New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[Bureaucrat]

If the people were required to have degrees to question programs and politicians, wouldn't that cut almost all of us out of most participation in civics?

Parents couldn't question the quality of education or school lunch policy. Farmers couldn't question ag policy. Senior citizens couldn't question social security policy. Nobody but health care professionals could question the new health care law. Only civil engineers could question transportation policy. Non-biologists wouldn't have a seat at the wolf table; except judges that is.

Where would we be then?

[delcecchi]

Looks to me that they sampled 6 areas. The numbers in the tables for all the areas from the models were before the sampling and the samples will be used to adjust the models in the future.

The modeling approach they are using seemed to me to be reasonable, but subject to some drift. Estimate the number of deer, add in births, subtract deaths. Repeat. Every so often, check to see how the numbers are lining up.

It looks like they checked 6 permit areas. Did all 6 have the differences between the model and the survey?

It looks like the areas around Cambridge are modeled to have had stable or slightly increasing population density over the past several years. Is that contrary to your experience?

I would think from what the report said that the numbers in the model will be adjusted in the future based on the surveys. (I could see from the description why the surveys are expensive btw)

[creepworm]

So creepworm, do you believe the models gave 100% accurate numbers and everything else should be thrown away and only model numbers should be used?

Nope, I never even hinted at that so it seems like a very random question to ask.

With any population estimating, all the tools available should be used. They then are compiled to come up with a final estimate. Which seems to be EXACTLY what the DNR did, and you seem to be aggravated they did not just throw every other number out and run with the fly over numbers.

[SmellEsox]

OK so the data is this. The harvest is declining significantly, the WSI was very high, deer/car collisions are way down, the flights said there are about half as many as they thought, but the herd is stable or increasing??? Does this sound about right?

[creepworm]

OK so the data is this. The harvest is declining significantly, the WSI was very high, deer/car collisions are way down, the flights said there are about half as many as they thought, but the herd is stable or increasing??? Does this sound about right?

In the scenario NWKR outlined, the estimated population decreased from 20+ to 13 in the areas flown. My understanding of the numerical system tells me that 13 is less than 20. So your mentioning of a "stable to increasing" is a conversation you are having with yourself?

[NWKR]

Nope, I never even hinted at that so it seems like a very random question to ask.

With any population estimating, all the tools available should be used. They then are compiled to come up with a final estimate. Which seems to be EXACTLY what the DNR did, and you seem to be aggravated they did not just throw every other number out and run with the fly over numbers.

I didn't think I hinted at what you were thinking it did either.

[NWKR]

In the scenario NWKR outlined, the estimated population decreased from 20+ to 13 in the areas flown. My understanding of the numerical system tells me that 13 is less than 20. So your mentioning of a "stable to increasing" is a conversation you are having with yourself?

Sorry, it appears I didn't do a very good job of being clear in my post.

I referenced forest zone permit areas that were estimated at 20+ from 2008 to 2011. In 2012 the models were updated and they said the estimates from 2008-2011 were incorrect and 21 of the 36 forest zone permit areas were overestimated by 50%+.

The do not fly the forest zone permit areas at all since the counts are not reliable in forested areas. I do not know of any permit areas that are down from 20+ to 13 that are flown by the DNR.

The model shows that a lot of permit areas in central MN are pretty much flat in the last 10 years. They also do not show any winterkill for 2013-2014 outside of forested zone permit areas.

[SmellEsox]

In the scenario NWKR outlined, the estimated population decreased from 20+ to 13 in the areas flown. My understanding of the numerical system tells me that 13 is less than 20. So your mentioning of a "stable to increasing" is a conversation you are having with yourself?

I was being sarcastic. All the data points to a declining population but DNR says the population is stable to increasing in central MN. It appears the experts are either wrong or they are poo pooing the data that is in front of them.

[elkhuntingfan]

I was at the two public meetings for the population goal setting process for Block 5. This is the ring of deer permit areas around the metro. It does not include 601. Every person who spoke said they have noticed a sharp decline in the deer herd in those areas. I spoke with a CO at one of the meetings. He indicated that the herd was down significantly from what he has seen. At the meeting, the DNR indicated the herd in these deer permit areas are "robust" and on the upward swing. This seems contrary to what everyone is reporting. The DNR says the buck harvest over the years proves the population is increasing. I don't think so.

[hoppe56307]

The DNR says the buck harvest over the years proves the population is increasing. I don't think so.

Of course the buck harvest is going to increase when you limit the number of doe tags.

[smsmith]

The DNR says the buck harvest over the years proves the population is increasing. I don't think so.

Same thing being said in central MN. What isn't being considered (purposefully or not...no idea) is that more hunters are hunting in zone 2 (and less in zone 1). Additionally, technological advances in hunting that have occurred over the last decade aren't factored in...and the DNR has no idea if the number of hours hunted have increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

Relying almost solely on buck harvest trend lines to determine population is one of the reasons the MDDI has been pushing for change.

[delcecchi]

Aren't deer registered when killed? So DNR should have reasonably good numbers on the harvest, right? Maybe more bucks are being killed due to hunter preference.

[Jameson]

Aren't deer registered when killed? So DNR should have reasonably good numbers on the harvest, right? Maybe more bucks are being killed due to hunter preference.

Since you have to ask those questions it is obvious you don't deer hunt.

Deer are (supposed to be) registered when killed. The DNR should have a reasonably good number on the harvest. Hunters have always preferred to kill a buck to a doe.

[delcecchi]

It was a way of phrasing as part of making the argument that the DNR does know the harvest. smsmith seemed to be implying the DNR did not know the harvest numbers.

He said...

Quote:

Same thing being said in central MN. What isn't being considered (purposefully or not...no idea) is that more hunters are hunting in zone 2 (and less in zone 1). Additionally, technological advances in hunting that have occurred over the last decade aren't factored in...and the DNR has no idea if the number of hours hunted have increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

implying that the harvest numbers are bogus. If you know how many deer are killed it seems to me that hunter hours or technology is irrelevant in population estimates. The idea that they somehow allow an increasing buck harvest in a decreasing population would also be a stretch to my way of thinking.

[Jameson]

...The idea that they somehow allow an increasing buck harvest in a decreasing population would also be a stretch to my way of thinking.

I do understand that it is a tough concept to grasp. If we had the age of bucks killed previously to the age of bucks killed now, then perhaps it would be easier to understand. So many changes to consider over the years....more hunters, hunting deeper into the forest, with less non-huntable areas in the state then ever, etc.

Should be good viewing of the deer stuff at the capitol at 2:45 TODAY here:http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/program.asp

[Farmsfulltime]

Excellent video ,

[delcecchi]

Allow wasn't exactly the right word to convey what I intended. If the population is stable or decreasing it should be difficult or impossible to have an increasing harvest of bucks over the long term, is what I was trying to say.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Bureaucrat]

I have to admit, I've been deep in this issue for a while, and I learned a lot from the hearing today.

*Zone 1 hunters dropped significantly (22%) and many of those hunters ended up in zone 2 (+34%) and the harvest still went down. The collapse of zone 1 is endangering zone 2 in the transition zone.

*DNR uses buck harvest as a primary gauge of herd size, and their own numbers point to a 42% decrease since '07.

Here's Brooks presentation from the hearing today:

[delcecchi]

forgot the link

[Bureaucrat]

Here's the link: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesCOMM.asp?comm=89018&ls_year=89

[O.T.C.]

You boys can keep after the dnr, I'm still stuck on the loss of habitat especially what potlatch/rdo are doing in the Park Rapids/Menahga area, dozing 50,000 acres of jack pine stands/various trees, putting in for dozens and dozens of irrigator permits, RDO is helping to make northern Wadena county and southern Hubbard county into the new North Dakota. Plowed wind swept potato fields aren't great for wildlife or us. Even rotating to corn big deal for wildlife really as efficient as the armada of John Deere's are that whole mess will be chisel plowed under leaving frozen soil with a few kernels frozen in from mid to late October on. Airplanes spraying chemical all over those sandy soils, not good. The shell river must be already glowing. Do we really need more potato's ? Any shortages lately at the grocery store or a price hike that's insane ? Hadn't driven up by Huntersville in quite some time so when I did I was like lost, wasn't sure where I was, the forests are just getting demolished. Must be making a DNR fly over a lot easier, well there's nothing in these sections to count.

[Bureaucrat]

I'm with ya OTC, and I couldn't agree more. But there is far more going on beyond the Park Rapids area. We got set off in a new direction that we'll hopefully be ready to share in the next week or so. There are 4 guys in the legislative research dept digging through stacks of materials to root out what we're looking for.

[SmellEsox]

Anyone see this article?

http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_27508900/minnesota-lawmakers-tell-dnr-they-want-more-deer

So what does it mean to get forest accreditation and why is it needed? And how are deer preventing it? And where are the studies that show that deer are preventing it? And how terrible of deer hunting is necessary before our forests are accredited?

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

Other lawmakers said putting the DNR on the hot seat was all that was needed.

"I don't think legislators know enough about wildlife to come up with legislation," said Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center. "I think the whole point was to put a fire under the DNR to tell them to get something done, and we did that."

Good post by one of my local legislators. It seems Brooks conspiracy theories are getting as much scrutiny from law makers as they are here.

[Farmsfulltime]

Your falling behind Purple the thought for the week is all the deer were killed for the forestry service now the farmers and insurance companies are off the hook . The new boogie man is the lumber industry apparently they convinced all the DNR management in 4 or more states to lower deer pops to help forest regen. Paranoid thinking ,,, maybe the winters and wolves took the deer just too apparent there has to be an agenda too blame the low pops on someone