Audit Push: Time To Act!

[smsmith]

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

The only way more non-res hunters will buy a license here is if our management improves as does our deer herd. With improved management and an improved deer herd an increase in pressure and higher harvest can be maintained. "Improved" doesn't mean that everybody gets to shoot as many deer as they need to "fill their freezers". It would mean a chance to see deer while hunting, and a chance to take a decent buck. I can't tell you how many non-residents I ran into while hunting in WI. Many from MN and many more from IL.

Every year WI states that they sell licenses to residents of all 50 states, several Canadian provinces and a handful of other foreign residents. They do that because the hunting opportunity is fantastic. How many folks from the metro buy land in NW WI rather than in northern MN? A lot. Part of that is due to the crappy road system here, part of that is due to a much better supper club/bar grill "culture" in NW WI and part of that is due to the fact deer hunting is better. I'd wager that none of it is due to better fishing in NW WI than in areas the same distance north, but west of the St. Croix.

[smsmith]

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?

I know you didn't address me with this question, but I'll throw my $.02 in anyway.

I don't know the audit will say "what I want it to". If you notice, the audit says nothing about increasing deer populations. It does say something is wrong with our model and the data inputs into that model. Let's find out what's going on...

The government already runs our DNR...and a great many of us aren't happy with how that's working out. So, either we get government to represent us (that's how it works, right?) and attempt to make changes for the better or just allow the government to continue to do things the way they are. Whichever route we choose...it's still a government run Department.

[smsmith]

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.

Do you honestly believe this statement would apply to every person who owns a 20, 40, 60, 80, 120....acre chunk of recreational hunting land?

[PEATMOSS]

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

Are you serious?

Over the last 20-30 years deer hunting in this state has improved drastically. There are more deer in more parts of the state than there ever were in the 70's or 80's.

The numbers got a little high a few years back and the DNR was taking flack from all sorts of special interest groups like the insurance industry, big ag, white pine growers and urbanites getting their hostas eaten. Did they overcompensate lately? I think so. Could they do a better overall job of managing? Sure. Are we on the brink of disaster with an out of control DNR? I sure don't think so.

As hunters, we can sometimes act like spoiled little babies when our interests, wants and opinions don't get met. I think we all have a right and even a duty to express ourselves, but some of what I've read has been over the top.

[LandDr]

smsmith...if you want to go out and plant thermal cover tomorrow, is the DNR going to say "no, you can't do that"? If you want to plant food for any of those species, is the DNR going to say "no, you can't do that"?

Something like 90% of the land in MN is privately owned. Do you really think the DNR has that much control over it? The people do.

IMO it is not the DNR, on private lands that is. Public lands...yes.

For example...we don't shoot hen pheasants right? So why is the pheasant population down since we haven't been shooting hen pheasants (does)? The pheasant population in MN should be going through the roof...but it's not. Why? IMO, it has everything to do with "properly" designed land to reduce winter mortality..."Dead hens don't lay eggs". Does the spring weather impact it...yes, of course...but if you have 50 to 75 hens that make it through the winter on 160 acre, spring weather affects the population a lot less than if you have 5 to 10 hens on 160 acres.

It sounds like not many people are shooting 5 does. Will reducing the doe harvest help recover the population, yes, but you better have your carrying capacity in place if you want to sustain or grow it.

Keep working on the DNR, but there should be another drum right next to you beating for better land management to increase the carrying capacity.

[smsmith]

Keep working on the DNR, but there should be another drum right next to you beating for better land management to increase the carrying capacity.

I beat that drum on another habitat management forum. FWIW...most areas of the transition zone I've seen need zero land management to increase CC. 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn is perfectly in line with the existing habitat. If anybody was talking about trying to carry 40+dpsm pre-fawn, then you'd have a point (anywhere outside of some areas of SE MN anyway). I'm not desiring more deer than the landscape hold, that would be foolish.

Edited to add this...I don't know anybody on a personal basis who ISN'T improving their recreational land via habitat projects. That's obviously far from a representative sample, but the guys I talk with/to about deer hunting are all habitat guys...pretty much how I got to know them.

[icehole10]

Are you serious?

Over the last 20-30 years deer hunting in this state has improved drastically. There are more deer in more parts of the state than there ever were in the 70's or 80's.

The numbers got a little high a few years back and the DNR was taking flack from all sorts of special interest groups like the insurance industry, big ag, white pine growers and urbanites getting their hostas eaten. Did they overcompensate lately? I think so. Could they do a better overall job of managing? Sure. Are we on the brink of disaster with an out of control DNR? I sure don't think so.

As hunters, we can sometimes act like spoiled little babies when our interests, wants and opinions don't get met. I think we all have a right and even a duty to express ourselves, but some of what I've read has been over the top.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

I would bet if they would have sold unlimited tags, some folks would have kept on buying.

absolutely. There are plenty of pigs out there and also a lot of people that have no clue.

So lets do a better job managing available tags so that we dont have to rely on every hunter to make the right decision. There are oodles of hunters that show up in camp every year and havent spent more than a couple days planning or thinking about it. They have no idea whats going on. They just buy tags and shoot.

[Jameson]

smsmith...if you want to go out and plant thermal cover tomorrow, is the DNR going to say "no, you can't do that"? If you want to plant food for any of those species, is the DNR going to say "no, you can't do that"?

Something like 90% of the land in MN is privately owned. Do you really think the DNR has that much control over it? The people do.

IMO it is not the DNR, on private lands that is. Public lands...yes.

For example...we don't shoot hen pheasants right? So why is the pheasant population down since we haven't been shooting hen pheasants (does)? The pheasant population in MN should be going through the roof...but it's not. Why? IMO, it has everything to do with "properly" designed land to reduce winter mortality..."Dead hens don't lay eggs". Does the spring weather impact it...yes, of course...but if you have 50 to 75 hens that make it through the winter on 160 acre, spring weather affects the population a lot less than if you have 5 to 10 hens on 160 acres.

It sounds like not many people are shooting 5 does. Will reducing the doe harvest help recover the population, yes, but you better have your carrying capacity in place if you want to sustain or grow it.

Keep working on the DNR, but there should be another drum right next to you beating for better land management to increase the carrying capacity.

Increasing your own habitat and deer population without working with the DNR to increase the areas dpsm goal is actually hurting the non-informed hunters. You would be less of a jerk if you just did nothing. If you and your large co-op are holding 25 dpsm and the DNR wants 10 dpsm then they are going to make the area Intensive harvest. After season you will still have close to your 25 dpsm and the outside area will have far fewer deer. That is one reason why having reasonable dpsm goals, and ways to measure dpsm, are so important. If the goal is too low, or the measurement inaccurate, we end up with some people doing their own management and 'pockets' of too many deer and 'pockets' with too few deer. Not good management by the state.

[Farmsfulltime]

This might be the cause of bad counts in some areas , certainly not the persons fault that has ideal habitat . might help explain some discrepancies in density studies. I don't think we can blame the DNR because the deer aren't distributed equally

[smsmith]

If you and your large co-op are holding 25 dpsm and the DNR wants 10 dpsm then they are going to make the area Intensive harvest. After season you will still have close to your 25 dpsm and the outside area will have far fewer deer. That is one reason why having reasonable dpsm goals, and ways to measure dpsm, are so important. If the goal is too low, or the measurement inaccurate, we end up with some people doing their own management and 'pockets' of too many deer and 'pockets' with too few deer. Not good management by the state.

You described to a T what happens in many units. Especially if aerial surveys are conducted over those areas with "too many deer". Those areas get factored into the overall unit's dpsm. The only way the DNR (currently) has to deal with those "hot pockets" is to use more liberal harvest designation in the entire unit. That does nothing to ameliorate the areas with many deer (sanctuaries of some sort or another) but penalizes the rest of the unit with increased deer kill when it isn't necessary.

We need new tools to deal with these issues.

[LandDr]

Now I'm really confused.

If I am understanding that correctly, I am supposed to lower my deer numbers on my property so the DNR thinks there are less deer in the area and keep harvest down...because my large deer numbers are making the DNR think there are more deer in the area, therefore increasing the deer harvest?

And in the mean time I should wait for the DNR to work with the other landowners in the square mile?

Something else to chew on...the DNR told me at a meeting that "we don't survey by any of your properties because they skew the numbers". This was at a pheasant meeting.

Confused. If anyone wants to talk about how to increase deer, ducks, pheasants, etc., give me a shout...I will just let you guys work with this out with the DNR and I am behind you 100% on it.

[bowhunternw]

Are you serious?

Over the last 20-30 years deer hunting in this state has improved drastically. There are more deer in more parts of the state than there ever were in the 70's or 80's.

The numbers got a little high a few years back and the DNR was taking flack from all sorts of special interest groups like the insurance industry, big ag, white pine growers and urbanites getting their hostas eaten. Did they overcompensate lately? I think so. Could they do a better overall job of managing? Sure. Are we on the brink of disaster with an out of control DNR? I sure don't think so.

As hunters, we can sometimes act like spoiled little babies when our interests, wants and opinions don't get met. I think we all have a right and even a duty to express ourselves, but some of what I've read has been over the top.

Are you sure it isn't the fat lazy DNR that saw dollar bills and gold chains, just kidding good post. I feel very much on the same lines. Think they are slightly low right now but we have to be realistic and numbers that we had 10 years ago were not sustainable.

[LandDr]

Described to a T? My area has been doe lottery for as long as I can remember. As a kid I recall everyone talking about who got a doe tag or who didn't. My management has not changed a dang thing!

[smsmith]

Described to a T? My area has been doe lottery for as long as I can remember. As a kid I recall everyone talking about who got a doe tag or who didn't. My management has not changed a dang thing!

Good. Perhaps your property is excluded from aerial surveys....or they just haven't done any for a decade (or more). No aerial surveys have been done in 215 for at least 10 years. I attempted to find out when the last was done here and apparently nobody has that information is or willing to share it with me.

You've stated previously you have around 100-120 deer on your place, correct? If that number was included in an aerial survey, it would inflate that area's DPSM across the unit. Areas where hunting isn't allowed or other factors influence harvest downward have that effect on a unit's dpsm.

I'm certainly not saying you're doing anything wrong..quite the opposite. What's "wrong" is how data gets put into the model (if it does at all).

Unit XYZ has a dpsm goal of 10 and consists of 100 square miles or a total of 1000 deer in the unit. A randomized aerial survey is conducted and part of that survey is over some type of sanctuary and 100 deer are counted in a 1/4 square mile. That number is included in the surveyed area and extrapolated on a unit wide basis. It appears the unit has far more deer on a unit wide basis than it does...liberalized antlerless tag allocations result.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

Toto- We're not in Kansas anymore.

[DaveT]

Toto- We're not in Kansas anymore.

No we're not, but it sure is a great place to hunt whitetails. I highly recommend it. But not to you PF, you wouldn't like it. The DNR sends a "trophy request checklist" with your tag and you just tell them how many points you want your buck to have, Boone & Crockett score, and which tree to tie it to. They may make an exception for you and wait until the 10th day of your hunt to tie up your buck and release all of the other deer. That way you can see jack squat for 9 days and feel like you're still hunting in MN.

[Bureaucrat]

Transparency, consistency, accountability, and representation during the goal setting process. It's all we're looking for. A little more communication would be nice.

Couple other quick notes from deeper back in the thread:

SMSmith is more of a habitat nut than anyone I know. He should have his own blog and weekly podcast for the amount of work he does and information he gathers up and shares as he goes about his work. I've learned more from him than any box full of books and magazines i've read.

Private property owners, even if every person got hot about native habitat improvement could only do so much. The majority of forested acres in MN are federal or state owned lands. The ownership and legacy lever that causes some to make a conservation-minded harvest decision on their own land isn't there for the majority of the woods. Many of us who do own a sliver of land can clear the joint with a wayward sneeze.

[PEATMOSS]

Silver lining in this recent population decline-at least the hornporn crowd has been a good deal quieter!

[SmellEsox]

The numbers got a little high a few years back and the DNR was taking flack from all sorts of special interest groups like the insurance industry, big ag, white pine growers and urbanites getting their hostas eaten. Did they overcompensate lately? I think so. Could they do a better overall job of managing? Sure. Are we on the brink of disaster with an out of control DNR? I sure don't think so.

As hunters, we can sometimes act like spoiled little babies when our interests, wants and opinions don't get met. I think we all have a right and even a duty to express ourselves, but some of what I've read has been over the top.

I would love to see proof of this. I sure don't remember all these special interest groups being in a tizzy. I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

[bowhunternw]

[i would love to see proof of this. I sure don't remember all these special interest groups being in a tizzy. I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

I am sure that you already have read this but there is an explanation of how the goals were set. Down the page a bit. http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2014/01/10/dnr-aim-is-satisfied-deer-hunters-healthy-deer-herd/

[smsmith]

I would love to see proof of this. I sure don't remember all these special interest groups being in a tizzy. I think it was a deliberate shift by DNR from a management philosophy that had some concern for deer numbers and the quality of hunting, to a philosophy of hammer the does and keep numbers down. I don't think special interest had as much input as what a new breed of DNR biologist wanted to do in MN. I think the deliberate reduction of the population was led by DNR.

Me too. I've spent a fair amount of time scouring the interwebs for "evidence" of the "over population" of deer in MN around '03-'05. Most everything I found was generated by the MN DNR. I won't dispute there was more crop and forest damage at that time than there is now...but I have a hard time believing it was all that bad.

Hunters and citizens of this state were sold an idea by the MN DNR because they didn't want to manage deer at the levels they were at. Managing deer costs money and the MN DNR would rather spend that money on prairie and bur oak savanna restoration.

Plenty of states had and still have far more deer than MN did at the peak (and those states are much smaller in land mass than MN) and the world isn't coming to an end in those states.

[smsmith]

SMSmith is more of a habitat nut than anyone I know. He should have his own blog and weekly podcast for the amount of work he does and information he gathers up and shares as he goes about his work. I've learned more from him than any box full of books and magazines i've read.

Just put 2 and 2 together

Thanks for the kind words...habitat is a bit of an obsession for me.

[Pzswenj]

Ah, so other states have higher densities or total populations. Do they have the same habitat? Same weather? Just curious if that factors at all into what a healthy overall number might be?

My personal feeling is similar to several others: The populations that we had where I hunt (NE Minnesota) back in the 2000's were not sustainable. It was hard to not run into a deer anywhere they were so thick. Driving at night was downright scary with the numbers that were out there. All the old timers in our hunting area could not believe the numbers that were around, and all of them remember the bad times.

Populations where I hunt now are low, particularly compared to the "glory years". But we've also had a couple of tough winters, and a change in forestry with the downturn in logging in my immediate area due to mill closures. Not exactly unexpected in my eyes...

[SmellEsox]

Ah, so other states have higher densities or total populations. Do they have the same habitat? Same weather? Just curious if that factors at all into what a healthy overall number might be?

My personal feeling is similar to several others: The populations that we had where I hunt (NE Minnesota) back in the 2000's were not sustainable. It was hard to not run into a deer anywhere they were so thick. Driving at night was downright scary with the numbers that were out there. All the old timers in our hunting area could not believe the numbers that were around, and all of them remember the bad times.

Populations where I hunt now are low, particularly compared to the "glory years". But we've also had a couple of tough winters, and a change in forestry with the downturn in logging in my immediate area due to mill closures. Not exactly unexpected in my eyes...

Funny you should mention sustainability. We hear all the time about populations not being sustainable yet we never hear of a study done in MN that shows what a sustainable level is across our different habitats. We hear about being above carrying capacity, but we never see any data that shows what that carrying capacity is or how it was derived. We hear about crop damage and that there are too many deer but we have no data that documents said crop damage and what caused it and what is an appropriate level of crop damage that can be tolerated.