Media Concerned About Minnesota Deer

[Bureaucrat]

Can anyone explain the avatar process to me? I've got the right file type and I'm below the size limit. The page says it's there, but it's not there.

[DaveT]

[Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[SmellEsox]

How can they possibly give the vocal minority of deer hunters what they want when they keep changing what they want?

For several years- and I can dredge threads for days to prove it- the push was to save yearlung bucks and in order to do that they openly promoted shooting a doe for the freezer. I can also dredge the threads where, in the name of herd health, the APR crowd promoted the 1:1 doe to buck ratio as a way to establish herd health and a balanced population due to taking a concept from QDMA that stated such without understanding the implications to the population of the herd in the State.

So, they got the does in the freezer that they were a ski g for and now you are upset.

Maybe you should go after these armchair biologists that don't understand the impact of promoting ideas that work in specific areas as universal solutions to complex problems.

The liberal notion of throwing more money and more regulation/ government involvement at a problem has proven to fail time after time.

MDDI has pretty much been on course since its inception. The goal has always been to increase deer populations. I don't doubt that what you say is true. Back when populations were healthy, it made sense to shoot a doe for meat. But what a five or seven deer limit tells people is to shoot everything you see. Ridiculous and very poor management IMO. We had populations that could sustain healthy sustainable doe harvest at one time. Why couldn't we maintain that? Is it not possible to have a population that can sustain itself while allowing people to shoot a doe and a buck? Why do we have to have such low population goals when few were complaining when it was higher? DNR has always had the ability to force its will on hunters by setting goals without a legitimate public input process. Past stakeholder meetings were just smoke and mirrors and a formality. DNR wanted fewer deer and they were going to do that no matter what came out of those meetings. I'm glad you are satisfied with your hunting. But many areas with fantastic deer habitat are way below where it should be.

Of course for several years some people were saying to shoot does for meat and let a buck walk. It made sense then. But that isn't the reason we have fewer deer now. It was because people shot just about every antlerless deer they saw because that was the message the DNR gave.

[nonteepical]

He still won't understand that explanation

[hockeybc69]

+1

[PurpleFloyd]

How can they possibly give the vocal minority of deer hunters what they want when they keep changing what they want?

For several years- and I can dredge threads for days to prove it- the push was to save yearlung bucks and in order to do that they openly promoted shooting a doe for the freezer. I can also dredge the threads where, in the name of herd health, the APR crowd promoted the 1:1 doe to buck ratio as a way to establish herd health and a balanced population due to taking a concept from QDMA that stated such without understanding the implications to the population of the herd in the State.

So, they got the does in the freezer that they were a ski g for and now you are upset.

Maybe you should go after these armchair biologists that don't understand the impact of promoting ideas that work in specific areas as universal solutions to complex problems.

The liberal notion of throwing more money and more regulation/ government involvement at a problem has proven to fail time after time.

[PurpleFloyd]

He still won't understand that explanation

Child please.

[BuckSutherland]

Considering they only surfaced last year after SMSMiths contemporary came up with it as a tool to get to APR I am not arguing the MDDI statement at all. Of course those who formed the MDDI were the ones who were the APR/QDMA propoenets right up to the minute the MDDI was launched. So nothing you said changes what I posted.

[Bear55]

I'd say blaming everything on QDMA practices is about as intelligent as prescribing state-wide APR.

[SmellEsox]

Considering they only surfaced last year after SMSMiths contemporary came up with it as a tool to get to APR I am not arguing the MDDI statement at all. Of course those who formed the MDDI were the ones who were the APR/QDMA propoenets right up to the minute the MDDI was launched. So nothing you said changes what I posted.

Is this conspiracy theory? I don't doubt that he'd like to see APRs expanded but IMO it's not a reason to not support higher deer numbers. Getting higher deer numbers and then APR is not a guarantee. They are two separate issues that the public will decide upon. I guess I'd rather support the cause for higher deer numbers and then worry about the APRs later if they come up. Doesn't make sense to me to not support something that most deer hunters in my area want just because the subject of APR might then come up. Live with poor deer hunting because it might lead to APR if populations are higher? I don't get it.

[smsmith]

Continuing to bring up APR's is pretty laughable. Right now, any expansion of APR's requires the legislature to approve it...or for the legislature to repeal the current language requiring legislative approval.

The DNR is on record saying they will not be pursuing any expansion of APR's due to the fact it now requires legislative approval. If the DNR doesn't push for more APR's...it won't happen. The only reason APR's exist in SE MN is due to the DNR's desire to reduce the antlerless herd. There are very few areas in MN that currently need a reduction of the antlerless herd...therefore...between the fact that APR expansion requires legislative approval and the fact that there are very few (if any) areas with too many antlerless deer....I don't see APR's being a legitimate discussion anytime in the near future. Sure MWA will continue to discuss them among the "members", sure people will say "we need APR's"...but a legitimate discussion about expansion? I'll believe it when I see it.

[delcecchi]

Past stakeholder meetings were just smoke and mirrors and a formality. DNR wanted fewer deer and they were going to do that no matter what came out of those meetings.

Why would the DNR want fewer deer, unless there were stakeholders who also wanted fewer deer? Seems to me that that the DNR would be biased towards more deer if anything.

[SmellEsox]

Why would the DNR want fewer deer, unless there were stakeholders who also wanted fewer deer? Seems to me that that the DNR would be biased towards more deer if anything.

If you go through any university and come out with a degree in wildlife management, you are taught that deer should be managed at a level to reduce ecological damage and social conflict. Our DNR takes this to the extreme and manages for exceptionally low population levels compared to surrounding states. Hunter desires are not top on the priority list.

[smsmith]

The "new" generation of wildlife biology/management grads aren't like the last generation. Many of them do not come from hunting backgrounds, especially deer hunting (like Leslie McInenly). They get into the field because of love for endangered plants or insects like the Karner Blue Butterfly. Deer are viewed as a revenue generator so that people can work on the projects they are really interested in...like restoring prairie chicken mating grounds, or getting an elk herd established, or ensuring habitat remains for those butterflies. All of those are valuable projects...but the folks who are truly passionate about DEER aren't the ones coming out of school anymore. Deer are viewed as an animal to be controlled at the lowest numbers possible while still maintaining enough of them to keep the revenue stream going.

Lou C. is on record stating that it doesn't matter how many deer we have because the deer hunters of MN will continue to buy licenses no matter what.

[DaveT]

Why would the DNR want fewer deer, unless there were stakeholders who also wanted fewer deer? Seems to me that that the DNR would be biased towards more deer if anything.

If there were a direct correlation between satisfied deer hunters and DNR employees being compensated that would make sense. That doesn't exist, DNR employees get paid no matter what.

I know for a fact that big ag and auto insurance companies want less deer. I know for a fact that those two groups have lobbyists and deep pockets. I'm pretty sure that most politicians and government officials are susceptible to "campaign donations".

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I can put two and two together.

[delcecchi]

If there were a direct correlation between satisfied deer hunters and DNR employees being compensated that would make sense. That doesn't exist, DNR employees get paid no matter what.

I know for a fact that big ag and auto insurance companies want less deer. I know for a fact that those two groups have lobbyists and deep pockets. I'm pretty sure that most politicians and government officials are susceptible to "campaign donations".

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I can put two and two together.

Ah, so big Ag and big Insurance are bribing DNR employees to reduce the deer herd. That's a new one. So you don't consider farmers or drivers "stakeholders" in the management of the deer herd?

[O.T.C.]

I know little of much of the last few posts. But did anyone catch the news last night, channel 5, they showed the 3 counties with the highest road kills reported this year and they were Sherburne, Hennepin, and ...I forget Anoka, Dakota or Wright, anyway all fairly sorta metro related.

[smsmith]

Ah, so big Ag and big Insurance are bribing DNR employees to reduce the deer herd. That's a new one. So you don't consider farmers or drivers "stakeholders" in the management of the deer herd?

You are purposely misconstruing what Dave said. Nobody has ever said the DNR was being "bribed". What has been stated by Dave and others is that big ag and the insurance industry lobby for what they want. Lobbying in today's world equals what? Campaign contributions to politicians. Who tells the DNR how to manage our resources? Politicians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the possible implications.

Of course farmers and drivers are stakeholders in the management of the deer herd. They should have some say in what the herd looks like. HOWEVER, deer hunters are the ones who PAY for the management of the herd. As such, they should have QUITE A BIT OF SAY in how the herd is managed.

[SmellEsox]

Ah, so big Ag and big Insurance are bribing DNR employees to reduce the deer herd. That's a new one. So you don't consider farmers or drivers "stakeholders" in the management of the deer herd?

They most certainly are stakeholders in the process. The tricky part is where do you set goals. No matter where they are set, each stakeholder is going to have to accept some level of dissatisfaction. In MN it always seems like hunters have to accept the most. Other states these stakeholders seem to be ok with more deer. Why is that?

[smsmith]

In MN it always seems like hunters have to accept the most. Other states these stakeholders seem to be ok with more deer. Why is that?

I don't think its that we have to...I think its because we have done so unknowingly.

[delcecchi]

They most certainly are stakeholders in the process. The tricky part is where do you set goals. No matter where they are set, each stakeholder is going to have to accept some level of dissatisfaction. In MN it always seems like hunters have to accept the most. Other states these stakeholders seem to be ok with more deer. Why is that?

And you know this how? Which states are you comparing to? What is their Ag sector like? Does the state offer financial incentives to the farmers?

[Farmsfulltime]

Lets look at Wisconsin as that seems to be their favorite of late . There has been cash compensation in the past and maybe still is don't know, There are different rules for ag land with farm permits ect . Today their deer harvest with all that is also down a lot . Some in the hunting community seem to have a anger issue with the farm community as a whole but doesn't mind when ag supports the deer they like to hunt . Not a lot of support to write any checks for deer damage so the easiest is to lessen the damage thru harvest of excess deer

[DaveT]

Lets look at Wisconsin as that seems to be their favorite of late . There has been cash compensation in the past and maybe still is don't know, There are different rules for ag land with farm permits ect . Today their deer harvest with all that is also down a lot . Some in the hunting community seem to have a anger issue with the farm community as a whole but doesn't mind when ag supports the deer they like to hunt . Not a lot of support to write any checks for deer damage so the easiest is to lessen the damage thru harvest of excess deer

I bet there could be a lot of deer depredation payments made out of the 20 billion dollars of subsidies handed out every year. Isn't it ironic that the salt of the earth, right wing, god fearing, welfare hating farmers of this country take $20,000,000,000.00 worth of government handouts every year? That's a lot of zeros...

[Farmsfulltime]

Yes it is and I wouldn't want to increase that number one dollar and I will wager not one member of mddi would vote for that either, This is Minnesota and we have never had a tradition of paying farmers for crop losses for wildlife damage and would not be in favor of that now , is that what you would like ? nevermind I know the answer

Anyone want into ag to get those fat checks last I knew anyone can join this club just lay out the cash and sign up

[mntatonka]

Anyone want into ag to get those fat checks last I knew anyone can join this club just lay out the cash and sign up

no kidding. All these farmers sure are making a killing thanks to government handouts.