Expected worst Deer harvest in 20 years!

[creepworm]

10% of salary? The 2011 SE MN landowner survey that showed $2.5m in damage to corn averaged out to $13 an acre. With $6 corn and a 179 bushel average (in SE per USDA), deer damage is 1.2% of gross. There are a lot bigger factors in growing crops that can impact the bottom line much more.

It is very true that other factors can have a much greater impact on farmers bottom lines. In the world of $6 corn That percentage is fairly meaningless, a profit will be made either way. In the world of $3.30 corn that we are in today, that loss could be the difference between farming for a loss and eeking out a tiny bit of profit.

Also, how do they come up with that number? Do they only go out to the farmers that call in? Do they account for the damage that is not reported? Do they send some sort of agronomist or someone with agronomic training? Or someone with a biology degree that focuses on wildlife? Do they come back in the fall to see what diseases have occurred in plants that the deer have opened to disease and the effects of those diseases such as mycotoxins and entire ears that are lost?

Every farmer knows that they will lose some crop to wildlife. It has been said repeatedly by several on here that since the deer hunters pay for deer management they should have the greatest say on deer management. I believe that is misguided seeing the deer population has much farther reaching effects that if someone sees multiple deer on each sit in the stand. It could be argued, and pretty accurately, that deer hunters have the least to lose or gain by a high or low deer population. Hunter should have an equal say in deer management, not a majority say.

[Bear55]

Send some of that SE herd to the NE, we could even trade for wolves if you guys have too many deer down there.

[Farmsfulltime]

The numbers being tossed around by MDDI groups aren't even close to true deer damage to ag and now they are going to go to the stakeholder meetings and show their ignorance to the rest of the stakeholders at the tables and then the DNR that moderates the meetings will come out with some facts of their own and the MDDI groups will scream about how wrong and false and agenda driven the DNR is . just wait for it , it wont be long

[Farmsfulltime]

In fact I will help you guys out try this math , Lets say with current corn prices and that's what they all want to use fine . lets say $6.00 per acre with current markets take that times total tillable acres in the state and that number is no where near 3million clamied and that is why ag has an equal seat at the table

[NWKR]

It is very true that other factors can have a much greater impact on farmers bottom lines. In the world of $6 corn That percentage is fairly meaningless, a profit will be made either way. In the world of $3.30 corn that we are in today, that loss could be the difference between farming for a loss and eeking out a tiny bit of profit.

Also, how do they come up with that number? Do they only go out to the farmers that call in? Do they account for the damage that is not reported? Do they send some sort of agronomist or someone with agronomic training? Or someone with a biology degree that focuses on wildlife? Do they come back in the fall to see what diseases have occurred in plants that the deer have opened to disease and the effects of those diseases such as mycotoxins and entire ears that are lost?

[Jameson]

I have a hunch that the crop data has been requested from the DNR, or other govt. agency. And due to some law the govt. has to hand over data.

[NWKR]

In fact I will help you guys out try this math , Lets say with current corn prices and that's what they all want to use fine . lets say $6.00 per acre with current markets take that times total tillable acres in the state and that number is no where near 3million clamied and that is why ag has an equal seat at the table

The 3 million is for the SE and the survey was from 2011, when corn was >$6. it was $2.5 million of damage on 187k acres of corn. The other 500k was other crops:

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/se-landownder-survey-report.pdf

Yes the $ amount will be much larger statewide, but the damage should be reported on a per acre or % basis to make it comparable.

[Farmsfulltime]

But the problem as with all numbers is in how they are used as I have noticed the MDDI crowd likes to misrepresent that 3 million opinion as state wide fact and such a little small number suits the argument to build anger at the process . What I am saying if you are going to use ag numbers to represent your case then they should at least be somewhat closer to reality to bring a thread of being legit

[Farmsfulltime]

I know that the number was for south east mn but thats not how it is being represented

I agree that it should be on a per acre basis and in the same statement the total should also be stated so that people can see how big or small the total is statwide

[smsmith]

But the problem as with all numbers is in how they are used as I have noticed the MDDI crowd likes to misrepresent that 3 million opinion as state wide fact and such a little small number suits the argument to build anger at the process . What I am saying if you are going to use ag numbers to represent your case then they should at least be somewhat closer to reality to bring a thread of being legit

You must be reading stuff I'm not. I've never seen the $3 million figure alluded to as being statewide.

As far as using ag numbers, I agree they should be legit. To be legit, they should not be farmer estimates (as is the $3 million figure from the SE). They should be quantified, verified, and documented by the DNR.

[NWKR]

I did not read it as a statewide # before. But I also read the landowner survey results, so I may have been influenced by already knowing it was only the SE.

I believe the comparison made was to Wisconsin's deer damage estimate which was a statewide # of less than $2m and the MN amount that only covered a small area but was larger than Wisconsin's state wide amount. I would have to go back and find those MDDI postings to remember for sure.

[creepworm]

now how do we define that?

That is a very good question.

[creepworm]

Yes the $ amount will be much larger statewide, but the damage should be reported on a per acre or % basis to make it comparable.

On a percentage basis, I am sure the transition zone would be much higher. Lower yields would mean a larger percentage damaged by deer.

In South Central MN, the percentage would be much lower with low deer densities and larger yields.

Percentages would be good for comparison sake, but would not represent the total dollar value very well.

[Farmsfulltime]

Of coarse some tillable land in northeast could not be counted as hay and forage is the crop because of climate , I have heard the 3 million number used a lot and no one has ever said but this is only including the s e part of the state . The number is tossed out there and implied in how the number is used that that is total statewide deer damage . What I am trying to say is you boys are not going to be legit until you can come up with facts to use that are somewhat accurate and the guys at the meetings will have numbers Think DNR

Another thought some have implied that our ag economy is an 80 billion dollars in Minnesota and just subtract the deer damage from that.

Well the nursery, dairy, canning, poultry, are all ag but of coarse deer don't feed inside turkey barns. You have to subtract from gross crop dollars not the other segments of ag . like this example corn generates 000 million and deer feeding takes away 00 million from the corn crop. You guys are not even close to having any true accurate facts to use

[smsmith]

You guys are not even close to having any true accurate facts to use

Maybe...of course, neither is the DNR. They're just really good at making people believe conjecture is fact

[delcecchi]

You must be reading stuff I'm not. I've never seen the $3 million figure alluded to as being statewide.

As far as using ag numbers, I agree they should be legit. To be legit, they should not be farmer estimates (as is the $3 million figure from the SE). They should be quantified, verified, and documented by the DNR.

That would seem to be difficult and expensive if not nearly impossible to achieve in my opinion. Send a DNR guy out to walk every corn field, bean field, hay field, and pasture looking for what deer have eaten? Interview every farmer? What did you have in mind?

It comes down to the fact that there are some people in the state that want fewer deer around, rather than more deer.

[smsmith]

That would seem to be difficult and expensive if not nearly impossible to achieve in my opinion. Send a DNR guy out to walk every corn field, bean field, hay field, and pasture looking for what deer have eaten? Interview every farmer? What did you have in mind?

It comes down to the fact that there are some people in the state that want fewer deer around, rather than more deer.

Not every farm field experiences depredation.

Its not my position to say "how" to do it, but to expect me to blindly accept what Joe the farmer says he lost to deer depredation isn't exactly factual, documentable, or scientific.

WI has a system to document crop damage, maybe our DNR should talk to theirs.

[delcecchi]

Not every farm field experiences depredation.

Its not my position to say "how" to do it, but to expect me to blindly accept what Joe the farmer says he lost to deer depredation isn't exactly factual, documentable, or scientific.

WI has a system to document crop damage, maybe our DNR should talk to theirs.

You are asking for " They should be quantified, verified, and documented by the DNR." and you can't even say how it would be done? Other than Wisconsin apparently meets your standards? Then you must know how they do it, seems to me. What do they do to "quantify, verify, and document the damage? Must take a lot of personnel. Do they walk the woods looking for chewed up white pine seedlings too?

[Farmsfulltime]

You are correct not all fields have damage, some have very heavy damage . some have none . but that's not the current subject deflect and push an agenda of false numbers is whats going on and some should look at how you reach your conclusions . Just saying throwing out some numbers and repeat is what they say about the DNR

[PurpleFloyd]

Here is a simple illustration, red represents the warmer winters and higher population to follow, blue is of course cooler winters which have an immediate impact on the herd. Black is my opinion of the dnr pushing extra doe tags for too long which slammed right into some bad winters and leaves us in our current mess.

Yep.

[Farmsfulltime]

smsmith I don't expect any response as I don't post these things for you they are posted for the other people to consider some other input about current things about deer

[creepworm]

You are asking for " They should be quantified, verified, and documented by the DNR." and you can't even say how it would be done? Other than Wisconsin apparently meets your standards? Then you must know how they do it, seems to me. What do they do to "quantify, verify, and document the damage? Must take a lot of personnel. Do they walk the woods looking for chewed up white pine seedlings too?

You must understand, Del, that in smsmith's world everything WI does is great, outstanding, perfect, they are the greatest deer managers the world has ever seen. MN on the other hand is terrible, awful, easily the biggest conglomeration of screw ups the deer management world has ever seen.

[PurpleFloyd]

It'll be amusing to see what web the DNR spins this summer/early fall in regards to boosting license sales. I would anticipate at least another 10-20k hunters that will find something better to do opening weekend. How many million in lost revenue before the DNR wakes up?

That just leaves more room in the woods and more deer per hunter to shoot which should make everyone pushing for audits and more regulations happy.

[Farmsfulltime]

Don't think we will lose many hunters as predicted ,, just more spin and you are right less hunters = less deer shot without a regulation change . Don't let um fool you lots of complaining in Wisconsin too . The vocal few Wisconsin hunters whine for more change , its not fair on and on same stuff only the names change and sometimes its the same guys

[delcecchi]

You must understand, Del, that in smsmith's world everything WI does is great, outstanding, perfect, they are the greatest deer managers the world has ever seen. MN on the other hand is terrible, awful, easily the biggest conglomeration of screw ups the deer management world has ever seen.

I was just trying to say, with some justification, that there are folks in Minnesota who aren't big fans of high deer population. And having the DNR spend a bunch of money to come up with numbers that won't change those folks minds is probably futile.

I've got a friend that farms some near Zumbrota, and he isn't a big deer fan. (Racoons or Turkeys either).

Apparently a turkey landing in a cornfield makes a mess.