Audit Push: Time To Act!

[mntatonka]

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.

I'd agree that 200k should be a sustainable average across the state. It should really go anywhere from 180-220k depending on the seasonal variables. That number seems to be socially and biologically acceptable judging by the last dozen or so years.

[ANYFISH2]

Stu, do you if 214, 215, 213, 221, ect... goals where already set recently? I see they are not up for review in 2015-2016.

If they did do you know what thier new goals are?

[smsmith]

214,213 and 215 are on the slate for 2015/16. 221 is going to be reviewed this year (2014/15), they are part of the "G3" East Central Uplands DPA

86 units will get reviewed and have new goals set in the next two years.

This page shows units to be reviewed and those that have been done

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

I would disagree with the term blips.

We are not making cookies here. Lots of factors determine what the deer density is in a given year and to think that doe control( which I do believe in) can be a mechanism used to keep the population perpetually at a level that you are targeting is a bit naive.

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

[smsmith]

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

I'm pretty sure that's what we pay our MN DNR folks to figure out...right? My understanding is that our DNR people haven't been able to meet and talk with other Midwest/Great Lakes states DNR staff for a few years...due to budgetary constraints. That to me is unacceptable. Deer hunting brings in about $18 million a year and we spend less than 25% of that amount on actual deer management. Its time our DNR people get the tools/money they need to more effectively and efficiently manage our deer herd.

[mntatonka]

I would disagree with the term blips.

We are not making cookies here. Lots of factors determine what the deer density is in a given year and to think that doe control( which I do believe in) can be a mechanism used to keep the population perpetually at a level that you are targeting is a bit naive.

Weather, natural predators,disease, habitat, food stock,Hunter density and many other factors all contribute to the formula and all of the environmental factors are constantly in flux. And what works in other states has no guarantee that it will work here just like what works in the north may have detrimental effects in the south.

outliers would be the proper term then. There should be a consistent long-term average though, and roughly 200k did seem to be a good average over the last 15 or so years. When the harvest was above 250k, people complained about deer eating their crops and gardens. When it was below about 180k, hunters started complaining about not enough deer. It's pretty clear that there has to be a happy medium there somewhere.

[Bear55]

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?

Late to the whining party, lots of guys (myself included) have been harping about management and doe tags back in 2008-10. The DNR can't control the winter, they didn't do a great job before that but the time to act was then not now. The population is way down, the only thing to do is be patient while the herd rebuilds itself the old fashion way. I've said all along the DNR is learning on the job, we just went through a record deer population explosion followed by a major decline. I have to imagine they learned a thing or two in that time, its not an easy job and I doubt anyone has all the answers. A couple of low harvests and mild winters and things will pick up again.

[smsmith]

A couple of low harvests and mild winters and things will pick up again.

I'll agree that is possible...if the herd is allowed to recover anyway. My fear is that our DNR would like to see annual harvests right around what we had last year. They give us a one year reprieve, we get a mild-moderate winter this year...and next year they go right back to selling way too many anterless tags.

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

[PurpleFloyd]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.

[smsmith]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.

One way units with Intensive designations "harvest" a lot of deer is thanks to internet/phone in registration. Local CO's report a strong suspicion that hunters are registering deer in Intensive units from other/adjacent units so they can continue to take more deer. Those suspicions have been passed on to at least one Area manager and have been met with zero attention.

Unit 214 is managed for 20 dpsm pre-fawn. If my unit (215) was managed at that level I would most likely never have become involved in any of these discussions. 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn is where most of the transition zone should be IMHO

Comparing 299 to any unit in the transition zone is an apples/oranges comparison. Worlds apart in habitat

[Jameson]

....To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

If the weather patterns and the chart do line up as much as you say then the DNR isn't doing it's job of evening out the highs and lows and hedging it's bets against a hard winter. Might as well not even have a DNR, at least not beyond the law enforcement portion, with those type of results.

[PurpleFloyd]

225 ranked number 9 in the State in terms of deer harvested per square mile. You don't get that without having lots of deer to harvest.214 is even better. both are way better than 299 for sure.

[PurpleFloyd]

....To your belief that overharvesting does is the cause of the drop in population, go to page 5 of the deer harvest report. It shows the number of permits applied for, offered and the number harvested as well as the success rate. Over the last 3 years the doe harvest has been very pedestrian and the success ratio is also not out of the norm. Not as high as the middle of the last decade but in line with the 90's.

Using the data in that chart I have a hard time finding any correlation between antlerless harvest and your lack of deer.

To me,if you look at that chart and compare it to the weather patterns you see a much closer correlation.in 1995-1996.there was a bad winter as well as the next winter and you can see The harvest dropped then milder winters allowed the population and harvest to rebound even though permits were liberalized we had bad weather again around 2008-2009 which hurt the population and some bad springs in the following years that hurt them when fawns dropped.

[Jameson]

...Huh? Now you want them to be able to predict the weather in advance and adjust proactively? Holy cow.

Nope, just give out fewer deer tags in case we have a normal-harsh winter instead of giving out a bunch of tags and hoping for mild winter. Harvests should be more even and not have the wild swing we are experiencing.

[PurpleFloyd]

...Huh? Now you want them to be able to predict the weather in advance and adjust proactively? Holy cow.

[PurpleFloyd]

Nope, just give out fewer deer tags

So are you referring to fewer tags in total as in a lottery for all deer or just fewer doe tags?

[PurpleFloyd]

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]

if there is a problem, name names and get them fired/privileges pulled/thrown in jail.

Working on it

Names have been named (Beau Liddell)...and will be again

[mntatonka]

Bot lets circle back to the rest of that link you posted. If you take the average of all seasons over the past 20 you get an average yearly harvest total of about 183,000. I would think 180,000 is probably about what we can expect on average with some years being lower and some higher. I also believe we will see harvest numbers and actual numbers increase again if we can put together a few warmer winters that don't stress the herd as much. In the end the chart in your link clearly show that the numbers of antlerless deer harvested over the past 5 years is not out of line with historic levels, is actually quite a bit lower than the period from 2001-2007 and is at a level where the deer herd can rebound without further reductions.

Actually, I get around 212,000 over the last 20 years

[smsmith]

Actually, I get around 212,000 over the last 20 years

Yup..about what I come up with

[PurpleFloyd]

Bot lets circle back to the rest of that link you posted. If you take the average of all seasons over the past 20 you get an average yearly harvest total of about 183,000. I would think 180,000 is probably about what we can expect on average with some years being lower and some higher. I also believe we will see harvest numbers and actual numbers increase again if we can put together a few warmer winters that don't stress the herd as much. In the end the chart in your link clearly show that the numbers of antlerless deer harvested over the past 5 years is not out of line with historic levels, is actually quite a bit lower than the period from 2001-2007 and is at a level where the deer herd can rebound without further reductions.

[hockeybc69]

From an article following the 2011 deer season:

Although more permits - at least about 512,000 - were sold than ever before, the number of deer killed - likely to be a little more than 192,000 - is well below last year's harvest of about 207,000.

It's also below the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' general goal of 200,000, a number that Lou Cornicelli, the agency's big-game coordinator, has called the "sweet spot" for a stable deer population. Cornicelli and others have pointed to the poor conditions - mainly high winds - during the firearms opening weekend as a major contributor to the lower harvest, but McNamara is skeptical.

[Jameson]

...An even harvest is a fantasy.There is no such thing as an even harvest on any wild game species in a public setting. Look at Pheasants, Fish, Ducks, Elk, Moose and any number of species and you will see they ALL have peaks and valleys.

They all have peaks and valleys? More like bumps and puddles. The species you mentioned have relatively even regulations year to year. They don't go from having a 5 moose limit to none, nope go from a once in a lifetime hunt to no hunt. Parts of MN had a 5 doe limit not long ago, now is bucks only. Perhaps if last year when they were allowing 2 does to be shot by each hunter in some areas it would have been better to go with an any one deer limit so that we don't have the valley of bucks-only this year and instead only have lottery.

Even is fantasy, more even is not.

[ANYFISH2]

When the time comes that managed designation comes back more prevalently, I would like to see revert to one doe and one buck. Not the 2 does or one of each it is now. Myself and many others I know would fill tags with a second doe later in the year if the opportunity arose, instead of eating the main tag.

Now I know it was my choice, but at the time it was legal and didn't see the harm we may have been doing. We all learn as we go, some slower than others.