Audit Push: Time To Act!

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Garbage into the survey, garbage out.

True. But there are questions that could be asked that dont input garbage, therefore its not garbage out as well.

The DNR did a survey in 2005. Heck, use the same questions as they did then.

None of the questions asked how many deer you saw the previous hunting season.

The questions simply asked about satisfaction type things.

Try it again and see how todays satisfaction survey stands up to the one that happened 10 years ago.

[mntatonka]

... 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.

I never said there are a lot of deer across the state, only in particular areas, and that you shouldn't lump the entire state into the same group. I don't think you'll find anyone (including floyd and farms) that say there's plenty of deer in every area of the state.

[SmellEsox]

I never said there are a lot of deer across the state, only in particular areas, and that you shouldn't lump the entire state into the same group. I don't think you'll find anyone (including floyd and farms) that say there's plenty of deer in every area of the state.

I know. Just giving you guys a little dig. Not trying to rile you up.

[smsmith]

your best buddy Lou said it a few years ago.

I believe it even less now

[BLACKJACK]

True. But there are questions that could be asked that dont input garbage, therefore its not garbage out as well.

The DNR did a survey in 2005. Heck, use the same questions as they did then.

None of the questions asked how many deer you saw the previous hunting season.

The questions simply asked about satisfaction type things.

Try it again and see how todays satisfaction survey stands up to the one that happened 10 years ago.

Satisfaction type questions would work, numbers type questions a year later don't. I shake my head every time they ask the waterfowl questions.

[BLACKJACK]

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.

I see a lot of deer around -- you should see what they've done to my 1.5 acre soybean food plot. I know, I know, small area, small sample size...

[SmellEsox]

Funny you should mention that BLACKJACK. Here's an interesting read about crop depredation in Indiana.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf

It says in there that soybeans will not lose yield with light to moderate deer depredation on the leaves of the plants. It also says in the report that raccoon depredation on corn is 8 times that of deer. They are especially bad where surrounding lands are wooded. Hmmmmmmm.

[LandDr]

Mine must be a small sample size also.

I spent several years sitting the the DNR Oversite Committee for pheasants. We had a great ground with great ideas. Every year we presented these ideas to the DNR as our recommendations to improve the pheasant population in MN. Out of all of the recommendations we made to the DNR, only one was implemented, and that one was to increase the bag limit later in the year which really doesn't do anything for the pheasant population anyway. It was so frustrating that most of the really good people on that committee left. So good luck changing the DNR and their agendas. Not saying you can't change the DNR, but I would recommend having a Plan B in the mean time.

[DaveT]

Not saying you can't change the DNR, but I would recommend having a Plan B in the mean time.

Amen, brother. My plan B is actually plan KS. I've also implemented plan IA, plan MO, plan WY, and plan IL in the past.

[ANYFISH2]

I think most of our problems started with lou c.

Now please understand, I am not going to bash Lou C. I feel he did a fantastic job of changing the managment focus of the DNR. I agreed with and still do in liberalizing limits (not more than managed unless EXTREME circumstances exsist) when our harvestable surplus allows. He expanded opportunities, and was very accommodating when spoken too.

The problem has risen from not reacting fast enough when signs of reduction began to be clear. He did not do enough to maintain the current model thus rendering it virtually useless. His philosophy was flawed because our deer populations are not as stable just about anywhere in the lower 48. We have more predators, unpredictable seasonal weather, and varied landscapes. To may variables to put ONE philosophy to work and stick with it, just because it seem so right early on.

I hope the audit, if it were to happen, would be the light that flips on and helps to change the depts. Current philosophy. As the status quo, isn't working for the hunting community.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

[smsmith]

Then we can get back to trying to push the big buck platform

Get the herd to where it should be, keep it there, and the "big buck platform" will take care of itself.

[PurpleFloyd]

If you believe that I have some land that I want to sell you in 225 that is over run with deer every single year....

[smsmith]

If you believe that I have some land that I want to sell you in 225 that is over run with deer every single year....

I have no doubt that hunters and groups like MWA will at some point push for rule changes for big bucks. All I'm saying is that there's an example right across the Mississippi/St. Croix. No APR's...yet they crank out huge numbers of big bucks (and little bucks, and does, and fawns) year after year. MN used to do that too (before most anyone had ever heard of APR's)

[PurpleFloyd]

It did? I guess I am not familiar with your area.I know the Ashland,Washburn,Bayfield,Iron county area pretty well and they always had big numbers but lots of forest land.

We used to have very low numbers. In the 70's it was something to talk about if we even saw a deer when out riding around with dad.Now when I drive around to different work sites it is rare to not see several deer in the morning and most are does with fawns. In Sconnie the numbers still seem to be good around our patch and where the mother in law lives but the population may have been dented by the wolves. The turkeys, however really took a hit this past winter up there.

Give it a few seasons with the lower doe tag allocation and the numbers will rebound,providing nature cooperates.

[hockeybc69]

How do you know the low antlerless allocations will go a few seasons?

The DNR has proven they do not know what the populations are today.

[Farmsfulltime]

Audit moves forward, they find a few things ok , who determines current populations in the area in question Im sure the auditors are not going to fly the areas . Sometime someone in the system is going to have to take information at face value weather that information is true or not . Everyone has enough credentials in the dept. along with enough of a paper trail. Since it has been said the auditor wont set densities the stakeholders will wont be much change long term . Deer pops will grow a little then right back to multiple tags . My guess as said back to normal about 2019 maybe the DNR staff will grow a lot to generate more paper to keep the wheels greased . More positions in saint paul to justify the extra management

[smsmith]

maybe the DNR staff will grow a lot to generate more paper to keep the wheels greased . More positions in saint paul to justify the extra management

Maybe take some of the staff dedicated to prairie restoration (and paid for with deer license revenue) and move them to actually managing deer.

WI has 5 full time staff equivalents dedicated to deer management, MN has two. Why a state wouldn't attempt to manage their big money making species to maximize revenue is beyond me. Since its obvious that our DNR depends on deer license revenue to support many non-deer management areas...why not get the most possible? MN has fewer non-resident licenses sold than all but 4-5 states I believe. Non-res licenses bring $$$ money into the state. Money that goes to restaurants, hotels, the state, bars/grills, firing ranges, sporting goods stores, etc. etc. etc. If hunting is good, then some of that non-res $$$ also starts to go to realtors, municipalities for property taxes, builders/contractors for homes/hunting "shacks", as well as the others already mentioned.

[smsmith]

How do you know the low antlerless allocations will go a few seasons?

Exactly. As has been pointed out previously, there is every reason to believe the only reason we have a "reprieve" this year is due to somebody who felt the pressure from MDDI, MDHA, and legislators to go very conservative. Who would feel such pressure? Not area or regional managers. That "somebody" had to be pretty high up in St. Paul.

If that "somebody" doesn't continue to feel pressure, or that "somebody" is no longer in the same position to impact season structure we'll be right back to area managers running the show (i.e. Intensive harvest and early antlerless in a unit with 7.2 dpsm per aerial survey).

An audit is designed to impact long term decision making in deer management. There is no reason to experience 40%+ (more like 55%-60% when you consider the likely 2014 harvest) percent peaks and valleys in total harvest in a decade.

[Jameson]

The 2012 hunting season regs were considered conservative by most (to rebuild the herd.)

The 2012-13 winter/spring was fairly harsh.

The 2013 hunting regs were loosened a bit from the prior year.

The 2013-2014 winter was a doozy.

The 2014 hunting season regs are considered conservative by most.

Why in the heck were the 2013 regs loosened one bit????!!!!!! Hunters complained prior to 2012 and got results. They went back to trusting the DNR and looked what happened in 2013. Now in 2014 the DNR is bragging about how many fewer managed/intensive areas there are this year. There shouldn't have been as many last year! Why did it happen? audit.

[Pzswenj]

On one hand, I have no issue with an audit. Good to re-evaluate what is working and what is not from time to time.

On the flip side, what if the results of the audit show they are doing a good job? Would that result be accepted?

I see lots of discussion about how deer numbers in some areas are much lower than 7+ years ago, and then focus only on numbers of deer taken or permits issued, and then wonder how the population didn't increase dramatically. The issue there is deer hunters alone are not the only issue that affects the population. Is it a big factor? Sure, but it is not the only one. I look back at the last few winters where I hunt, and its pretty easy for me to put two and two together on what happened to the deer population. Other areas may be different. And that factor is completely out of the control of the DNR.

Others have pointed out we are our own worst enemy sometimes and the DNR is in a no win situation. I tend to agree with that.

[PurpleFloyd]

How do you know the low antlerless allocations will go a few seasons?

The DNR has proven they do not know what the populations are today.

How do you know the audit will say what you want it to and even if it does, how do you know the report will lead to the population reaching a level you are happy with.

Do you honestly know of anything the government does that ends up being right?

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe take some of the staff dedicated to prairie restoration (and paid for with deer license revenue) and move them to actually managing deer.

WI has 5 full time staff equivalents dedicated to deer management, MN has two. Why a state wouldn't attempt to manage their big money making species to maximize revenue is beyond me. Since its obvious that our DNR depends on deer license revenue to support many non-deer management areas...why not get the most possible? MN has fewer non-resident licenses sold than all but 4-5 states I believe. Non-res licenses bring $$$ money into the state. Money that goes to restaurants, hotels, the state, bars/grills, firing ranges, sporting goods stores, etc. etc. etc. If hunting is good, then some of that non-res $$$ also starts to go to realtors, municipalities for property taxes, builders/contractors for homes/hunting "shacks", as well as the others already mentioned.

More non resident hunters also means more pressure and higher deer harvests.

[LandDr]

The govt and non-profits have had 20 to 30 years to get it right...how does it look?

IMO, the best thing that could happen is to form a non-profit land management organization that taps into the big dollars available...then make those dollars available to landowners to improve their carrying capacity on the land. We can use those dollars on public land as well. And then have sound management techniques that get results for game species as well as non-game species.

Again...the DNR had nothing to do with the number or deer (or pheasants or ducks) on my property and they will have nothing to do with them disappearing from my property...it is all up to me and mother nature.

[DaveT]

Here's a link to the Kansas deer report. Complete with data received from hunters.

http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/Services/Research-Publications/Wildlife-Research-Surveys/Deer

And they use data from deer vehicle collisions collected by KS law enforcemnent, not State Farm, to use for estimating the deer densities. Kansas bowhunters reported seeing 1.4 deer per HOUR.