New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[creepworm]

Should added hunter safety be a factor in determining deer season length?

One more thing, just because I feel this statement is very asinine.

If we manage the deer herd based on safety, our goal should be 0 deer. Very few to no deer hunters would mean very few to no deer hunter accidents. Also, there would be the plus of less car deer collisions or collisions caused by swerving to miss deer. Zero deer would be about as safe as it gets.

[Siwulat]

Actually the best solution would be to have a statewide split season for all forms of hunting including the north zone , Muzzy and Bow season. Give them 2 days or a 4 day weekend and that's it. Since the population problems are basically from 94 north it seems the deer north of there would benefit more than in the south where we have no population problems. But doing that would take the pressure off of the herd for sure. I would be behind that as well because it would give me fewer disruptions to the ditch parrot season.

I understand your reasoning for this, but splitting or cutting down the season for all weapons statistically doesn't make sense. The vast majority of deer harvested are done so using firearms.

Splitting the firearms season would definitely take some pressure off. I would also advocate a shorter season later in the year, that does not take place during the peak of rut activity.

[Jameson]

...This statement confuses me for 2 reasons...

It was a question, not a statement. No wonder you are confused.

[SmellEsox]

One more thing, just because I feel this statement is very asinine.

If we manage the deer herd based on safety, our goal should be 0 deer. Very few to no deer hunters would mean very few to no deer hunter accidents. Also, there would be the plus of less car deer collisions or collisions caused by swerving to miss deer. Zero deer would be about as safe as it gets.

Actually, if I was limited in how much I could hunt due to safety reasons, it would cause more injury as I might just go postal if I can't go hunting. And my mental health would suffer. LOL!

And to all the folks suggesting that fewer days is better, I disagree. I would rather have longer seasons, but stricter limits. But if DNR is going to allow more opportunity in days to hunt, they need to be more conservative in what they allow people to harvest. Just my opinion.

[delcecchi]

Just wait till the DNR sees this....

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2015/03/white-tailed_deer_shown_to_rai.html

Quote:

Seeing fewer quail on your hunting lease? Maybe it's time you stop pointing the finger at coyotes, raccoons and fire ants and place the blame on your murderous herd of white-tailed deer.

Believe it or not, researchers have discovered deer will raid the happy homes of ground-nesting birds and enjoy a nice breakfast of eggs or fledglings.

Pam Pietz, a wildlife biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in North Dakota, set up miniature video cameras that ran 24 hours a day to document the fate of grassland songbird nests, according to the USGS.

She was surprised to find deer raided as many nests as badgers, and more than weasels or red foxes.

Ah, but maybe the deer were simply eating the tasty forbs around the nest, and the baby birds just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not likely, Pietz said. She pointed to a research project in Canada where songbirds were captured in above-ground mist nets. Wild deer walked up to the nets and gobbled up the easy prey.

In the midst of her project, Pietz wondered if white-tailed deer would eat eggs as well as nestlings, so she presented a captive deer at a research center with quail eggs to find out.

"It munched them right up," she said.

Eggs and baby birds are packed with nutrients, said Wyoming Game and Fish biologist Reg Rothwell, so it shouldn't be surprising that otherwise herbivorous animals just can't resist adding them to their diets. Eggs provide high-quality protein, as well as fats, lots of vitamins including A, D and E and minerals like calcium and zinc, and nestlings are rich in fats, proteins and other nutrients.

In actuality, though, Rothwell said no one should consider deer to be major nest depredators.

"It's not a huge problem," Rothwell said, "and it's probably been going on for eons."

[hockeybc69]

We must do away with deer. What will they eat next?

[smsmith]

Apparently our elected are listening. If you support the audit, now is the time to let your elected know. Take 30 seconds and send them an email reinforcing the fact you support the audit and you want them support the audit as well.

http://www.mndeerdensity.com/uncategorized/mn-deer-mgmt-audit-vote-april-10th/

If you'd prefer to only contact your specific elected, you can find their email addresses here http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[DaveT]

MDHA is finally taking a stand.

http://mndeerhunters.com/en/mdha-comment...ittees-process/

For those who don't like reading it basically says that the stakeholder process is bogus. I already knew that thanks to Brooks but maybe having the state's biggest deer hunting group finally calling the DNR out on their bee-ess will help the cause.

Great work, Brooks. You've made huge strides and I guarantee we'd still be intensive harvest all over the state without you.

[smsmith]

Its good to see MDHA being who they should be...the leader of advocacy for the deer hunters of MN.

I owe Craig Engwall an apology. He obviously is willing to take on his former employer...and for that I am grateful.

While it took MDDI to irritate and educate...I'm more than happy to have MDHA re-assume their position as the dominant "deer group" in MN.

[smsmith]

Joe Albert, editor of MN Outdoor News has come around to the idea of supporting the audit of the DNR. When presented with all the facts...its a pretty easy decision to make really. Hopefully, we'll get this done and something good will come of it.

[laker1]

Well you got two weeks to let your concerns known and also I get tired of hearing statewide harvest in a state that is 400 miles long. Partition the state up.

It is much more meaningful to state like from Brainerd north the goal is 100,000 deer or whatever number chosen.

Management objectives and reality vary over much of the state.

You should have at least 2-3 zone goals.

Heck compared to the 60's the southern part of the state use to have almost zero deer killed except for the SE.

[smsmith]

Well you got two weeks to let your concerns known and also I get tired of hearing statewide harvest in a state that is 400 miles long. Partition the state up.

It is much more meaningful to state like from Brainerd north the goal is 100,000 deer or whatever number chosen.

Management objectives and reality vary over much of the state.

You should have at least 2-3 zone goals.

Heck compared to the 60's the southern part of the state use to have almost zero deer killed except for the SE.

Good ideas to offer to the DNR as they develop the first deer management plan for the state of MN (which never would have happened without the influence the MDDI exerted on the DNR and MDHA)

[laker1]

Something you should mention in your comments. If population was 20 and went down 50% that means were now at 10 deer,so now a 50% increase will only get us back to 15.

Lets make sure that is made clear to the DNR,deer hunters and the news papers and lets work together,not against each other.

[rkhinrichs]

when does the 2014 deer harvest come out?

[NWKR]

when does the 2014 deer harvest come out?

Good question, I got a copy of it from someone that was on one of the deer advisory teams. They had got copies back in February I believe.

[Getanet]

Don't know, but this is the page it would be found on when its made public:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[SmellEsox]

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/2015/gs/deerharvest_2014.pdf

Here is your 2014 harvest report.

[rkhinrichs]

thanks! I emailed the DNR on march 12th and got a reply saying "I’m completing the final report now and hope to have it posted soon. Do you have a specific question”

[laker1]

Like I said before, overall very few people get involved in going to meetings or writing in comments to the DNR site.

Yet they will be the first to complain.

[NWKR]

Like I said before, overall very few people get involved in going to meetings or writing in comments to the DNR site.

Yet they will be the first to complain.

I am a bit confused, who/what is that post directed at? Are you saying the few people that do get involved in meetings or writing comments to the DNR are the ones that are the first to complain? Or are you talking about somebody else complaining first?

[laker1]

Exactly opposite, talking about the many people who sit on the side line and only complain to fellow hunters or on the bar stool. They never get actively involved where it may make a difference.

Like now preliminary plans are out,wonder how many people have made a comment online or talked to the DNR or your advisory group.

[NWKR]

Makes sense, I agree with you just wasn't sure if that's what you were saying based on your original wording.

I have been in contact with various DNR wildlife managers are various levels for a few years. I have tried to get other hunters to contact them as well, but I doubt any of them have. Very few will actually take the time to make comments.

[DaveT]

Sure is quiet in this thread since MDHA and Outdoor News jumped on the bandwagon. You have until the 15th to let the DNR how you feel about the advisory team's recommendations in blocks 1-5.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

To those in the know, has Leslie responded to MDHA yet? I heard she refused to let the meetings be filmed, a public agency serving the public refused to let a public meeting be filmed. What country are we in?

[nonteepical]

Her response was that she was going to talk to MDHA in private.

[ANYFISH2]

I am a little concerned with the comments of recommendations. Particularly for example, a 50% increase will bring populations to previous goal set in 2006.

IMO, the goal should be what is being adjusted and not from the current state of the population. In theory, although a increase is recommended, the future goal could be lower than what was set in 2006, of which is part of what got us to the point we are at.