New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[laker1]

OTC-

growing up in central Minnesota in the 60's,if you farmed,you probably had a dairy farm and every town had a creamry. The good old days.

[O.T.C.]

I sure miss that and did grow up dairy farming with my dad being a cenex manager one day before he left cenex after 33 years he threw a rolodex on the table at the board meeting, had the members look at it, then said those were dairy farm accounts that no longer exist. Gone, so they were bought up by deer hunters or larger row crop farmers or some are renting to whoever. I'd certainly say corn is better than potatoes for deer for sure but the deer didn't seem to like our neighbors combined corn this fall, there just wasn't much missed by the massive john deere's, I suppose in the spring thaw they can get at some of it better.

[DaveT]

another one of the problems. taking what the dnr states as goals for zones and directly applying it to a specific property.

dnr will never be able to manage at the property level the way hunters expect them too. a lot of hunters have flat earth syndrome: the world starts and stops at their property lines.

Except the whole zone looks like that. 25-30 DPSM in an area that has considerably less habitat than most zones in MN that are managed for 10. A month of growing season is enough to support 20 more deer in an area with considerably less habitat? Forget everything I've ever said about KS. All I want is to see the same amount of deer I used to see in MN 10-20 years ago. I know it's possible because I lived through it.

[O.T.C.]

And I want to see the same amount of deer I saw 30 years ago when during the 2 day season my report to dad was 19 on day 1 and 11 on day 2. Was averaging about 15 sightings per day except the blizzard year of 1987 when we didn't even get out which bolstered the deer population for the following year, big time saw 16 bucks in 2 days the following year and 40+ does and fawns, it's crazy to think back how tremendous the deer hunting was then. Bucks rutting all over mid day, buck fights, not nocturnal much. Always had good optimism going into November because the 1/2 of it was just seeing and learning from the deer which was as enjoyable as pulling the trigger.

[laker1]

OTC.> I recognized in corn fields also,deer were not in them as much,must be the corn pickers do a better job and the stalks and cobs stay better on so they can get picked than they did in the past.

There have been some studies that corn raised for ethanol the deer may not like as much?

[creepworm]

There have been some studies that corn raised for ethanol the deer may not like as much?

I would LOVE to see these studies. Seeing corn raised for ethanol is the same corn that is raised for silage, the same corn that is raised for high fructose corn syrup, the same corn that is fed to cattle in feed lots, and the same corn that is used for everything else corn is used for.

Unless you are talking about Enogen corn, which is corn genetically engineered to be turned into ethanol more efficiently. That was planted on roughly 12,000 acres in the U.S. and none of that was north of HWY 212.

[laker1]

The studies were done in South Dakota by SDSU university. Initial results show there was some preference to the regular corn but not as much as some people thought. I don't know if this study is still going on.

[creepworm]

Seriously, I need a link to this "study". Seriously. I am extremely serious on this, I need a link.

What do they and you mean by "ethanol corn". Seriously, there is no genetic difference between corn going to an ethanol plant and corn going to any of its many other uses. Not a single gene is different. Not one.

Unless of course you are talking about Enogen, which is planted on a whopping 0.00015% of the U.S. corn acres. I seriously doubt if you have ever seen a field of Enogen corn, and I know if you saw one, you would not know it. Maybe SDSU is doing research on if deer like Enogen corn, but I doubt. I would think they would realize that Enogen will never be more than an extreme rarity and have no impact on deer in any geography.

So please, I actually am begging you, provide a link to this study.

[laker1]

This isn't the study I seen about 1.5 years ago,but it is still interesting.

corn

I will keep looking for the other one,I think the corn ethanol hybred suppose to be more efficient in the ethanol process also.

Maybe it has more or less cellose(sp)deer dislike? I see if the other sudy it is still available?

[creepworm]

This isn't the study I seen about 1.5 years ago,but it is still interesting.

corn

Prior to doing this experiment, these fellas should have walked out of the main door of the Northern Plains Biostress building, kiddy-corner across the street into the Animal Science building, and asked if ruminants can tell the difference in corn varieties. It would have saved them the time, effort, and money of doing this experiment.

[laker1]

Use to like to go to the dairy or ag building years ago and get a malt or ice cream cone.

1972 jackrabbit grad.

[Bureaucrat]

Hold on to your hats fellas, this has just gotten more interesting. From the 2006 Forest Stewardship Council audit in MN...

DNR has APRs and EAB on the idea board if we aren't pulling the trigger enough.

(posting again for emphasis)

DNR has APRs and EAB on the idea board if we aren't pulling the trigger enough.

Isn't that a hot dose of irony? The group being accused of advocating for antler point restrictions is advocating for the halting of the reduction policy that may very well lead to antler point restrictions?

[PurpleFloyd]

Why?

APR was listed as a herd reduction strategy. This is what has been said and is the result when you protect young bucks and shoot does instead.

Where your point runs hollow is spelled out in the thread that has been posted is that the doe protection is only being used as a tool to build the herd to a level that Brooks and company can then try to justify APR because there will then be enough deer in his mind to provide everyone an opportunity.

What that plan fails to realize is that once Brooks and company get their APR, then either they need to liberalize doe harvest which will put us back where we are now.

[creepworm]

Um, that is from 2006. The deer population was bordering on out of control in many areas in 2006. That report is completely irrelevant when it comes to deer management.

Next the MDDI will be using reports from the 80's. The MDDI must not believe credibility is important.

[Bureaucrat]

So what do we do now? Deer population attitude from the DNR hasn't changed since 2003 until this last year when harvest was mildly restricted. In the opinion of some here that reduced harvest was a bone thrown to the 375,000 dissatisfied hunters of MN.

Has the DNR made a grave mistake by not leaving liberal harvest regs in place given that we've had a subdued winter? Is it perhaps inevitable at this point that APRs are going to need to be implemented in the 200 series zones?

According to you guys, if MDDI is successful at implementing change we're going to get stuck with APRs statewide. If we fail, it seems like we're going to get stuck with APRs statewide. There's been a lot of scuddlebutt in the outdoor news about APRs recently.

I guess I'm not sure what we're supposed to do now to avoid APRs.

[Bureaucrat]

Um, that is from 2006. The deer population was bordering on out of control in many areas in 2006. That report is completely irrelevant when it comes to deer management.

Next the MDDI will be using reports from the 80's. The MDDI must not believe credibility is important.

You're right, that is from 2006. Nothing has been noted as concern since from the FSC and SFI auditors. So why then did the DNR continue to obliterate the herd downward for another 7 years? Bring me your smoking gun data that shows we had a population emergency in 2008 or 2011.

[Jameson]

......

That last sentence is a kick in the privates. .....with the intention of implementing them in areas where season length and and bag limit have already been maximized.

[NWKR]

Um, that is from 2006. The deer population was bordering on out of control in many areas in 2006. That report is completely irrelevant when it comes to deer management.

Next the MDDI will be using reports from the 80's. The MDDI must not believe credibility is important.

What areas other than parts of the SE, metro areas and other non hunting areas were out of control?

I know there were some localized issues for farmers in our permit area. When it is <2% of the permit area why should they have intensive harvest for the whole area? They did give unlimited tags to some farmers in those areas, and they still have a higher population around there because there are some large farmers that only let family and friends hunt their land. I am fine with them doing what they want on private land but its b s when the DNR says the whole permit area has a problem.

[delcecchi]

That brings up a thought on a Sunday morning, as I muse.

As a whole, why should the DNR want a high deer population in Minnesota? Deer hunters are only one group of people, and the Audubon Society, and the Sierra Club, and various other environmental groups, along with farmers and forest products and insurance and other commercial groups all are indifferent or hostile to deer population.

Deer are not even particularly native to the northern part of the state as it was before the settlers and loggers etc arrived. So what makes folks believe that the DNR as a whole organization wants deer population levels anywhere near that which would be satisfactory to the average hunter?

Just wondering is all.

[smsmith]

So what makes folks believe that the DNR as a whole organization wants deer population levels anywhere near that which would be satisfactory to the average hunter?

Just wondering is all.

I don't know anyone who does believe that

[laker1]

I agree we over harvested,but also have to say deer number this last 15 years has been as high for a extended time length than it has ever been in the last 100 years. We had a good run. Lets work together to have another one.

That said nature is always changing and wildlife management is always trying to adjust to that. The late 90's in much of the north woods was all about forestry and backed by the forest industry. I think now is a chance to swing back to a more moderate coarse.

Let the process of meetings and changes work out. Who knows you might like it.

I think we got to get back working together on projects.

[Jameson]

...So what makes folks believe that the DNR as a whole organization wants deer population levels anywhere near that which would be satisfactory to the average hunter?

Just wondering is all.

The mission of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is to work with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that creates a sustainable quality of life.

....

I guess I take this to mean that they are to try to keep everyone happy and that the current deer populations equates to a 20% approval rating by the hunters. Maybe the "creates a sustainable quality of life" only applies to commercial users.

[NWKR]

That brings up a thought on a Sunday morning, as I muse.

As a whole, why should the DNR want a high deer population in Minnesota? Deer hunters are only one group of people, and the Audubon Society, and the Sierra Club, and various other environmental groups, along with farmers and forest products and insurance and other commercial groups all are indifferent or hostile to deer population.

Deer are not even particularly native to the northern part of the state as it was before the settlers and loggers etc arrived. So what makes folks believe that the DNR as a whole organization wants deer population levels anywhere near that which would be satisfactory to the average hunter?

Just wondering is all.

I think a majority of hunters probably do believe that. But I think the average hunter and majority of hunters spend <5 days a year thinking about deer hunting.

The only real solution I see for hunters is talking to neighbors about passing on does to increase the local populations and working on making habitat improvements. In the end it will mainly be the public land hunters getting the short end of the stick.

[smsmith]

The only real solution I see for hunters is talking to neighbors about passing on does to increase the local populations and working on making habitat improvements. In the end it will mainly be the public land hunters getting the short end of the stick.

I agree with both of these statements

[minky]

I agree, work on our own small part of the deer hunting world.

That is where we can make the biggest impact.