expectation? Is that reason enough to not investigate why the deer herd is disappearing?

Secondly-

How does our system differ from that of other states?

This is a terrific question that could be asked an answered by the legislative auditor.

Is there a model currently being used somewhere by someone that is superior to the model being used here?

Another terrific question that could be answered by the Legislative Auditor. I hope that they would talk with wildlife managers from Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois to find out how they manage their herds, conduct surveys, set goals, and manage party hunting, cross tagging, hunting or not hunting the rut etc.

What will the audit cost?

Immaterial. The Office of the Legislative Auditor exists for the exact purpose of government program evaluation. They are the watchdog and partner of the people and legislature. Minnesota spends around fifty to sixty billion dollars a year. If they were not evaluating the management of the state deer herd management, they would be evaluating something else? Is this important right now? Here's the last few audits they completed:

I am certain the council on Asian-Pacific Americans, noise barriers, prison healthcare , and road materials are very important. But the state deer herd should be at least on an equal footing with these issues.

Who is analyzing the audit and what credentials do they have?

The audits are presented to the Legislative Audit Commission, the legislature, governor, and public. You don't need credentials to analyze the audit. The job of the Auditor is to make it understandable to decision makers that are charged with broad government management like the governor and legislture.

How will the findings of the audit be distributed to the public and who is in charge of drafting it? What makes them qualified?

The results of all audits are available to the public in PDF format on the site of the Legislative Auditor. You can find all past audits at: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/stud-sub.htm Also, the Auditor usually holds a press conference or issues a press release announcing the findings of the audit along with a summary evaluation. Members of the Legislative Audit Commission are also briefed on the findings of the audit. As to drafting and what makes them qualified, again, this is the only job of the Legislative Auditor. I often wonder how they can do such a great job with such a broad range of topics, but they do, and they have a long history of being very good at their jobs.

[PurpleFloyd]

Thank you sir.

I will start off by saying that I do agree that the DNR should be using the best possible methods for collecting and using data on the deer populations. However, I am not convinced this is the best method to use to get quick results. Basically they just give a short, broad overview and present them, it is then up to the legislature to take that short evaluation and do something with it.

As a bureaucrat you probably know that to get anything done, the earliest you could hope for is the 2015 audit to get results if you are lucky enough to get selected and then you need to get that to the legislators, to the DNR committee etc. Probably looking at the 2017 season at the earliest.

Hunters are looking for quicker results than that and I think it is important to explain the process, the results of similar audits, and what expectations can be. This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

I am not sure that links are appropriate to use on this forum but this is a link to a recent full report.

Audit

[smsmith]

This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

If you discover a way to get significant numbers of deer hunters off the couch, out of their boats, or out of the fish houses and get involved....I'm all ears.

Grass roots effort...that's exactly what MDDI is. We've met with the DNR, we've made recommendations, we've gotten a number of folks to get involved.

A massive grass roots effort (like 50K deer hunters) could possibly lead to what you suggest. The MDDI is open to all...no membership fee...want to know what's going on, make sure to email Brooks at [email protected] so you can get on the email list. Information is sent out frequently (unlike the large, state based, paid membership - deer hunter group I belong to ). MDDI is always looking for folks who want to get involved and contribute to the effort.

As for quicker results...do you think the results we've seen so far would have happened without the MDDI pushing MDHA and the DNR?

[hockeybc69]

If more mismanagement examples help anyone on the fence, here is another real world one.

Permit area 240

2007 stakeholders meeting the DNR estimated the deer herd at 19 dpsm and to stabilize the population at that level.

Fast forward to 2013 and the deer population estimate was 18 dpsm.

Nice job DNR. You stabilized just like you said you would....

But wait, theres more.

Deer harvest has dropped over 40% since 2007.... Can anyone explain how you can shoot 40+% less deer and the population stays stable?

The fact is that if we are shooting 40+% less deer annually, our population should be going through the roof right now.

So what does it mean?

A) The DNR has no clue how many deer we have

Cougars are eating up that other 40% of deer annually that helps keep the population stabililzed

[BLACKJACK]

Good post Bureaucrat!!!

The cost really isn't zero, it means that the state auditors will need to find the time to audit the DNR and not audit something else.

My one big concern is that it would be done by non-biologists. Would they be qualified to analyze management processes related to deer and deer biology? Where are the new ideas and management practices going to come from? From my reading in Deer and Deer hunting magazine and elsewhere, I seem to remember that Wisconsin and Pennsylvania brought in biologists with deer management backgrounds to upgrade their deer programs.

[smsmith]

My strong preference would be to bring in outside experts in deer management. Whether OLA would bring some of those folks in or not...I have no idea.

[Farmsfulltime]

When this is all said and done current DNR staff will have the needed skills and training to run deer management . Even with an audit process the biologists on staff will be more than qualified , maybe a few minor adjustment to grease the squeaky wheels everyone has their day and on too the future management maybe even raise goals a little , but never double what they are now , will not happen . It still all comes down to habitat on the land . Im in area 225 here have never seen only 7 deer per square mile, see that many in one evening sit on a forty acre field no wonder know one else sees any deer they are all here . Not kidding either but also know that a few miles away they can be thinner, Its all about the food and cover

[DaveT]

Thank you sir.

I will start off by saying that I do agree that the DNR should be using the best possible methods for collecting and using data on the deer populations. However, I am not convinced this is the best method to use to get quick results. Basically they just give a short, broad overview and present them, it is then up to the legislature to take that short evaluation and do something with it.

As a bureaucrat you probably know that to get anything done, the earliest you could hope for is the 2015 audit to get results if you are lucky enough to get selected and then you need to get that to the legislators, to the DNR committee etc. Probably looking at the 2017 season at the earliest.

Hunters are looking for quicker results than that and I think it is important to explain the process, the results of similar audits, and what expectations can be. This is the reason I bring it up as I believe grass roots efforts with the DNR would be quicker and give better results.

I am not sure that links are appropriate to use on this forum but this is a link to a recent full report.

Audit

Quicker results have already been achieved, doe tags have been slashed.

The purpose of the audit is to make sure it doesn't happen again. They need a better model and/or need to use their available resources more efficiently. I frequently get questionnaires from Kansas and other states I've hunted asking a dozen or so questions about where and how long I hunted, what I saw, what I shot, etc. Was I satisfied with what I saw, shot, etc. I've never gotten something like that in MN. Simple, relatively inexpensive, but potentially a boatload of data available simply by asking the customer a few questions.

[Farmsfulltime]

So if the DNR asked everyones opinion a little more often then some would be happier? Minnesota is never going to be Kansas or any other large deer herd state that can be brought up . You can write off the arrowhead because to many limiting factor high quality feed, wolves, and weather ect good hunting but limited on stable population growth over the long haul, Heavy black earth farm ground not enough escape cover ,food unless a corn field is left standing ect , So the audit will mostly be about the transition area , audit will find that the population goals could rise some but not much , Those will be adjusted maybe 15 percent or so . two years of limited harvest and right back to multiple tags about 2019 or so after the audit , the people that wont shoot does wont and the one that do will same old same old

Remmember know one was shooting five deer anyhow , its been said less than doz in the state yearly filled all five

[hockeybc69]

The DNR could implement a very simple questionaire when you are purchasing your deer license.

They already do it for ducks, geese, rails, snipe, etc....

Why cant they ask questions about deer as well?

Simple questions that all go back to a central repository and can easily be extracted from databases and put together a report with little effort.

I have sent several emails to key people in the deer management structure requesting this and have not even received a reply back from any of them.

This is part of an email I sent to Tom Landwehr:

In a January 10, 2014 interview with Paul Telander, he is quoted as saying, “As I mentioned earlier, our aim is satisfied hunters, good hunting and minimal unwanted consequences for wildlife habitat, people, and deer themselves. That’s the target. We are committed to working with hunters and others to hit it.”

How is the hunter satisfaction going to be addressed? There has not been a deer hunter survey completed by the DNR since 2005. How can the DNR gauge the satisfaction of deer hunters when there is no single repository for that information to be gathered and analyzed? The only way that people can voice their satisfaction level today is to reach out to any number of different people in the DNR and voice their concern. There is no way for the DNR to know the scope of concerns if there is no single person or group collecting and managing that information from hunters statewide.

[DaveT]

So if the DNR asked everyones opinion a little more often then some would be happier? Minnesota is never going to be Kansas or any other large deer herd state that can be brought up . You can write off the arrowhead because to many limiting factor high quality feed, wolves, and weather ect good hunting but limited on stable population growth over the long haul, Heavy black earth farm ground not enough escape cover ,food unless a corn field is left standing ect , So the audit will mostly be about the transition area , audit will find that the population goals could rise some but not much , Those will be adjusted maybe 15 percent or so . two years of limited harvest and right back to multiple tags about 2019 or so after the audit , the people that wont shoot does wont and the one that do will same old same old

Did you read my post? They ask questions about what I shot and saw as well as my "opinion". That data could give a DNR a very real assessment of how many deer are in a unit when that data is collected from every hunter in the unit. Why don't you find a big ag forum where you can chat with like minded individuals about the benefits of draining wetlands, mowing ditches, and clearing every inch of the landscape of everything that doesn't benefit crops or cows?

[icehole10]

The problem with hunters opinions is that they vary. One guys hunts sun up to sun down the entire season and sees five deer, that may very well be a successful hunt in his mind, and be a horrible season to another. Not very reliable information to go off of. Its a matter of opinion.

[DaveT]

The problem with hunters opinions is that they vary. One guys hunts sun up to sun down the entire season and sees five deer, that may very well be a successful hunt in his mind, and be a horrible season to another. Not very reliable information to go off of. Its a matter of opinion.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If you only use one year of data it's worthless. Several years of data is very useful when compared to the other years. For example, they may find that for 3 years in a row, hunters in zone 666 saw an average of 1.2 deer per day hunted, shot 1 deer for every 3.4 days hunting, and had an average satisfaction level of 7 out of 10. Then when they do the survey the next year, those numbers are .7 deer seen per day hunting, 6.8 days hunted per deer shot, and satisfaction at 4 out of 10. You're polling the same hunters in the same zones with the same hunting styles from year to year. Yet you just realized as soon as you get the data that you have a problem in zone 666, and can make immediate corrections to the next harvest.

[flipper]

Did you read my post? They ask questions about what I shot and saw as well as my "opinion". That data could give a DNR a very real assessment of how many deer are in a unit when that data is collected from every hunter in the unit. Why don't you find a big ag forum where you can chat with like minded individuals about the benefits of draining wetlands, mowing ditches, and clearing every inch of the landscape of everything that doesn't benefit crops or cows?

Well you could always buy up some land here in southern MN and then you could manage it exclusively for deer. I'd be anxious to see how it would work out for you.

[Jaspernuts]

My buddy has an 80 acre oasis he manages for deer in the middle of this black prairie down here. We usually have about 20 different deer on the cameras every year. I would say it works pretty good.

[flipper]

About 15 percent of my land is wooded and I get a lot of deer too but it comes at a price. Taxes are terrible whether the land generates income or not. Just to clarify, what I meant is how will it work out for you financially.

[Farmsfulltime]

Already do the big ag forums , don't drain any wetlands, or collect any of publics money but I do have a vested interest in deer and deer hunting have hunted whitetails every year since 1970 or so in fact I would wager probably longer than most here , I have fed my share yearly to the tune of several thousand dollars easily . To keep this on topic I don't believe this audit will do any thing positive just more red tape generated to keep a special interest group appeased , Deer hunters cannot dismiss farming as an impact from higher populations

[hockeybc69]

Current system does not work.

As has been shown with the permit area 225 numbers the DNR has played with.

Right in your backyard.

[smsmith]

Deer hunters cannot dismiss farming as an impact from higher populations

That's true...and we have no intention of doing so.

I'd offer a flip side to that as well...farmers cannot dismiss deer hunters experiencing a poor quality hunt because they think any deer is too many deer (not saying you're one of them Farmsfulltime...but I'm sure you know some of them).

I'd say you may be wrong on the fact that the herd will never double in size...at least in some units. Unit 221 should indeed experience a 100% increase. There's no reason 15.4 dpsm (what it would be with a 100% increase) should be "too many" deer in the transition zone.

[smsmith]

Remmember know one was shooting five deer anyhow , its been said less than doz in the state yearly filled all five

I'd have to see who "said" that before I'd consider it anywhere near factual.

While a small percentage of hunters filled all five of their tags, Intensive harvest allowed hunters to continue to fill tags for their friends, relatives, neighbors, wives, kids, etc. when normally they would have been done hunting much sooner.

Whether a hunter shoots 5 deer and tags them all himself, or he shoots 5 deer , tags one and has others tag the other 4...he still shot 5 deer. Intensive harvest serves one purpose...to make hunters think deer are problematic and they need to be removed from the landscape.

Unit 221 was going to be Intensive again this year...even though the aerial survey showed 7.2 dpsm. Our area manager didn't care...he wanted to continue to whack the carp out of the herd. He also wanted early antlerless...so that would be what? 7 deer per hunter? In a unit with 7.2 dpsm and hunter densities right around 11 psm as I recall.

Something's broken...it needs to be fixed...we've tried fixing it through "appropriate channels". Time for an audit to show exactly what the heck is going on with the model, the data inputs, how the data is manipulated after the fact, why some area managers will keep a unit that's below goal in Managed and other area managers will make such a unit lottery or hunter choice, and to explore additional data input sources.

[mntatonka]

I'd have to see who "said" that before I'd consider it anywhere near factual.

your best buddy Lou said it a few years ago.

[BLACKJACK]

If you only use one year of data it's worthless. Several years of data is very useful when compared to the other years. For example, they may find that for 3 years in a row, hunters in zone 666 saw an average of 1.2 deer per day hunted, shot 1 deer for every 3.4 days hunting, and had an average satisfaction level of 7 out of 10. Then when they do the survey the next year, those numbers are .7 deer seen per day hunting, 6.8 days hunted per deer shot, and satisfaction at 4 out of 10. You're polling the same hunters in the same zones with the same hunting styles from year to year. Yet you just realized as soon as you get the data that you have a problem in zone 666, and can make immediate corrections to the next harvest.

Not sure I agree with a survey if it gets too detailed AND a year after the fact, when you buy your license. Who remembers how many ducks you shot last year? I probably remember how many deer I shot but if you ask me, a year later, how many deer a day I saw during 10 days of hunting.... Garbage into the survey, garbage out.

[SmellEsox]

I don't think the audit is going to tell us where the population goals should be. What I hope it shows is how accurate their models are. Where population goals should be will be determined by the stakeholder process. But if their population modeling is horsemanure, then population goals are irrelevant. What good are goals if you have no idea where the population is at.

I also am very leery about why we have such conservative seasons this year. I think someone on top told area managers that we are going to have conservative seasons. I'm not convinced that area managers wanted this. In fact, I think many area managers wanted to continue the status quo and keep hammering antlerless deer. So those of you that think that DNR managers are doing the right thing this year in reaction to the condition of the deer herd are wrong. They are doing this because someone on top told them to back off. They are doing this because MDDI and MDHA got on their back. DNR wildlife are about the only people who think there are a lot of deer (well, them and mntatonka, PurpleFloyd, and farmsfulltime). I honestly don't know any hunter in my area that thinks there are a lot of deer around. And I know a lot of deer hunters.