Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[leech~~]

Well..since hunters took around 180K in 2013 and the results were a large uproar and MDHA/DNR listening sessions...I'm thinking Landwehr may be a bit out of touch with what hunters would consider "too low"

Well, if it's a mild winter and Deer numbers jump up a little with a good fawn season, the DNR will be all over how they listened to hunters and their sweeping changes made a big difference!

What ever they were??

[PurpleFloyd]

Purple ,,, I see your logic where are the deer to come from at those numbers year after year

The logic is that in the upper Midwest and probably more so in Minnesota where the forest area is so far north, the population of deer is determined much more by the weather than the hunt on a year over year basis.

And because of the dramatic impact that weather can have on the deer herd, population models are not something we can glean any consistently reliable data on year over year.

If you look at the harvest data over the past 40 years, like has been done more than once in these threads it pretty much jumps out at you that the population rises and falls with the severity of winter and spring seasons. I started hunting in the 70's and from the beginning and into the early 90's it was very consistent that by deer opener in southern Minnesota the rivers were frequently froze over and snow cover was common as was sitting in snowmobile suits in the morning. In around 1991 I remember walking across the frozen river to drag my brothers first buck back to him from the other side. Forward to the mid 90's and all of a sudden I was sitting in the same spot on opening weekend with a T shirt and that was more common over the next decade as deer populations and harvests increased. I would imagine the northern forests saw much the same pattern. Late in the 2000's the weather started to turn back to colder with a later spring and the population started to pull back as well as the harvest and that was done in conjunction with the DNR deciding the population had gotten too large and needed to be cut back. The last several years have been on average much colder and much more severe than the winters were leading up to the early 2000's when the populations peaked along with the harvests.The population and also the harvest have been trending down due to this.

Through it all, there is no way the DNR could predict what the weather trends would be and how they would impact the herd which is why modeling has little value as the primary tool in setting hard harvest numbers.

[PurpleFloyd]

An extremely large uproar. So much of an uproar less than .02 percent of the deer hunters signed a petition.

[smsmith]

Through it all, there is no way the DNR could predict what the weather trends would be and how they would impact the herd which is why modeling has little value as the primary tool in setting hard harvest numbers.

Using the DNR's own words, the herd had been reduced by 25% in many areas of the state by January 2012. The stakeholder teams in '05-'07 agreed to a 9% reduction...so right there we were already at a significant lower deer herd than the public agreed to. Yet..in 2013 our season structure regarding antlerless permits was more liberal than it was in 2012.

So we have a herd that has been reduced by nearly 3 times the agreed upon percentage BEFORE the herd in the northern 1/4-1/3 of the state experienced some winter kill in '12-'13 and '13-'14 winters.

Continuing to blame winters for our situation is foolish. Winter may have hampered herd recovery...but there was no attempt to allow the herd to grow anyway...until this year.

Winter has nowhere near the impact on the statewide deer herd that hunting by humans does...its not even close.

[Farmsfulltime]

Sounds like you are saying that nature rules no matter what, Habitat and weather trumps mans plans again . seems reasonable to me . The stakeholder process has begun and some of the MDDI guys are going to have their chance to change deer hunting ,, Stay tuned it should be entertaining to say the least

[hockeybc69]

According to Gino Deangelo from the farmland research group, winterkill is not a concern in agricultural areas of west central MN.

Wolves are also not a concern in west central MN according to him.

In his exact words while I spoke with him on the phone were.... "Bullets kill 95% of deer in west central MN".

So what he is saying is that the DNR holds the cards as to whether deer survive to see another year or not by how they issue permits.

Our harvest in PA240 is down almost 40% since our stakeholder goals were set in 2007. Why is the harvest down so far?

Agreement from the stakeholders meeting was to stabilize our populations.

If populations were stable, you cant shoot 40% less deer, and not end up at some point with a huge increase in herd numbers...... Unless there are actually not the number of deer the DNR says that there is...

[DaveT]

So you are saying you can post the names of 100 different supporters who have posted on this forum for every one who questioned it?

I will take that bet.

No. I'm saying there are over 550 signatures on the petition versus 5 trolls on an internet forum. Over 100 to 1 support using troll logic.

[hockeybc69]

Thats one online petition....

Brooks has a pile of hand signed signatures in his possession as well. I dont know the count but I think a few thousand total.

But I suppose thats not enough either.

Anyone have a petition with signatures to show how many hunters are happy with the deer situation in MN??

I am looking forward to the results of the U of M deer hunting survey they sent out this fall... I have a feeling its going to be quite lopsided. I know a few handfuls of people that got that survey and none of them had favorable feedback.

[leech~~]

Winter has nowhere near the impact on the statewide deer herd that hunting by humans does...its not even close.

I agree but would not minimize the affects of a bad winter on the herd. If you have ever walked into a winter Deer yard like I have in the spring and counted a ton of dead Deer carcasses and bones all in one area. You would know that they either all died of deep snow and starvation or some decease took them all out.

[smsmith]

Sounds like you are saying that nature rules no matter what, Habitat and weather trumps mans plans again . seems reasonable to me . The stakeholder process has begun and some of the MDDI guys are going to have their chance to change deer hunting ,, Stay tuned it should be entertaining to say the least

It isn't just "some of the MDDI guys"...there are plenty of other folks who have nothing to do with MDDI...other than being exposed to the information we've provided.

Yes..it will be "entertaining"

[PurpleFloyd]

So you are saying you can post the names of 100 different supporters who have posted on this forum for every one who questioned it?

I will take that bet.

[creepworm]

And if we use your math, since only 5 of you have ever voiced any opposition to the audit on this forum, supporters of the audit outnumber non-supporters by over 100 to 1.

That's overwhelming support in my opinion.

Ssmith said "raised an uproar". That "uproar" was raised by a very vocal minority (as shown by lack of support for a petition).

The reason that "uproar" started was because people like brooks Johnson decided to appoint himself spokesperson for all deer hunters, evidenced by his quote on this forum "I am here as a voice for the mn deer hunter". He never thought for a second that people can speak for themselves.

I would think the lack of support the mddi and their initiatives have received would make them realize they are not in the majority. But I guess if you are vain enough to self appoint yourself as the voice for all deer hunters, you probably have a warped sense of reality to begin with.

[smsmith]

I agree but would not minimize the affects of a bad winter on the herd. If you have ever walked into a winter Deer yard like I have in the spring and counted a ton of dead Deer carcasses and bones all in one area. You would know that they either all died of deep snow and starvation or some decease took them all out.

I don't discount the impact of a bad winter on deer in the northern 1/4-1/3 of the state. I realize those impacts can indeed be significant. My point is that saying that winter takes more deer than hunters is a pile of horse manure.

[PurpleFloyd]

Sounds like you are saying that nature rules no matter what, Habitat and weather trumps mans plans again . seems reasonable to me . The stakeholder process has begun and some of the MDDI guys are going to have their chance to change deer hunting ,, Stay tuned it should be entertaining to say the least

I am merely saying that nature is the wildcard that cannot be predicted and that never fits neatly into any modeling that we can do and because of that, you cannot accurately predict what will happen to the herd far enough in advance to ever be able to rely on it.

[hockeybc69]

I dont even care about the new stakeholders meetings and changing goals for PA240...

The DNR has not managed to the goals set in 2007. So what the heck good is going through all this again if they are not accountable for what they did before??

Scrap the new stakeholders process and manage to the numbers they agreed to in 2007 and I would be happy as HECK for our area!

[smsmith]

Ssmith said "raised an uproar". That "uproar" was raised by a very vocal minority (as shown by lack of support for a petition).

Did you attend any of the DNR/MDHA listening sessions last year? I did. Didn't see many MDDI guys there, but sure did see plenty of deer hunters who were pretty ticked off.

If you think the majority of deer hunters in MN are happy with our current situation..I think you're kidding yourself. I've spoken with approximately zero deer hunters who are happy with how things are going....

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

I would think the lack of support the mddi and their initiatives have received would make them realize they are not in the majority. But I guess if you are vain enough to self appoint yourself as the voice for all deer hunters, you probably have a warped sense of reality to begin with.

Brooks has far more than 550 signatures....

3 chapters of MDHA have now approved various resolutions to be reviewed at the state meeting and I think there will be more fairly soon. This is more than Brooks warped sense of reality.

He simply has helped people that were all sitting on islands wondering what the frick was going on with the deer management in MN.

[creepworm]

Anyone have a petition with signatures to show how many hunters are happy with the deer situation in MN??

Ya, cause people that are satisfied are willing to do things all the time. I am sick of hearing about all the rallies on the stairs of the state capitol where the people have signs that say "I am satisfied".

[creepworm]

Brooks has far more than 550 signatures....

Lets say he has another 3000 signatures. That bring the amount of deer hunters that signed the petition to 0.0079%. WHOA!!!!

[hockeybc69]

Doesnt answer the real question.... How many are satisfied?

If you are happy with what you have, good for you. Nobody is saying 100% of hunters are hating life. There are happy ones.

But today compared to 10 years ago,,, things are far different for the overall masses. The numbers are a very clear indicator. If you cant see there is a problem with all the facts presented.... So be it. The rest of us that see the faults have every right to point it out and take whatever action we feel is needed.

[PurpleFloyd]

Using the DNR's own words, the herd had been reduced by 25% in many areas of the state by January 2012. The stakeholder teams in '05-'07 agreed to a 9% reduction...so right there we were already at a significant lower deer herd than the public agreed to. Yet..in 2013 our season structure regarding antlerless permits was more liberal than it was in 2012.

[smsmith]

Its not like the petition was able to target every deer hunter in the state. Not a single hunter I've spoken to had heard about the petition before I spoke to them. Just because it was posted on a few internet sites it doesn't mean that more than a handful of people were exposed to the fact the petition even existed.

We're not the DNR who has the ability to contact EVERY media outlet (print, internet, radio, TV, whatever) in the state with a press release.

[PurpleFloyd]

Doesnt answer the real question.... How many are satisfied?

If you are happy with what you have, good for you. Nobody is saying 100% of hunters are hating life. There are happy ones.

But today compared to 10 years ago,,, things are far different for the overall masses. The numbers are a very clear indicator. If you cant see there is a problem with all the facts presented.... So be it. The rest of us that see the faults have every right to point it out and take whatever action we feel is needed.

That would be as effective as going to Ferguson Mo and asking the average person on the corner if they are satisfied with the police......

[smsmith]

I disagree, but would love to have a discussion on it as that is where the problem and solution lies and not on the method of modeling an agency uses.

I can pretty much guarantee that any discussions you and I have will lead to neither of us changing our minds one iota.

I don't post stuff here to attempt to convince you...I know that's a waste of time. I post here to reach others who are "lurkers". Let them make up their own minds...just as you and I have done.

[PurpleFloyd]

If populations were stable, you cant shoot 40% less deer, and not end up at some point with a huge increase in herd numbers...... Unless there are actually not the number of deer the DNR says that there is...

Or unless other factors are contributing to the inability to sustain that number.

The first question I would ask is what do you think the number of deer on the ground right now is.

Is it higher or lower than 3 years ago

than 5 years ago

Than 10 years ago

Than 20 years ago.

Then look at the harvest including doe harvest

Is it higher or lower than 3 years ago

Than 5 years ago

Than 10 years ago

Than 15 years ago.

Then look at how they compare.

If you were harvesting as many deer 15 years ago than you are now, yet the population and harvest was increasing year over year, why was that happening.

If the population and harvest right now is lower than it was during the years prior to the boom and yet we think the herd is losing numbers why is that? Is there a correlation we can make by looking at the total antlerless harvest over that period? Does the trend line serve as a lagging indicator to the weather patterns? Does it correlate to any type of drastic shift in habitat loss, land coming out of CRP, population shifts that put more people in the woods north of the metro than there were in the past? Those are some but only a small sample of the questions that need to be looked at to understand the dynamics in play.