New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[smsmith]

The concept of the MDDI was developed as a tool to get APR implemented plain and simple and it was not even a good plan at that.

You're wrong...plain and simple.

If APR's were the goal, it would have made a lot more sense to attempt to bolster and work with the MWA. The formula for success in getting APRs implemented already exists. All it will take to expand APRs is the legislature to approve it, or have the legislature return the power to expand APR units to the DNR.

[SmellEsox]

What cause? If the cause is as the MDDI was conceived which was a stepping stone towards another agenda then no.The audit idea itself is no platform to achieve what you are looking for either as it is inefficient and unpredictable. The cause of managing deer at a higher population level.

The deer population will rebound as long as nature allows it to with the plan that is already in place. What plan? I'm not aware of any plan.

As far as in the future,the best thing that can be done is to try to educate hunters that it isn't about the rack size. back before this MDDI thing was launched I was on here arguing with the pro APR crowd that the mindset of letting small bucks walk in favor of filling the freezer with does was wrong. It seems there are more people now who understand that but it was the vocal minority of antler hunters who pushed this without understanding the implications. Shooting does and allowing small bucks to walk is a fantastic management plan if the population is being managed at a level where it is sustainable. And I don't think anyone should be "filling their freezer" with venison. IMO, that could be viewed as just as selfish as the guy who wants to see more bigger bucks. The APR guys didn't cause the population decline. It was aggressive doe harvest enabled by DNR and bad winters that caused the herd to decline to where we're at now.

As to the comment above about people changing, this has nothing to do with someone changing their mind. The concept of the MDDI was developed as a tool to get APR implemented plain and simple and it was not even a good plan at that. The time from talking APR to the MDDI happened in a matter of weeks, not months or years and was documented as a means to an end, not as a change in core beliefs.

[Getanet]

Does the MDDI have official leadership, elected or otherwise? Who, exactly, represents the MDDI when acting on behalf of the group and interacting with the DNR and state legislators?

Since Brooks is running for president of MDHA, who carries the torch for the MDDI if he wins?

[PurpleFloyd]

You're wrong...plain and simple.

If APR's were the goal, it would have made a lot more sense to attempt to bolster and work with the MWA. The formula for success in getting APRs implemented already exists. All it will take to expand APRs is the legislature to approve it, or have the legislature return the power to expand APR units to the DNR.

The words are straight from you, Brooks and company. There was no ambiguity to what you posted and the time line is in black and white. Why are you running away from your own words?

[smsmith]

The words are straight from you, Brooks and company. There was no ambiguity to what you posted and the time line is in black and white. Why are you running away from your own words?

I'm not running anywhere. I've explained my former and current position on APRs..there's no reason to do so again because you don't really care. I'm sure you have never held a position, then did further research/thinking about that position...and then changed your position. I can only dream of the day when I am as perfect and unfailing as the almighty Purple Floyd.

[smsmith]

Since Brooks is running for president of MDHA, who carries the torch for the MDDI if he wins?

Good question. I don't have an answer for you

[creepworm]

Why would Brooks want such a lowly position as president of the MDHA? Isn't he already the self appointed "Voice for all MN deer hunters"?

[BLACKJACK]

the plan was to get the DNR to bring herd numbers up so it was more likely APR would pass

Thats exactly why its hard for me to get excited and support this Deer density/Deer advocacy push. As one of the other posts said, all deer hunters should stick together but if the bottom line agenda is APR's, not only will I not support them, I'm against them.

When will the APR folks realize that some parts of the state with historically low deer populations, the SW and lots of the central MN, if you implement APR's when their is already a deer lottery for doe tags, meaning a lot of hunters won't be able to shoot a deer most years, you're going to pizz off and lose a lot of deer hunters. Just because to YOU the only good deer is deer with big antlers.

I've spent enough time in a bow stand to realize that any mature deer is a trophy.

To top it off, the APR push 'to save a small buck, shoot a doe' is part of what led to the low deer population.

[delcecchi]

That would be ironic since Glen Taylor owns it as well as one of the biggest printing conglomerates in the Midwest.

That was sarcasm. The article was about farmers clear cutting to put in irrigated potato fields. They cut down the trees, plow everything, drill a bunch of wells and have at it.

How many deer can live in a great big potato field?

[Jameson]

Thats exactly why its hard for me to get excited and support this Deer density/Deer advocacy push....

MDDI wasn't born from APR's guys, but rather from a bunch of disgruntled hunters. Some wanted APRs, some wanted buck lottery, some wanted to push the season back, some wanted to eliminate party hunting, etc. The root of everyone's issues was too few of deer. Everyone agreed that we all wanted those additional regulations, because we were seeing too few deer. So, to work within the system and not have any additional regulation all that was need was to raise the deer density.

--signed, a buck-lottery guy that has help start the MDDI

[Farmsfulltime]

Not have any additional regulation for now , The agenda is clear , raise population then moved to the APR that is the root of MDDI , read above Purple Floyd left a nice link to the past , this has nothing to do with deer population other than , the population subject is being used to garner support for the real agenda at a later date

Sell the fear of DNR , deer crash , then they will buy the whole program later

[smsmith]

[Bureaucrat]

MDDI is as much about APR as DU and PF are covert operations by the CIA to buy up all the private land in the midwest by the government so it can be secretly sold to china to continue buying the debt.

[creepworm]

MDDI is as much about APR as DU and PF are covert operations by the CIA to buy up all the private land in the midwest by the government so it can be secretly sold to china to continue buying the debt.

Ha! I get jokes.

[smsmith]

A guy just has to love hearing what the MDDI was about and who formed it from somebody who wasn't there.

As has been repeatedly stated...it was a group of hunters from various backgrounds.

The one thing everybody agreed to...APRs had nothing to do with MDDI and never would have anything to do with MDDI.

The APR groups already existed/still exist. There's no reason to develop a new group to push that agenda. Plenty of friction has occurred between MDDI and the groups whose sole interest is pushing the advancement of APRs.

MDDI wants reasonable numbers of deer where the habitat can support them. MDDI wants a DNR who is working for those who pay their salaries (deer hunters). MDDI wants the DNR to use readily available methods to evaluate our deer herd. MDDI wants a transparent process for establishing deer goals across the state. MDDI wants a DNR who doesn't hide information from the public. MDDI simply wants the deer hunting in MN to be as good as it possibly can be while considering all of the legitimate concerns of each public stakeholder group.

[Bureaucrat]

Hey team,

A campaign has begun to reach out to legislators to tell them it's time to get behind the audit. In the near future, a major hearing is going to be held in St. Paul to discuss the state of the deer herd and what should be done going forward. Now is the time to take 60 seconds and email your elected and ask them to support the deer audit.

I have heard from many legislators already that they are well aware of what it is, and now they are simply counting concerned citizens to gauge the desire for change.

To see a full list of all the representatives and senators in MN, please go to: http://www.mndeerdensity.com/contact/

You can simply copy/paste the whole list into your BCC line of your email and send. Tell them, "Please support the deer audit." Include where you live and where you hunt, and how your hunt has changed over the past few years.

No matter what happens, be sure you can look back and say, "I did my part." Send your message today!

[Bureaucrat]

Morrison County Chapter of MDHA is on board now!

[SmellEsox]

Whew! I'm glad the truth has come out about MDDI!! I'll gladly accept the status quo of absolutely terrible deer hunting to avoid the possibility of them pushing APR! (sarcasm intended!). Let's pray for a brutal rest of the winter! Let's hope DNR changes to 5 deer in all permit areas next year plus early antlerless seasons! Thank you courts that the wolf is protected again! Let's stock them all over the state! Let's stop the bear hunt and protect coyotes! That way we can have even fewer deer and further keep the APR agenda at bay!!! WooooHooo!

[Getanet]

Morrison County Chapter of MDHA is on board now!

And in other breaking news, the sun came out today, it gets cold in January, and I still stink at walleye fishing.

It's not exactly surprising the Morrison County Chapter of the MDHA is on board with the MDDI, considering Brooks Johnson, Ssmith and likely others spearheading the MDDI are members of that chapter.

[Getanet]

The biggest reason I can’t get on the MDDI bandwagon is it seems to be fueled by anger, and as someone else wrote, personal agendas. The folks who write things such as “Leslie has no conclusions, because she simply is a puppet and has no clue what the heck she is doing” or basically anything that’s been said about Beau Lidell, are what is driving this movement. The reason other organizations aren’t getting on board is because they understand that the DNR is a necessary partner in achieving whatever missions those organizations have. The name calling and finger pointing isn’t just childish, it’s counter-productive to achieving any sustainable, long-term goals and is not something I choose to be associated with at this time. But who knows, like others who have changed their mind about APR, maybe someday the MDDI will be more appealing to me.

[Jameson]

The biggest reason I can’t get on the MDDI bandwagon is it seems to be fueled by anger, and as someone else wrote, personal agendas. The folks who write things such as “Leslie has no conclusions, because she simply is a puppet and has no clue what the heck she is doing” or basically anything that’s been said about Beau Lidell, are what is driving this movement. The reason other organizations aren’t getting on board is because they understand that the DNR is a necessary partner in achieving whatever missions those organizations have. The name calling and finger pointing isn’t just childish, it’s counter-productive to achieving any sustainable, long-term goals and is not something I choose to be associated with at this time. But who knows, like others who have changed their mind about APR, maybe someday the MDDI will be more appealing to me.

Good post, I hope MDDI folks take it to heart.

[SmellEsox]

Good post, I hope MDDI folks take it to heart.

I doubt that they will. I've criticized their (MDDI) tactics in the past myself, but was basically told that being nice got them nowhere in the past. While I don't always agree with their tact, I gotta admit that they've done a good job calling out some of the inconsistencies in DNR estimates, claims, etc. Someone's gotta be a watchdog and I think MDDI is doing that. I also think that they've been the catalyst in the more conservative regs we had this past hunting season. I don't agree with everything they do or how they do it, but I agree with the overall goal.

[Getanet]

I also think that they've been the catalyst in the more conservative regs we had this past hunting season. I don't agree with everything they do or how they do it, but I agree with the overall goal.

I would agree they helped bring about more conservative regs this season. To me, therein lies part of the problem. Pulling back on doe tags is really the best tool the DNR has to achieve higher populations that doesn't send us down a path of topics that just divide hunters, such as APRs, no party hunting, etc. In essence, the MDDI has already achieved as much of its goal as it likely will.

[SmellEsox]

I would agree they helped bring about more conservative regs this season. To me, therein lies part of the problem. Pulling back on doe tags is really the best tool the DNR has to achieve higher populations that doesn't send us down a path of topics that just divide hunters, such as APRs, no party hunting, etc. In essence, the MDDI has already achieved as much of its goal as it likely will.

I think there is more work to be done. I personally don't think an audit is necessary, but MDDI can possibly force them to re-examine their model and possibly invest in it and improve it. I also think they (MDDI) can have an impact on population goal setting. We are not going to see satisfactory numbers of deer unless population goals are increased. We will just see more antlerless permits as soon as populations increase at all and we will still have a whole bunch of disgruntled hunters.

[ClownColor]

couldn't find it on the HSOforum but what credentials does Brooks Johnson have and also the other people on top of this?