New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[elkhuntingfan]

I was on one of the teams. We were supposed to be voting on an increase or decrease based on the 2014 herd level. Unfortunately, many of the committee members focused on where the DNR thought the herd was with respect to the 2007 goals. If the DNR's data indicated the 2007 goals had been met, several of the committee members thought no change was necessary. This made it very difficult to get people moving toward an increase, especially with the DNR saying the population was up in most of our areas. This was despite a majority of those who were polled prior to our meeting saying the herd was down.

There were other issues as well. The requirement of a supermajority gave the couple people who were looking to decrease the herd a lot of power to keep the vote down around small increases or no increase at all. My personal feeling was that the DNR knew where these people stood when they were brought on, and that seemed to taint the entire process.

Another issue was that the poll that was sent out was based primarily on the individuals' perceptions before the 2014 hunt. They asked about their hunts in 2011-2013. The poll also indicated that a 50% increase would be substantial, I believe implying that a smaller increase should be recommended by those taking the poll.

There were several committee members concerned with how the DNR would be able to institute changes when they didn't really seem to have a handle on where the deer herd was anyway. How do you know where you're going if you don't know where you are starting. At one of the information meetings, a comment was made by one of the DNR staff members that the herd is on the verge of being out of control implying we had to be careful suggesting an increase in herd size.

[jtoast]

It seems this years process was quite different than last years. Why should be asked of those in the legislature considering an audit right now. Last year the process in the SE focused on adjusting past goals in which current densities and population trends were considered but not the basis for voting. Wrong place to ask, but what was the DNR thinking changing the entire focus of the goal setting process?

[ANYFISH2]

IMHO, they set the process up to get THIER desired result, plain and simple. Thier thinking is if we set processes up like this they can tell hunter that this is what we wanted in 2015, we had our say.

Just like change the winter severity index mid winter 2013-14, and still compare numbers with past winters.

just like spilling the same one million number for 15 straight years.

just like being shocked the public wanted a written review of the listening sessions in 2014. ( not sure I ever seen one)

They think the general public is stupid and ignorant when it comes to game populations, In general they that may accurate. Thank goodness a lot of us in the hunting community has stepped forward and called them out. We certainly need some change.

[smsmith]

IMHO, they set the process up to get THIER desired result, plain and simple. Thier thinking is if we set processes up like this they can tell hunter that this is what we wanted in 2015, we had our say.

Just like change the winter severity index mid winter 2013-14, and still compare numbers with past winters.

just like spilling the same one million number for 15 straight years.

just like being shocked the public wanted a written review of the listening sessions in 2014. ( not sure I ever seen one)

They think the general public is stupid and ignorant when it comes to game populations, In general they that may accurate. Thank goodness a lot of us in the hunting community has stepped forward and called them out. We certainly need some change.

We need a "like" button on this HSOforum

[Satchmo]

#1,#5, & #6 I'll bet.