Audit Push: Time To Act!

[laker1]

The northern half of the state could carry many more deer,barring hard winters,which will always come and go.

[smsmith]

They are asking for people to be on the advisory board to talk about different zone area management. Get involved,it would do more than discussing it here. I acquired about it,will see.

I agree...get involved. Our local MDHA board members plan to do just that...we hope others who realize the need for meaningful, long term change do the same.

[smsmith]

The northern half of the state could carry many more deer,barring hard winters,which will always come and go.

I'd go further and say the northern 2/3 of the state could carry many more deer

[SmellEsox]

I'd go further and say the northern 2/3 of the state could carry many more deer

Not sure about the NE. Winters will always be the great equalizer up there. Also when deer are high up there I don't think it is good for moose. I'm thinking when deer are high up there, wolves increase and put more predation pressure on moose also. Also there is the brainworm thing. If there is anyplace in MN to manage for low density it is there (IMVHO). I think it is important for the moose, if we want them around in 50 years.

[btheturkey]

They are asking for people to be on the advisory board to talk about different zone area management. Get involved,it would do more than discussing it here. I acquired about it,will see.

I have money that says the DNR already knows + or Minus 20% what the deer goals will be across the state. Take the combined forested and grassland percentages of your hunting zone and multiply it by 21 for central MN and 18 for northern areas. For SE MN the number was 25. (biologists were using 20 Brainerdish and 15 Duluthish). If we are lucky they stay with he 25 dpsm of deer habitat, which is the accepted line in the sand for social issues with deer densities to raise their head. We manage deer socially now and 25 is THE MAGIC NUMBER.

Every zone in SE MN had goals that fell into the formula grassland plus forested % times 25 dpsm pre fawn. The one zone that the stakeholders voted for an increase outside the math had the supermajority recommendation lowered by the DNR to fit the math.

The stakeholder process is a smokescreen in my opinion, but I did sign up to be a part of the process.

[laker1]

20 from Brainerd as you mention,if it is post fawn,than that would be almost no change.

I think it could be higher and it has been even in the recent past. If you could get 25% higher(from the existing goal,not below where we are now) around Brainerd and maybe 35% plus up around Longville etc. That may be acceptable.

Biggest thing for me is fine tuning Population modeling and also use other factors to estimate populations.

Also if the population exceeds the goal,so be it for a while,a little surplus won't hurt nothing for a while.

Lets determine biological long term carrying capacity first. Than social acceptance carrying capacity we can determine later.

Some of the extreme northeast will control its own population with the extreme winters and yes maybe a few zones you manage for lower populations next to the BWCA.

[smsmith]

Lets determine biological long term carrying capacity first. Than social acceptance carrying capacity we can determine later.

LOL...

for the record I agree with you...BUT...good luck. I went round and round (and round) with Grund on BCC. All I can say is if you get our DNR to even discuss BCC in relation to our deer herd and how its managed...I'll be impressed.

[smsmith]

Using the formula above ^^^...unit 215 is going to get managed right around 9-13 dpsm pre-fawn...pretty much where it is right now (10)

That is UNLESS the stakeholder team for this area demands a higher number. Of course, as we saw in SE MN even when the team does so all the DNR does is override the team's recommendation

[SmellEsox]

Using the formula above ^^^...unit 215 is going to get managed right around 9-13 dpsm pre-fawn...pretty much where it is right now (10)

That is UNLESS the stakeholder team for this area demands a higher number. Of course, as we saw in SE MN even when the team does so all the DNR does is override the team's recommendation

And I'm sure they will always shoot for the low end of the range. 13 dpsm is a heck of a lot better than 9. That's, what, 40+% more deer than 9.

[smsmith]

And I'm sure they will always shoot for the low end of the range. 13 dpsm is a heck of a lot better than 9. That's, what, 40+% more deer than 9.

Since the current goal is 10 dpsm and 215 has been under that goal since the last stakeholder process...AND 215 remained Managed...its pretty clear that the area manager will do whatever he can to keep this unit below goal. As pathetic as 15 dpsm sounds..it would be greater than a 50% increase over existing levels.

[Bureaucrat]

Using the formula above ^^^...unit 215 is going to get managed right around 9-13 dpsm pre-fawn...pretty much where it is right now (10)

That is UNLESS the stakeholder team for this area demands a higher number. Of course, as we saw in SE MN even when the team does so all the DNR does is override the team's recommendation

Bingo. Audit.

[laker1]

The advisory groups meet in less than 5 months,let see if the process works. Even if you get a audit your talking probably a year or so,in the meantime let the advisory group work and get active in that.

Let the system work.

[Bureaucrat]

I agree. I wish I lived within 300 miles of my zone. I'd be on that thing in a heartbeat if they'd have me. Don't know how they'd take to having a cattleman from South Dakota on the panel.

[smsmith]

The advisory groups meet in less than 5 months,let see if the process works. Even if you get a audit your talking probably a year or so,in the meantime let the advisory group work and get active in that.

Let the system work.

The audit is certainly not a short term solution...and it has never been portrayed as being such. With any luck, it will have a long term impact however.

Yes..get active in the stakeholder teams. I hope that I'm selected as a team member. The only problem is..the outcomes are "fixed". That shouldn't prevent us from being involved, but it may be enlightening for folks.

[laker1]

They are also having the advisory meetings in the areas effected,so many of the people will not have to drive far,also I believe they will have two public meetings per group of zone areas considered at once,than the committee meets also.

advisory

[smsmith]

They are also having the advisory meetings in the areas effected,so many of the people will not have to drive far,also I believe they will have two public meetings per group of zone areas considered at once,than the committee meets also.

True...if you live in the area you hunt. I do, but who knows where the meetings will be held. If I get on the team for Area 3 and they hold the meetings in the far northeastern part of that area it would be over an hour drive for me. For somebody who lives in the Metro, but wants to be involved it could be a pretty good drive. Even given that possible obstacle...I'm hopeful it doesn't prevent people from getting involved.

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe you can Skype.

[SmellEsox]

Bought the latest Bowhunter Magazine to put next to the toilet for reading material. Didn't know it when I bought it, but it has the state by state deer hunting forecast in it. Guess how many deer are in MN this year! 1,000,000! Amazing! I wonder where they get their estimates from.

[B. Amish]

probably from last year's article.

[smsmith]

Bought the latest Bowhunter Magazine to put next to the toilet for reading material. Didn't know it when I bought it, but it has the state by state deer hunting forecast in it. Guess how many deer are in MN this year! 1,000,000! Amazing! I wonder where they get their estimates from.

Leslie McInenly

[btheturkey]

Bought the latest Bowhunter Magazine to put next to the toilet for reading material. Didn't know it when I bought it, but it has the state by state deer hunting forecast in it. Guess how many deer are in MN this year! 1,000,000! Amazing! I wonder where they get their estimates from.

We have had between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000 million deer since 2000. But the kill will be off 50% from the 2003 peak this year because...

And deer vehicle collisions will be off over 50%.

And Floyd, Fulltime and others here think we should lift the rug and sweep.

[laker1]

Them deer reports that have national reports forecasts for multi-states are so generic and numbers are usually off in many states.

[PurpleFloyd]

And Floyd, Fulltime and others here think we should lift the rug and sweep.

Is this where the violin music kicks in?

Let me fill you in on something- The harvest in the corn belt will most likely be down a lot from last year and I know in my area I expect it to be down significantly from last year because there is going to be a huge amount of corn left in the fields for them to hang out in.

Of course I won't be on here crying about it and asking for others to change the way they hunt so I have a better chance next year. But you can bet that the MDDI will be using the lower harvest numbers in the corn belt as supposed proof that the DNR screwed hunters over again and hoping enough others buy into it to push whatever agenda they decide to be pushing at the time.

[creepworm]

Is this where the violin music kicks in?

Let me fill you in on something- The harvest in the corn belt will most likely be down a lot from last year and I know in my area I expect it to be down significantly from last year because there is going to be a huge amount of corn left in the fields for them to hang out in.

Of course I won't be on here crying about it and asking for others to change the way they hunt so I have a better chance next year. But you can bet that the MDDI will be using the lower harvest numbers in the corn belt as supposed proof that the DNR screwed hunters over again and hoping enough others buy into it to push whatever agenda they decide to be pushing at the time.

BOOM!!!!!

[Jameson]

Without data, it's all just rumors. Worthless talk.

How many acres of corn were standing last year on opener? this year? normal year? Not percent, acres. Is it up 51%?

How many acres of fields never got planted this year? last year? Is it up 40%?

Bring the data.