New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[NWKR]

Some fun spreadsheets I did for the forest zone regarding some model changes made in 2012. Compared 2011 numbers posted on the hunting webpage to the 2011 numbers in the 2012 wildlife population publications.

Differences in prefawn populations is per the DNR numbers. My fall population is made up by me based on my own assumptions.

Differences are due to a slightly different approach taken to get the 2012 numbers.

[PurpleFloyd]

I would bet that the kids in your hunting group typically see several deer per year or get excited by seeing deer your party shoots. You probably have pretty good hunting where you are at.

[PurpleFloyd]

This is a reply that I got back from Leslie. I will give her a call to get more detail but her short response lines up exactly with the build the herd so they can push APR agenda.

Quote:

Hi,

I’ve been meaning to get back to you but am now recognizing that a sufficiently adequate response via email is just not going to be efficient. If you’d like to discuss, please call me. Yes, Brooks initially spoke to me in 2013 about his interest in yearling buck protection and his concern that current population levels were a barrier to gaining support for expansion of APR. No, we didn’t manipulate data to reduce deer densities beyond the publicly established goals.

I appreciate the note.

Best,

Leslie

[NWKR]

This is a reply that I got back from Leslie. I will give her a call to get more detail but her short response lines up exactly with the build the herd so they can push APR agenda.

[laker1]

We should be looking more at what is the future of habitat. We are fragmenting it more and more. Even in the northern forests I can show you where 100+ deer yards once were,now it is a house or a area of pines used for wintering yard are now gone.

[Bureaucrat]

We should be looking more at what is the future of habitat. We are fragmenting it more and more. Even in the northern forests I can show you where 100+ deer yards once were,now it is a house or a area of pines used for wintering yard are now gone.

Don't worry. Everyone has their eyes on everyone else's property and their rights in MN. Go read the governor's forestry task force report from 2007. It's plainly evident that they view private landowners as hindrances to logging every inch from Duluth to Bemidji. The exact same battle is raging in farm country, wildlife vs maximizing value. But because this involves trees and deer, it's wholly different from corn and pheasants apparently.

I wish I had fought harder to get the property next to mine when I had the chance. I think the days of owning a place up north are going to become a thing of the wealthy-only in another few decades. By the time anyone realizes it, it'll be too late.

I pulled out the snippet from the 07 report to save you some time.

[Bureaucrat]

PurpleFloyd,

When you get her on the phone, can you ask when they are going to implement the APR and EAB regs they were studying back in 2006? Could you also ask her what they came up with for ideas to scoot around the "social implications" of such a move?

This is really turning into a who-done-it mystery. Every time the lightning strikes and the lights go out for a moment a new suspect emerges and alliances change.

And go easy on us stand hunters. You can't just walk the whole woods up north until you see a deer. You could interfere with a lot of other people's sits. You never know when you may interrupt someone's first or perhaps their last time in the stand.

[creepworm]

I have a question.

Is anyone at the MDDI looking to the future? Or is everyone looking 5-10+ years in the past reaching for anything that has been done that may have lowered the deer population?

It seems to me the more productive strategy would have been to look to the future and work with the DNR to improve the deer population from here on out. But, I suppose it is much more fun to play monday morning quarterback and critique every decision made in the last 15 years, spinning them into far-fetched conspiracy theories.

[PurpleFloyd]

PurpleFloyd,

When you get her on the phone, can you ask when they are going to implement the APR and EAB regs they were studying back in 2006? Could you also ask her what they came up with for ideas to scoot around the "social implications" of such a move?

This is really turning into a who-done-it mystery. Every time the lightning strikes and the lights go out for a moment a new suspect emerges and alliances change.

And go easy on us stand hunters. You can't just walk the whole woods up north until you see a deer. You could interfere with a lot of other people's sits. You never know when you may interrupt someone's first or perhaps their last time in the stand.

I certainly will ask pointed and direct questions. As to the APR thing you are clinging to now, it was one theoretical proposal. Do you have any information that it had gained any traction past that sheet of paper or is this just more spaghetti against the wall? What is your rationale for why it was in there and had they implemented it numbers were as low as today would you still have problems with the DNR? The funny thing is the MDDI would never have happened no matter what population levels were as long as APR was in place considering that us the real goal anyway.

As far as your hunting style, I have no issues with whether you stand hunt or do drives. I know people who do both. I only ask for the same to be returned but there are a few that don't have the same views on liberty and individual rights.

[SmellEsox]

PF, we were bowhunting. In my experience, stalking/still hunting makes bowhunting more difficult than sitting. Plus, we hunt a private wooded 40. Not a lot of room to roam. Hopefully up here in some of the best deer habitat in MN, we won't have to do drives and walk many miles to find a deer.

[Jameson]

I have a question.

Is anyone at the MDDI looking to the future? Or is everyone looking 5-10+ years in the past reaching for anything that has been done that may have lowered the deer population?

It seems to me the more productive strategy would have been to look to the future and work with the DNR to improve the deer population from here on out. But, I suppose it is much more fun to play monday morning quarterback and critique every decision made in the last 15 years, spinning them into far-fetched conspiracy theories.

I don't think I have the saying correct, but it goes something like,,,,those that do not study the past are bound to repeat it's mistakes.

We likely won't have improvement in the future without learning from our past mistakes.

Such as after the wet cold spring of 2013, which followed the harsh winter of 2012/2013, which followed the superb hunting conditions for the 2012 fall deer hunt, we got a more liberal set of regulations even though we were only at goal or over goal in small parts of zone 3. The prediction by our deer sheriff in 2013 was for an increased deer harvest. We did not attain that and should look to see why the deer sheriff was soooo wrong. Even with corn, wind, and rain the harvest should have been even, not down, from the previous year. Now in 2015 the winter of 2012/13 and 2013/14 are being used as an excuse to why our deer populations are so low. If the winter of 2012/13 was so rough, why did it take two years to recognize that?

Let's look at the past mistakes and learn from them, not repeat them.

[Farmsfulltime]

The reason APR and EAB were studied back in that time frame as it was being discussed as Wisconsin was starting to use EAB and im sure the DNR needed to know if it could be used here to manage what at that time was a population to high . Now that the population is much closer to where it should be it is not on the table . Will not happen with the densities we have now and any mention of a study done in 2006 is a way to stir the pot , beat the drum , start the uprising as there is some desperation as the uprising is losing steam daily .The only way APR or EAB will come is if the coop movement gets enough traction to make the DNR ineffective in management and that is years away now .

I hear the word transparency used a lot in reference to the DNR well none, none of these documents would be open to the public without transparency

[mntatonka]

The reason APR and EAB were studied back in that time frame as it was being discussed as Wisconsin was starting to use EAB and im sure the DNR needed to know if it could be used here to manage what at that time was a population to high . Now that the population is much closer to where it should be it is not on the table . Will not happen with the densities we have now and any mention of a study done in 2006 is a way to stir the pot , beat the drum , start the uprising as there is some desperation as the uprising is losing steam daily .The only way APR or EAB will come is if the coop movement gets enough traction to make the DNR ineffective in management and that is years away now .

Judging by the votes during the corporate board meeting for MDHA, there's absolutely NO support for APR's or the elimination of party hunting for bucks. I'm not sure I've seen a vote so lopsided in all the years I've been going to that meeting.

[smsmith]

Judging by the votes during the corporate board meeting for MDHA, there's absolutely NO support for APR's or the elimination of party hunting for bucks. I'm not sure I've seen a vote so lopsided in all the years I've been going to that meeting.

I heard the same things. Of course, it should be noted that there's no support for APR's or the elimination of party hunting for bucks by MDHA...who has around 15K members...or about 3% of the deer hunters in MN...and of those 3% I'd wager that less than 1% pay an iota of attention to the actual workings/stances of the organization. For the vast majority of MDHA members the only thing they care about is the annual banquet and whether they win a gun at one or not.

[Farmsfulltime]

I think your quoted 1% is actually .5% or less and most middi,ers are members

[smsmith]

I think your quoted 1% is actually .5% or less and most middi,ers are members

If you noticed...I said "less than 1%"...and you're right, its more like .5% or .00005%

Most MDDI folks are not members..only a few of us

[mntatonka]

Most MDDI folks are not members..only a few of us

Including Brooks "nominated for MDHA president" Johnson, who decided to show up 2-3 hours late for the meeting/election. Good way to lose any respect he had from his peers.

[Getanet]

Mntonka, do you know how the voting turned out?

I see a few of our friends here badmouthing the MDHA on other forums, so I would imagine Brooks wasn't elected president?

[mntatonka]

Mntonka, do you know how the voting turned out?

I see a few of our friends here badmouthing the MDHA on other forums, so I would imagine Brooks wasn't elected president?

Correct, he was not voted president. I do not know the vote totals as they don't give them out for the board votes.

[SmellEsox]

Don't worry. Everyone has their eyes on everyone else's property and their rights in MN. Go read the governor's forestry task force report from 2007. It's plainly evident that they view private landowners as hindrances to logging every inch from Duluth to Bemidji. The exact same battle is raging in farm country, wildlife vs maximizing value. But because this involves trees and deer, it's wholly different from corn and pheasants apparently.

I wish I had fought harder to get the property next to mine when I had the chance. I think the days of owning a place up north are going to become a thing of the wealthy-only in another few decades. By the time anyone realizes it, it'll be too late.

I pulled out the snippet from the 07 report to save you some time.

I think you are reading a lot into this. This is just pointing out some of the negatives of private ownership and a lot of it is true. I see no report of wanting to own all the forest land. I have different feelings about private vs. public lands. I think the ability to own land is amazing and someday hope I can get some. It is one of the great freedoms we have in this country. But I can't help but realize that the private land is the stuff that often eventually gets converted, ie. converted to farmland, developed, drained, megahome on the lakeshore, etc.

[delcecchi]

The forest products companies are busily selling off their land for, presumably, financial reasons.

[PurpleFloyd]

Don't worry. Everyone has their eyes on everyone else's property and their rights in MN.

Yeah, like trying to tell them they can't hunt as a family or shoot a buck even if they are perfectly happy with it's appearance.

[helpme]

Everybody keeps talking about deer densities and DPSM when every Sq mile has its own uniqueness. Why not change it to deer per Sq mile of habitat. Use a reduced formula for both cities, tillable land and other variations located in the management unit. I believe this would give a better picture of the population. However, the so called "Model" would need to be adjusted accordingly.

Or they can just talk with the local DNR officials, warden, area wildlife managers and utilize their input. They are the ones that know the land they manage.

As someone said before, forward thinking! And yes, you can review what has or has not worked in the past, such as reduced doe tags to increase the heard and APR's to decimate the herd by focusing the pressure on does.

[Bureaucrat]

Is anyone concerned that the DNR cannot explain what the carrying capacity of the land is in a given area? Is anyone concerned that nobody has been able to quantify why pine regeneration is so hard in MN? These are the questions I would like to see answered before we do any more reducing to save the forests. Lacking proper science, we could completely eradicate deer and still fail on forest regen.

I have been doing some diggging into the fallout of the 2005 FSC assessment, the 2006 response, and the research that followed in response to the 2005 assessment. The DNR noted they were researching deer browse impacts at Itasca State Park. The researchers there could not produce a correlation between deer and failure of pines to regenerate in their research concluded in 2009.

What makes it more interesting is that during the time of that study, deer populations were measured at 33 DPSM. If you go back in time to when the Itasca State Park management plan was drafted in 1998, the plan referenced the density at 15-17 DPSM. At that rate deer were still being blamed for the regen issue. More interesting than that is they also note in 98 that pine stands will get crowded out by hardwoods in the absense of fire.

Toss in the diversity of soils in Itasca State Park and the majority of the north woods and you will find conditions where 200 year old pine stands may have gotten a foothold from the last fire but lost out after those stands were logged and subsequently not burned. Soils with pines that were also hospitable to oak, maple, aspen, poplar, dogwood, ironwood, basswood etc would be doomed to lose regardless of deer or not.

I'd argue the lack of fire caused the deer boom because all the species above are preferred deer browse. The big unproven is that there are no pines because there were so many deer. Have researchers in MN considered that there were so many deer because there were no pines? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

I pose all of this because it's apparently a consensus at the DNR that forest problems are caused by deer, yet no research in Minnesota bears that out. There is research showing clear inconsistencies in understanding of forest succession, of which we're apparently still failing, and were failing even during the bust years of deer populations.

Shouldn't the failure of forest regen demand study and solution that actually produces a clear answer to solve the problem here before we wipe out the deer herd as the scapegoat?

[Getanet]

Shouldn't the failure of forest regen demand study and solution that actually produces a clear answer to solve the problem here before we wipe out the deer herd as the scapegoat?

What seems more plausible to you - that the DNR is intent on wiping out the deer herd; or, they were trying to create a balance with the herd that would keep all parties somewhat happy - and a few tough winters/springs and an increase in wolves temporarily tipped the scales toward too few deer? I know what seems more plausible to me.

If you read this story in the Star Tribune on Friday, you'll see the DNR acknowledges there is a problem and is working on raising the herd. Steve Merchant notes the DNR will be aiming for a goal of 200,000+ annual harvest - which is right in Ssmith's acceptable range. It won't happen overnight. If in two years or so we are still facing an unacceptably low herd and lower harvest than some of these arguments you're making would have a lot more merit. Until then the DNR is showing signs of listening to hunters and taking corrective action.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/292808301.html