Audit Push: Time To Act!

[DaveT]

Carry on Im done this horse is dead enough for me

[hockeybc69]

I know of a few people that have all the deer they need and just cant understand that there is more to deer hunting than what they personally see every year.

There is an obvious problem with the general management of the deer.

The examples are very clear that how its being done in some areas is like throwing darts and hoping they(DNR) hits a bullseye.

The audit request is simply a request to get those things ironed out better.

It will never be perfect. I am certain of that. But it sure could be a helluva lot better than what is being done now for many parts of the state.

[smsmith]

Another example of the DNR blaming hunters for their lack of success. From the Star Tribune....

Minnesota's pheasants and pheasant hunters are hitting rock-bottom.

Just 62,000 pheasant hunters went afield last fall, and they bagged only 169,000 roosters. That's the fewest hunters and lowest harvest in 27 years. Hunter numbers declined 19 percent and the harvest was down 32 percent from 2012.

Hunters likely were responding to a huge loss of habitat, poor nesting weather and a corresponding large drop in the ringneck population in recent years. Last year, the pheasant population dropped 29 percent, and the state has recently lost more than 100 square miles of grassland habitat in the pheasant range.

"It's likely the result of people seeing poor reports…and they just don't bother buying a license,'' said Lou Cornicelli, DNR wildlife research manager. "It's not like deer hunting, where regardless of density, most hunters buy a license.''

In particular, pay attention to the last sentence. Deer hunters have been taken for patsies...The DNR figures we'll all just keep buying licenses every year even though they manage for fewer and fewer deer. Just another example of why some outside evaluation of how they're managing the deer herd is necessary.

[PurpleFloyd]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

[Jameson]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

not enough coyotes. similar to wolves up north.

[smsmith]

Those pheasant harvest numbers of birds are down because we harvest too many females?

I think the article accurately stated why pheasant harvest numbers were down...then rather than admitting those issues are accurate; Lou blamed pheasant hunters for essentially being lazy. Sounds awfully familiar to why Camp Ripley hunters had a terrible year last year

[PurpleFloyd]

Because they are lazy or because weather impacted population?

[smsmith]

Because they are lazy or because weather impacted population?

You're a bright guy PF...I think you're just stirring the pot with your last two posts

[PurpleFloyd]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

[SmellEsox]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

If you are implying that when pheasants die, deer do too, you are totally wrong. Pheasants aren't even native here and have much higher mortality due to winter, wet spring, etc. compared to deer. Winters rarely have an impact on whitetails in the transition zone. Even last winter which was a top 5 winter in the last 100 years probably didn't have a huge impact on deer in the transition zone. I'm sure fawn production declined this spring and we lost some of last year's fawns, but our numbers were down before we had these tough winters. It is due to overharvest of antlerless deer which is proven to be the highest source of mortality for deer in the transition and where you are from PF. In most years it is even the highest source of mortality up north too. Even over wolves. Yes winter had an impact this last year, but it just exacerbated what high antlerless harvest had already inflicted on the population.

[smsmith]

Nope, it's just my nature to question things. Thus I was questioning the correlation between the decline in the deer population and the decline in other species over the same time. Is that something you are not comfortable discussing?

I'll discuss most anything. Your previous posts just seemed purposely obtuse to me

[LandDr]

Deer are native to MN but what really was their historic range? Where there deer in central and northern MN prior to 1900? I spoke to one of my relatives that grew up here back in the early 1920s and he doesn't recall seeing any deer. It was open prairie back then and I don't think deer were very common. It wasn't until ag crops were developed further north that deer started moving further north because they could survive the weather then.

I hear ya PF...a few nice winters in a row and everyone talks about all the deer and pheasants. MN was on it's way to a million bird harvest about 3 or 4 years ago...but then we had a few bad winters in a row. Or did everyone start shooting hens??

[smsmith]

I could have sworn that winters had been quite mild during the same time span our deer herd was under a steady decline. The winter of '11-'12 was pretty much non-existent.

So I'm to understand that one bad winter ('13-'14) and one pretty much "normal" winter ('12-'13) is the reason our deer kill is possibly going to be the lowest in 3+ decades? Okay...........

[SmellEsox]

Here is a link to pre-settlement vegetation types in MN. The transition was always there (at least since the glaciers) and it was trees on the edge of prairie. There was lots of woods in Douglas Co. Big woods/hardwoods. Lots of oak savannah and other forest types. The transition zone was a very productive area and I'm sure whitetails with there incredible adaptability were present in good numbers. What those numbers were is debatable but I would guess they were the dominant deer species in the area.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/gla/histveg/images/mnorveg.gif

[PurpleFloyd]

Dp

[PurpleFloyd]

Go back a little farther. Start about 1995 and track winter/spring through this year.

[smsmith]

Go back a little farther. Start about 1995 and track winter/spring through this year.

Lay out your theory for me PF....your theory, your research to do and type up

[Bear55]

So I'm to understand that one bad winter ('13-'14) and one pretty much "normal" winter ('12-'13) is the reason our deer kill is possibly going to be the lowest in 3+ decades? Okay...........

12-13 winter was fine but the spring was brutal, tons of snow into April-May in the transition zone. I think we had 4 pretty sizeable snowstorms in April alone. Harvest took a pretty good hit last year because of it, with last winter we should see numbers down again.

[mntatonka]

12-13 winter was fine but the spring was brutal, tons of snow into April-May in the transition zone. I think we had 4 pretty sizeable snowstorms in April alone. Harvest took a pretty good hit last year because of it, with last winter we should see numbers down again.

oh come now, bad springs have nothing to do with fawn crop, it's only the antlerless harvest that causes a drop! /sarcasm

[smsmith]

oh come now, bad springs have nothing to do with fawn crop, it's only the antlerless harvest that causes a drop! /sarcasm

I don't recall anyone saying that bad springs have nothing to do with the fawn crop, perhaps I missed that somewhere.....

Now I've got it...the spring of '13 and winter of '13-'14 are the major reasons our deer kill this year will likely fall below 150K for the first time since 1997 (or, as according to Steve Merchant, perhaps our lowest kill in over 30 years).

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys

[Bear55]

Never said they are the only causes, many of us have been "whining" about too many doe tags for 5 or 6 years now. It seems like once the hard winters kicked in and the population really dropped in the rest of the state people finally started catching on, you guys are just late to the party.

[smsmith]

you guys are just late to the party.

Late to the party? Do you mean late to start whining or late to start doing something about it? "You guys" meaning those of us in the transition zone or what?

[smsmith]

For anyone who didn't sign up for deer management updates from the DNR...here's the latest....Looks like the map isn't able to copy and pasted on this forum.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources header

Deer Notes - August 28, 2014

Deer population goal setting

Map of deer population goal-setting plansAs planned, Minnesota DNR will be revisiting deer population goals for the remainder of the state in 2015 and 2016. In contrast to the nine, southeastern deer permit areas under discussion in 2014, the process over the next two years will result in decisions for nearly 90 permit areas (40 in 2015 and 46 in 2016). Over the course of the next few months, the goal setting process will begin to roll out in the following five goal setting blocks:

G1: Superior Uplands Arrowhead DPAs: 117, 122, 126, 127, 180

G2: North Central Plains Moraines DPAs: 169, 172, 184, 197, 210, 298

G3: Pine Moraines DPAs: 241, 242, 246, 248, 251, 258, 259, 287

G4: East Central Uplands DPAs: 152, 155, 156, 157, 159, 183, 221, 222, 225, 247, 259

G5: Sand Plain - Big Woods DPAs: 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 249, 285, 338, 339

The process will be similar to those used in the past, with a number of public input opportunities as well as the use of citizen advisory teams. We encourage all interested folks to participate.

Because we plan to set goals and implement harvest strategies in the same year (i.e. goals set by spring so that we will be working to move populations toward goal the following fall), we have a fairly tight timeline and specific dates for the process, such as public meeting dates, are still in development.

A general timeline is available on the Deer Management web page. We will update information over the coming months. One upcoming and important component for the process will be an announcement in early October to solicit advisory team applications. Watch the DNR HSOforum and local news sources for more about the process in the coming months.

Hunter and landowner surveys

Stakeholder desires are one important piece of background data that will be considered in the discussion regarding deer population goals. The University of Minnesota has been contracted to administer hunter and landowner surveys to gauge deer population desires based on a statistically valid sample of hunters and landowners within each goal block. If you own land in one of the goal blocks listed above or if you hunted in one of the areas during 2013, you may have already received a survey.

As the random sample for each survey in a goal block is drawn (hunter survey or landowner survey), the University staff have reviewed the survey recipients to ensure that one individual does not receive duplicate surveys in a goal block.

These surveys were specifically designed to inform the goal setting process; additional surveys are under development to address other deer management considerations, such as specific hunting season regulations.

Deer data and the HSOforum

The 2013 deer harvest report is now available on the Deer Management web page under the "Resources & Links" tab. During the course of the next year, much of the background data and reports that have been posted to the "Deer Hunting" web page will migrate over to this "Resources & Links" tab.

Have a suggestion for Deer Notes? Send them to [email protected].

[laker1]

There is a reason why are deer kill will fall below 160,000. Winterkill etc.,too large of a deer harvest-deer harvest in the 200,000 range are just to high. You can't sustain that. Hunters are getting also more efficient at shooting what is out there with all the new gar etc.

[smsmith]

I'd disagree that 200K is unsustainable

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2003_harvestreport.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2012_harvest_total.pdf

200-220K should be the "sweet spot"....it isn't sustainable when you start overharvesting does.

There will always be "blips" due to extreme winters and ideal hunting conditions...but averaging right around 200K long term is certainly sustainable.