Online petition for DNR management audit

[PurpleFloyd]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

[laker1]

I had zero problem of getting all the data I wanted from a Area wildlife Manager and much of the formula used.

I once had data back to the 1980's. I don't know if I can still find some of it.

[SmellEsox]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

Totally disagree. The population was driven down first by hunting. And I don't think we are so stupid that we don't think the population will fluctuate. And I think that you are smart enough to know that they can manage those fluctuations at a higher level.

[PurpleFloyd]

It's not for the sake of fighting. It might just be that some of us understand that nature is not like making cookies.

Even if someone had unlimited funds and came up with a perfect modeling method it would still be reactionary and will still have the same population fluctuations we are seeing over the past 20 years.

[SmellEsox]

That is the funny part. On one hand the MDDI is beyotching about how the population was driven down by hunting on one post and then the next post they are exalting the Glory Days of the last decade when we were shooting record numbers of deer. The irony in that is amazing.

Maybe they were talking about the glory days of when there were more deer. Not so much the negligent harvest strategy. Maybe if we didn't go on an antlerless rampage back then, we'd still have a decent population of deer.

[mntatonka]

Maybe they were talking about the glory days of when there were more deer. Not so much the negligent harvest strategy. Maybe if we didn't go on an antlerless rampage back then, we'd still have a decent population of deer.

so where's your data on all the other states going on an "antlerless rampage", and that being the cause of their decline in populations as well?

[laker1]

Most states from Minnesota to Pennsylvania were ramping up doe permits with the same philosophy. Some driven by CWD fear,farmers complaints,and some it was get on the band wagon of issueing too many permits,

Yes we did issue too many permits and over harvested. Yes up north we went thru one of the longest winters in decades. Harvest by hunters can control much of the population swings,but in the northern half of the state winter will be the deciding factor along with a modest wolf control. I said modest now.

[PurpleFloyd]

That is the funny part. On one hand the MDDI is beyotching about how the population was driven down by hunting on one post and then the next post they are exalting the Glory Days of the last decade when we were shooting record numbers of deer. The irony in that is amazing.

[PurpleFloyd]

This post is from the fishing forum but IMHO it should be stickied to the top of every forum on the board.

I think that mother nature can take care of itself, but yes since man can first alter things by development, farming practices, or other of the things mentioned Ma has a tough time counteracting those things. When we intervene then, if it isn't done correctly, we can create a mess.

My point of mentioning the original post wasn't as a solution to all problems in a hands off way but to bring the point to light that many times are lack of patience attempts to solve problems that may be solved on their own just a few years slower than we hoped for.

[hockeybc69]

PF,

I think your point is valid to a degree.

But the audit request is not only because of "low" deer numbers..... Its about the fact there are many concerns on how the deer are managed by our DNR. Which has been a factor in "low" deer numbers as well.

There have been numerous posts on this forum and others showing how the numbers dont add up. How the numbers have changed with some magic eraser year over year. How the numbers that are targeted in certain areas are simply crazy.

Gripe all you want about how people created the problems on their own.

I do agree that there is a subset of the blame on individuals personal goals. But there is also a visible blame that the DNR is not doing their jobs as well.

[smsmith]

PF,

I think your point is valid to a degree.

But the audit request is not only because of "low" deer numbers..... Its about the fact there are many concerns on how the deer are managed by our DNR. Which has been a factor in "low" deer numbers as well.

There have been numerous posts on this forum and others showing how the numbers dont add up. How the numbers have changed with some magic eraser year over year. How the numbers that are targeted in certain areas are simply crazy.

Gripe all you want about how people created the problems on their own.

I do agree that there is a subset of the blame on individuals personal goals. But there is also a visible blame that the DNR is not doing their jobs as well.

Yup...that ^^^^

[smsmith]

Maybe if many of the people who used to be on the APR bandwagon before they were on the MDDI bandwagon would have considered the implications of "Pass on the small buck and fill the freezers with does"mentality the DNR would have left things as they were instead of caving to pressure from those groups and we would be OK right now.

Who would those people be?

I've only been in this state a few years...and have yet to kill a deer here. I don't anticipate filling a tag this year either, but I suppose anything is possible.

[laker1]

Question is how do they change the original estimate of deer population in a certain year?

The numbers of deer per square mile estimate changes from the original year's estimate like say 2003. Because as the next few years go by they can use the harvest data like in 2004,2005,2006 to re-estimate 2003. That part is valid,because it shows that fawns and adults of both sexes in 2003 were actually there or not there in 2003 by the adult deer shot in 2004 etc.

Problem with much of the data,at least in the north half of the state,it shows that their original population estimate was too high.

I did see I think this last year they might be using a slightly different formula and it seems to be much better.

[PurpleFloyd]

PF,

I think your point is valid

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe if many of the people who used to be on the APR bandwagon before they were on the MDDI bandwagon would have considered the implications of "Pass on the small buck and fill the freezers with does"mentality the DNR would have left things as they were instead of caving to pressure from those groups and we would be OK right now.

[smsmith]

^^^we've been trying to figure that out. ELS numbers are adjusted considerably after the fact. We're told that access to those numbers isn't allowed due to the fact that private info is included in ELS numbers.

I'm convinced that a number of areas are adjusted (significantly) after the actual harvest numbers come in so that the model's numbers are "accurate". Proof of DNR "adjustments" to the numbers are publicly available if you track them over a period years. If there is a biological "fudge factor" built into the harvest numbers, then it should be made publicly available...along with the "science" that goes into that post harvest adjustment. Either the ELS number are accurate...or they aren't. If they aren't....then tell us why...and tell us how the adjustments are made after the fact...and tell us the "science" that goes into those adjustments.

The audit will prove my thoughts wrong or right. Far too much trust is given to the DNR in this state...there is nothing wrong with asking for (and expecting a legitimate answer) answers from a governmental Department. When they are less than forthcoming it creates a sense of distrust.

[smsmith]

Wasn't singling out any specific person.

I have harvested deer pretty much every year for the past 35 or so until my son started. My son, who is 14, has harvested many deer in his young life ( He is a he!! of a good shot and between his uncles and his grandfather he is allowed to take their deer for them). Between the two of us, we both shot our personal best deer in the last 2 years. There are some really nice ones still out there if we are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

OK...seemed to me like personal affront. My mistake...

Congrats to you and your son. Taking a personal best is truly an accomplishment to be cherished.

[PurpleFloyd]

OK...seemed to me like personal affront. My mistake...

As you said, The MDDI is more than just you.

[laker1]

The registered numbers are not fudged. Usually if there is late changes it is small in numbers.

I got harvest numbers back to the early 70's and could get more if needed. Try working with your area office nothing else.