New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[mntatonka]

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.

the recommendations ARE for the goals, not for the current population.

from the site: In 2015, the DNR is revisiting deer population goals

[laker1]

Many areas in the northeast even if goals double,the population will be a fraction of what its long term carrying capacity could be and was at one time.

[smsmith]

Revisiting population goals based on a perception

No real hard science is being discussed/involved with the new goals. Its a sham of a process. The outcomes are irrelevant anyway...any goal that doesn't fit with the DNR's desires will be tossed out (like what happened in SE MN) or the herd numbers will be "adjusted" in a year or three to reflect what the DNR wants.

The entire process needs to be scrapped. An audit may help us to get a legitimate goal setting process based on science rather than perception.

[delcecchi]

Revisiting population goals based on a perception

No real hard science is being discussed/involved with the new goals. Its a sham of a process. The outcomes are irrelevant anyway...any goal that doesn't fit with the DNR's desires will be tossed out (like what happened in SE MN) or the herd numbers will be "adjusted" in a year or three to reflect what the DNR wants.

The entire process needs to be scrapped. An audit may help us to get a legitimate goal setting process based on science rather than perception.

The goals are a political or whatever based number. It is a number that all the groups will accept, those that want many deer and those that want few deer. Science has nothing much to do with it.

[NWKR]

the recommendations ARE for the goals, not for the current population.

from the site: In 2015, the DNR is revisiting deer population goals

The stakeholder were voting on what they felt the increase should be based on their perception of the 2014 population in their area.

If they felt there were 5 deer in their area and wanted 7.5 they vote for 50%. If someone else felt there were 10 in the same area and wanted 15 they vote for 50% as well. If someone felt there was 2 and wanted 10 they were SOL since 50% was max vote.

[smsmith]

Science has nothing much to do with it.

Quite true. So, why are the deer hunters of this state paying pretty good wages to folks with science degrees to manage our deer herd?

If its purely a sociological (soft science) process...why not employ a few sociologists to conduct the goal setting process for a couple months every decade (an audit would likely suggest conducting the goal setting process at least every 5 years)? If its a sociological process, I see zero reason to pay biologists to run the process. Do you?

[delcecchi]

What I meant was that the population goals are not a scientific question. The management to try to maintain the population at those goals, and track what the population is are definitely scientific. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[smsmith]

What I meant was that the population goals are not a scientific question. The management to try to maintain the population at those goals, and track what the population is are definitely scientific. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Thanks for the clarification. You don't see any problems with hard science trained folks conducting a process using soft science...and then trying to use hard science to manage a goal produced via soft science??? I sure do

[delcecchi]

Thanks for the clarification. You don't see any problems with hard science trained folks conducting a process using soft science...and then trying to use hard science to manage a goal produced via soft science??? I sure do

The goal is not scientific. The goal is the result of a political process as defined by various interest groups.

The farmers want fewer deer eating their crops. The insurance companies want fewer deer hit by cars. The forest products industry wants fewer deer eating the little trees. The hunters want more deer to shoot.

Someone needs to balance the demands. That is not a scientific process. It is a political process. Us science people are not necessarily qualified to engage in such activities.

They might attempt to do so but ultimately it is those with a talent for the political that make the decisions.

I don't quite see why you don't understand what I am saying. The goals for deer population across the state is a political decision, with input from the scientific community.

I know it seems hard to believe that there are folks who want the deer population to be small, but there are and they have influence.

[SmellEsox]

The goal is not scientific. The goal is the result of a political process as defined by various interest groups.

The farmers want fewer deer eating their crops. The insurance companies want fewer deer hit by cars. The forest products industry wants fewer deer eating the little trees. The hunters want more deer to shoot.

Someone needs to balance the demands. That is not a scientific process. It is a political process. Us science people are not necessarily qualified to engage in such activities.

They might attempt to do so but ultimately it is those with a talent for the political that make the decisions.

I don't quite see why you don't understand what I am saying. The goals for deer population across the state is a political decision, with input from the scientific community.

I know it seems hard to believe that there are folks who want the deer population to be small, but there are and they have influence.

Correct. But other states around us seem to find that "social" deer population level twice as high as MN does. There's no shortage of corn, beans, etc. produced in North America. And Insurance companies just pass the cost on to the consumer. So what's the big deal? If the population of deer was 1 in the state, there'd be a [PoorWordUsage] off farmer or forester. Just look at elk management as an example.

[smsmith]

I don't quite see why you don't understand what I am saying. The goals for deer population across the state is a political decision, with input from the scientific community.

I know it seems hard to believe that there are folks who want the deer population to be small, but there are and they have influence.

A. I do understand what you're saying...I don't think you understand what I was saying.

B. I know full well there are folks who want a small deer population and that those folks have influence. It appears that those of us who want more deer on the landscape are now exerting our influence...and its about time.

[NWKR]

I know it seems hard to believe that there are folks who want the deer population to be small, but there are and they have influence.

I would be surprised if anyone posting here found that hard to believe.

What I find hard to believe is how much many hunters in MN think the DNR wants an increased deer population. It seems that even the MDHA no longer has that trust in the DNR. Now to see if it is just a an effort to get some more membership dues, or actually work on some changes in deer management.

[smsmith]

It appears MDHA is growing more frustrated with the MN DNR.

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

Make sure to click on the links that take you to their letters to Leslie as well as Leslie's response.

I am becoming more and more impressed with Craig Engwall.

Make sure you fill out the survey on the goal setting process http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[DaveT]

It appears MDHA is growing more frustrated with the MN DNR.

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

Make sure to click on the links that take you to their letters to Leslie as well as Leslie's response.

I am becoming more and more impressed with Craig Engwall.

Make sure you fill out the survey on the goal setting process http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

I love how Leslie puts supermajority in quotes, as if to imply that Engwall created the term out of thin air. He got the word right off your own Advisory team packet, Leslie! Here are some words that I would use to describe Leslie's advisory team process. Spurious. Adulterated. Specious. We should change Leslie's title from Big Game Coordinator to Big Game Annihilator or Wolf Nutrition Specialist.

[jtoast]

I'm a bit confused by the basis of MDHA's complaint. Part of there frustration is that the DNR had; "Refusal to allow teams recommendations for population increases above 50%. Am I wrong in understanding that this process was about adjusting population GOALS and not the actual deer population? For example if a PA had a goal of 20dpsm and there is actually only 7 (via model or aerial survey). People become frustrated and demand that the herd size be at least doubled (more than 50% increase). Would a 50% increase in GOAL to 30dpsm be appropriate? It seems MDHA should focus less on the goal setting process which is just that and more on the many flaws the DNR has in achieving goals that are in place (accuracy of modeling, accountability with regional involvement and management strategies.)

[smsmith]

I'd agree there are plenty of problems the MDHA could be focusing on...but I'm just glad to see them taking a stand on something.

I'm betting that the goal setting process is where MDHA leadership has chosen to start pointing out the inadequacies of the DNR deer management. I think MDHA would like to be involved in developing the new deer management plan the DNR is supposedly going to put together. Its my understanding that both MDHA and QDMA offered to assist the DNR in developing that plan...and both were told "no".

[NWKR]

I'm a bit confused by the basis of MDHA's complaint. Part of there frustration is that the DNR had; "Refusal to allow teams recommendations for population increases above 50%. Am I wrong in understanding that this process was about adjusting population GOALS and not the actual deer population? For example if a PA had a goal of 20dpsm and there is actually only 7 (via model or aerial survey). People become frustrated and demand that the herd size be at least doubled (more than 50% increase). Would a 50% increase in GOAL to 30dpsm be appropriate? It seems MDHA should focus less on the goal setting process which is just that and more on the many flaws the DNR has in achieving goals that are in place (accuracy of modeling, accountability with regional involvement and management strategies.)

Yes, your understanding is essentially wrong. The advisory teams were voting on increases based on the 2014 deer population. So they are adjusting goals, but the 2015 goals being set have nothing to do with the prior goals set in 2005-2007.

Also, they are moving away from any sort of DPSM measurement. Just increase, decrease, and stay the same. So I agree with you that the methods used for achieving the goals will become much more important.

[Bureaucrat]

We learned today that the DNR is supportive of the audit. Out of 14 choices legislators selected the audit as one of the leading topics as well.

[jtoast]

I would like someone else who was a part of these teams to give us their perspective on what they were actually voting on. To me it was quite clear that the vote was for increases/decreases; "relative to current target density range."

[NWKR]

This is a bit concerning. I wonder how many people have taken the surveys thinking the increases are based on the old goals and not the 2014 population. Might be a bit cynical of me to think but the DNR probably hopes for confusion like this.

I know multiple people that got on advisory teams. 2 in the east central block and another in the north central block. This is from the 2nd page of the agenda for the meeting when the advisory teams were voting on the goals. Options "relative to your perception of 2014 population":

[Getanet]

We learned today that the DNR is supportive of the audit.

That's intriguing. They certainly haven't seemed to be supportive of it up to this point. I was trying to come up with a range of reasons they would be, and this is what I can think of, in no particular order:

1) They either are, or want to appear, willing to work with hunters on this issue.

2) They're confident an audit will essentially approve of their current methods. Essentially a big, "how you like us now?" to those arguing they don't know what they're doing. (this is more of less what happened in PA).

3) They're truly at a loss on how to manage the herd in a way that will keep all parties relatively happy...and following the recommendations of the audit will take some of the pressure off their decision making.

4) Any recommendations from an audit would likely require an expanded budget to carry out those recommendations. That would give them a lot of leverage when it comes time to negotiate budgets.

5) The folks holding the pursue strings for their budget told them they're going to support this.

6) A little birdy told them an audit is inevitable, so they decided its better to appear to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

That's all I can think of. Any other theories?

[delcecchi]

I'm thinking maybe number 3. They realized they can't make everyone happy, so are punting the issue.

[smsmith]

I'm thinking #6

[jtoast]

Concerning and interesting. Last year the teams voted; "relative to current target density range." This year they voted; "relative to your perception of 2014 population." Those are two entirely different challenges placed on advisory teams. How can voting to increase/decrease upon last years perceived population relate to setting a goal anyway?

[SmellEsox]

Concerning and interesting. Last year the teams voted; "relative to current target density range." This year they voted; "relative to your perception of 2014 population." Those are two entirely different challenges placed on advisory teams. How can voting to increase/decrease upon last years perceived population relate to setting a goal anyway?

Yeah, no kidding! Based on my perception of what I've seen the last couple years I think the population needs to increase 300%.