Johnson vs McIneley

[BLACKJACK]

Dennis Anderson had a column today, a question and answer with Brooks Johnson of MBI and Leslie MCIneley of the DNR concerning deer populations - read it but I think Johnson GOT SMOKED!!

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/281197071.html

[BuckSutherland]

Yeah, thats nice she can give whatever answer she wants, but reality in the woods is much different from what we are being told, and what is being done.

Just remember, this is the same DNR that gave us; Red Lake collapse, Mille Lacs collapse, Leech Lake cormorants, Moose collapse, thousands of unaccounted wolves, 660 foot/$750,000 fishing pier on 79 acre Dower Lake in Todd county, Paving of the Luce Line trail in McLeod county for a little over $3 million dollars for 12 people to ride their bikes up and down, constant purchases of private land when they dont take care of the land they already have, etc.

I have zero faith in the MN DNR!

[hockeybc69]

I would disagree he got smoked.

There was no debate. Just one way q and a...

Gaurantee if u put those two alone in a debate she would crumble. She had plenty of help to wordsmith those answers.

[smsmith]

I saw questions...and typical politician responses (i.e...not answers)

[CaptainMusky]

Wow Buck. Is that what you were paid to post here or actually your opinion?

Most of those items you picked out the dnr was not solely responsible for but I'm guessing you knew that you are just trying to stir something up.

[Bureaucrat]

There's no problem. Deer harvest dropping by 60-70% from its peak is nothing to be concerned with.

[laker1]

I am surprised buck you didn't throw in Ebola also.

The DNR had zero to do with the Red Lake collaspe,that was Tribal netting which the DNR had zero to say about it.

Moose collapse,the DNR were not responsible for warmer winters and massive winter tick numbers which I seen first hand. The Moose collapse has multiple reasons.

Fish and wildlife has nothing to do with bike trails.

I do agree we over harvested deer,but the DNR had nothing to do with winterkill loss of deer for two years in a row.

Yes the DNR is purchasing land and I hope they continue.

[BuckSutherland]

I will bite Laker, just for you and captinmusky.

1. The DNR had/has plenty to do with Red Lake. They might not be able to stop the nets, but in order for the tribes to put the nets in there had to be paying customers. How many black market fish frys happened with Red Lake walleye? How many truckload sales?? Surely within the jurisdiction of the MN DNR, as is the 48,000 acres of non tribal water. It surely wasnt all the tribes fault. The scientist running the nets should have been screaming long before there were no walleyes left in THEIR nets. Instead, our feckless govt (DNR) lets it totally collapse, then reacts and pours millions of TP dollars into stocking, enforcement, and monitoring now. Good job DNR, way to change on the go.

2. The moose. The moose collapse does have multiple reasons. Their own study showed the NUMBER 1 killer of the moose is the timberwolf, which also happens to be managed by the DNR. The second biggest killer of animals studied by the DNR was the DNR themselves. And to figure this all out the DNR is once again, spending millions. And true to form they let the moose numbers plummet to a fraction of what they were just years before. Once the herd is completely degraded then, and only then do they react and shut the season down.

3. The DNR has been a huge part of cramming this paved trail down the throats of McLeod county residence. The last survey I saw of county residence was something like 70 to 30 against it. Only makes it logical for the DNR to beg for the funds and ram it home.

4. I didnt say that DNR has anything to do winter loss, what I am saying is that they cant stand to be questioned, have condescending remarks for the public, and are annoyed that hunters are trying to come up with better models/data for populations assessments and hunting regulations. I can guarantee you that many of us involved leading up to this season feel like they ARE NOT LISTENING.

5. And you might want them to keep dipping into your tax money to be the biggest land sows in the state, but I would rather they leave it/me alone and take care of what they have. Then with my extra cash I hope to buy property and do real habitat improvement, not just buy it and add it to the never-ending pile.

Now why dont you tell me how they got Mille Lacs right, and how they got Leech Lake right, and how they could ever approve a 660 foot pier to be built on a 79 acre lake at a cost of 3/4 of a million dollars???

Then you tell me what, if any, oversight we have over the DNR????

Oh, that's right, THERE IS NONE!

[ANYFISH2]

I am not sure how he got smoked?? He asked questions she answered. I like that this shows some of reponses you get when speaking with high level staff. The answers are quick and scripted.

But in this article I got:

They don't need to fly the proper areas to estimate pop. Or set goals

They don't need deer/vehical info to estimate pop. R set goals

They don't need B.C.C to estimate pop. Or set. Goals

They don't need crop depredation numbers to estimate pop. Or set goals

All they need is harvest numbers, weather info for opener and apparently a QUESS.

[Jameson]

From the link in the OP:

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: Beginning about 15 years ago, the DNR decided to reduce the size of the deer herd. Why?

Answer:

Quote:

...the early 2000s, there were concerns regarding impacts of higher deer densities...

My comments: The DNR began reducing the herd for scientific reasons. Kudos to them. Too bad they switched to social considerations of people that don't pay a deer user fee when the stakeholder process started a couple years later.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: This year’s deer harvest might be the lowest in 32 years. Does this mean the DNR deer population model doesn’t work well?

Answer:

Not answered.

My comments: Not being able to answer a simple question is usually a bad thing.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: Periodically, the DNR uses aerial surveys to validate deer numbers estimated by its population model. Are such flights used often enough to check and, as necessary, re-calibrate the population model?

Answer:

Not answered.

My comments: Not being able to answer a simple question is usually a bad thing.

Not a Question:

Quote:

Johnson: Some hunters point to Camp Ripley to underscore their belief that DNR deer management is misguided. Historically, Ripley has had one of the country’s most trophy-rich and abundant whitetail herds. Now the herd is depressed, and hunt applications were down 30 percent this year.

Answer:

Wasn't a question.

My comments: terrible question.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: DNR deer population management was once dependent largely on science, but now includes social considerations, such as deer-vehicle collisions and crop losses. Why?

Answer:

Quote:

I would argue we still use science to inform our deer management and that social considerations have always played a role in population management. We are probably just more direct in acknowledging the need to balance social considerations. That includes the desires of farmers, foresters, ecologists or others who experience conflicts with deer and may favor lower deer densities in addition to desires of hunters, wildlife watchers and others who may support higher deer densities.

My comments: Pretty sure only the hunters pay a license user fee directly to the DNR to manage the deer herd. Not sure why the others get to boss around the DNR so much.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: Some states use deer-vehicle collisions as a primary indicator of herd size. Minnesota statistics show 50 percent fewer such vehicle-deer crashes than 10 years ago. Does the DNR use similar data in setting the state’s herd size?

Answer:

Quote:

We don’t use deer-vehicle collision data to evaluate deer population trends...

My comments: We should.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: The DNR in part justifies its recent deer herd size reductions on crop depredation and car-deer collisions. But by my estimate deer consume less than .5 percent of state crops and represent 2 percent of vehicle collisions. Given this, is it appropriate to weight these factors so heavily in the deer-population goal-setting process?

Answer:

Quote:

McInenly: The DNR doesn’t attribute any particular weight to various social factors

My comments: No two things are equal in the real world. Things should be weighted.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: The DNR doesn’t track crop depredation and vehicle-deer collision reductions resulting from deer herd size reductions. Shouldn’t it, in order to determine whether herd reductions significantly affect crops losses and deer-vehicle accidents?

Answer:

not answered.

My comments: Not being able to answer a simple question is usually a bad thing.

Question:

Quote:

Johnson: Does the DNR know the deer carrying capacity, based on available habitat, of the state’s various deer permit areas? If so, shouldn’t this number be shared with citizen groups the DNR is now organizing to establish new deer population goals?

Answer:

Not answered straight, but

Quote:

...Still, it could help inform the discussion.

implies that it is not.

My comment: It is recognized that it would likely be a good tool, but the DNR doesn't go out and get the tool. Must not care to be able to do the work well that badly.

.................

I am beginning to actually hate our top DNR staff. At this point they don't even seem like good people trying to do good work for the people. More like slick politicians trying to pull one over on the little guy.

[Farmsfulltime]

Went to an alfalfa field at last light sat evening about 12 acres counted 7 deer in fading light one large one at far end wont be a problem here finding one . Im pretty sure the DNR didn't have anything to do with it nothing coming out of st.paul has any thing to do with the deer I seen . All they control is the tags . Do audits , jump up and down , become political , wont change anything wont get your least favorite deer manager fired, The fix is in you wont change the DNR they have theirs covered, Oh they will answer all the questions hold the stakeholder meetings and will have all the paper work to prove their points and nothing will change .

[laker1]

This is Mainly a deer site.

But on the Red lake walleye netting, The Red lake tribe had the right to sell and net as much as they wanted to. The MN DNR had zero say. The DNR for years told them they were over fishing. Once the walleye run in a tribal river in the spring was down to a couple of fish they agreed to change.

We agreed to stock the lake only after they agreed to a long term plan to be more conservation oriented.

I disagree with some of the deer management,but some people are a little irrational in there behavior.

Many DNR staff work 50 plus hours a week and agree with you,but some are in the attack mode on everybody.

These are individuals and each of them have there own opinion.

What did some of you do last week to make the resource better? Volunteer?

Changes should be made and will but there is a way,and no wolfs didn't kill all the Moose,yes they are part of the problem. They disappeared from the northwest Mn with little wolf predation in some areas.

[smsmith]

The fix is in

Yup

[Farmsfulltime]

I believe the DNR does a good job also and being the non accountable , political organization that are filled at the top by professionals they have their ducks in a row and will not make a large provable mistake . Pretty thankless if you ask me , no ones ever happy . A few weather years and a few less wolves and there will be plenty, also might want to consider where there are lots of wolves now may never be prime deer hunting again in our time . wolves will cycle down now that deer are down and will come right back up when deer are plenty , In wolf country if we had left a high population with deep snows those deer would have been wolf food or starved and wasted

[ANYFISH2]

those deer would have been wolf food or starved and wasted

Just my own little rant.

In nature, nothing is ever wasted!!

Just because hunters wouldn't have gotten the meat, it wasn't wasted, many things would have possibly survived the winters if there where more deer to die in the past winters.

Step away from your farm and get a better look at the big picture.

[Farmsfulltime]

Oh I see the big picture daily I know how things are born and die, What I attempted to say is the wolf population is tied to the deer population and it might be difficult to separate the two to give the hunters what they want , so what you advocate is don't take any deer in wolf country and let nature take its coarse without any humane involvement then the dnr would be faultless as they would not control tags thru harvest, All that aside there are only so many deer to divide in so many directions and wolves take their share and if hunters don't take them and wolves don't nature will dieses or weather

[smsmith]

"We are probably just more direct in acknowledging the need to balance social considerations. That includes the desires of farmers, foresters, ecologists or others who experience conflicts with deer and may favor lower deer densities in addition to desires of hunters, wildlife watchers and others who may support higher deer densities."

That's all well and good...but since hunters pay the bill for deer management, the end result should be a deer herd that makes them happy. If the end result of DNR deer management is designed to keep farmers, foresters, ecologists, and others who experience "conflicts" with deer satisfied...then THOSE folks should be helping to pay for deer management. Deer hunters pay for a LOT of things that don't include deer hunting (less than 15% of deer license revenue was spent on actually managing deer last year)....WE pay our way AND help a lot of other projects/DNR departments along the way.

Manage the herd for everybody in the state? OK...then EVERYBODY in the state should help pay for managing the deer herd.

[Jameson]

...Manage the herd for everybody in the state? OK...then EVERYBODY in the state should help pay for managing the deer herd.

I'm sure we both hope that this never really comes true, and that we would much rather have the herd managed for the hunters, but..................how would we make everyone in the state pay? Add another line to the tax forms? Have the DNR's deer budget come from the general fund and just give every MN citizen a license? or?

[mntatonka]

Right, 15% goes directly to deer management, the rest goes to other ares of the dnr,many of which have an impact (directly or indirectly) on deer and deer hunting. So don't give me that 15% dump.

[smsmith]

Right, 15% goes directly to deer management, the rest goes to other ares of the dnr,many of which have an impact (directly or indirectly) on deer and deer hunting. So don't give me that 15% dump.

Wrong...24% went to deer and bear management last year. Of that, less than 15% was spent on deer and bear management and the other percentage was "carried forward" Don't give me the B.S. that managing for sharptail grouse or karner blue butterflies has anything to do with deer management.

DNR apologist...I'm sick of that from guys like you. Spend my deer management dollars on deer management and deer habitat projects or ki$$ my a$$

[smsmith]

76% of deer license revenue went to something other than managing deer last year...and does most every year.

How many of the state's deer hunters realize that fact?

More than 3 of the 4 quarters per deer license dollar go to non-deer management activities...apparently that's just hunky dory with MN deer hunters.

Wake up deer hunters. Start demanding some gooberment accountability.

[laker1]

I think there is a lot of overlap. Like managing a Wildlife Management Unit.

It is not coded as deer management but much of the maintenance is deer related.

Controlled burns could be coded many different ways. I know in recent years the Legislature mandated many more codes for accountability so I wonder how that plays out?

[laker1]

Your talking about managing the deer for everybody and all groups pay.

Well there was a time general revenue did contribute greatly figuring everybody enjoys and benefits from natural resources.

Well over the last decade that has gone to almost zero with one political party especially taking it back.

The DNR even pays sales tax on things they buy like the general public,so that goes to general revenue.

[mntatonka]

76% of deer license revenue went to something other than managing deer last year...and does most every year.

How many of the state's deer hunters realize that fact?

More than 3 of the 4 quarters per deer license dollar go to non-deer management activities...apparently that's just hunky dory with MN deer hunters.

Wake up deer hunters. Start demanding some gooberment accountability.

So the percentages that go to forestries, enforcement, and other wildlife projects that create or improve habitat have no impact on deer? Heck, even the percentage that goes towards funding the main office has an indirect impact on deer.

And for the record, I don't like the dnr as a whole. I think the head needs to be cut off and people moved up from the bottom, but that's rarely an option.

[smsmith]

for the record, I don't like the dnr as a whole. I think the head needs to be cut off and people moved up from the bottom, but that's rarely an option.

Then quit apologizing for their performance and start calling them to task.