New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[Getanet]

There are 4 guys in the legislative research dept digging through stacks of materials to root out what we're looking for.

This sounds like something out of murder mystery novel. Maybe we have the next great page turner.

[Farmsfulltime]

Theres nothing to find , so the forest researchers did there job and researched deer impact that's all it was , was research to know how plant and animal communities interact and effect each other no more , no less

[NWKR]

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

Were you at the meeting in Cambridge last night, or is that not the permit area you are in? If you were there did you speak up about your issues? Maybe you could have found some dedicated deer hunters to help with your localized over population problem.

[Getanet]

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?

I know just a little bit about some of your questions. Much of the forest accreditations have to do with paper manufacturing. It shows that the trees used to produce the paper came from forests that were certified to meet certain sustainability criteria. Essentially it shows the paper wasn't made from trees from the rain forests and the like. Many companies require this designation as part of the environmental/sustainability initiatives, which is why it's important that forests become certified. I'm sure this is over simplifying it, but it's akin to having farms be certified as "organic" in order to be labeled as such.

For example, Best Buy announced in December it was changing paper suppliers to ones that have these types of designations. http://www.startribune.com/business/285308221.html.

I have no idea about your questions regarding what role deer have to play in any of this. But whether this is just for PR or companies are genuinely concerned about these issues doesn't matter - the issue of forests being certified as sustainable won't be going away.

[Farmsfulltime]

I express my thoughts about deer direct to DNR staff , At which time they come out look at the problem and make a report that they file away. I did the meeting thing last stakeholder process and it all for show that's one thing MDDI does have right, the stakeholder process means nothing and I have matured as far has bowhunters go and don't have the stomach for all the talk . At the meetings I would not let any one of those guys on my land , they are all looking for the thirty pointer and will spend all bow season sitting in my woods looking and passing for the big one . DNR asks all the time do I let hunters in and not many one or two and they better show me bodies within a week or two or they are out of here . Ive had the guys here that sat around all season and don't care for it . Hope you guys get the landowner thing changed then although with 5 tags per person a few years ang you cant hunt them out here

[O.T.C.]

I agree Bureaucrat guy, there's much more to it, the loss of crp should've been stated also, when I cruise in ND that's where I see bunched up deer, in CRP areas the few we actually did see. The perfect storm has come together, crp, slough/willows getting destroyed, large swaths of timber, an increase and spreading out of wolves, a couple bad springs/winters, coyotes have never been thicker, hunters have more time afield(talking zone 4)with the addition of muzzy, I mean rifle season again, and our flawed tagging system which I have no idea how that gets fixed, landowners using the muzzy season as an added 16 day rifle season is the new one for me, heard as many rifle blasts during the few days I hunted muzzy as I did the last weekend of rifle hunting, truth be told there is a lot of good deer habitat with nothing in there. The answers in my book will come from our pregnant doe population. The loss of habitat is shrinking down the areas the deer can escape us during these seasons. The wintering ground I own has an all time low I'd say for deer numbers this winter, very few does for sure which means not a great deal of fawns potentially born this May or early June so this whole thing will take some time to rebound. Lottery doe I hope for next fall.

[Bureaucrat]

Here's an example of what we're searching for in MN. Pennsylvania went down the Forest Stewardship Council certification road in 1998. That was about 7 years before MN did it. Here's where Pennsylvania ended up 14 years later. Things had gotten so bad they started investigating. Below is what they found. What's worse, MN now boasts of having the largest certified acreage in the program in the United States.

[Bureaucrat]

When you lay the deer zone map over the forest certification map, it's begins to get hard to stuff one's head in the sand to ignore the correlation. I hunt in 172 where we were on the edge but not included in the bucks only zone, and we still didn't see any deer.

Then lay in the bucks only zones.

Then lay in the certified forest zone map.

[laker1]

Much of the problem was the advisory boards the first time around were heavy with foresters etc.,much of the problem existed because many deer hunters did not want to take the time to get involved,it is the deer hunters fault for being lazy. Put the blame where it belongs. I remember wildlife people trying to find hunters who would be on the boards. It was not easy.

Also forestry industry etc. had paid people who they pushed to be on these committees.

Bottom line tho is habitat and mild winters. To much talk about everthing but habitat.

[creepworm]

When you lay the deer zone map over the forest certification map, it's begins to get hard to stuff one's head in the sand to ignore the correlation. I hunt in 172 where we were on the edge but not included in the bucks only zone, and we still didn't see any deer.

Seems as if the MDDI is now going with the throw a bunch of dump against a wall and hope something sticks philosophy.

[PurpleFloyd]

Seems as if the MDDI is now going with the throw a bunch of dump against a wall and hope something sticks philosophy.

Or try to deflect the topic away from them being exposed for their true motives.

[PurpleFloyd]

Here's an example of what we're searching for in MN. Pennsylvania went down the Forest Stewardship Council certification road in 1998. That was about 7 years before MN did it. Here's where Pennsylvania ended up 14 years later. Things had gotten so bad they started investigating. Below is what they found. What's worse, MN now boasts of having the largest certified acreage in the program in the United States.

S you are implying hunting is not good in the Quaker state? Interesting because they implemented APR after the 2002 season.The harvest for the 2002 season was 517000 deer. After nearly a decade of APR the harvest in 2010 was down to 316000 which is a reduction of 200k and a decline of 40 percent as the hunters bought into the false premise that passing a buck and putting a doe in the freezer would lead to a healthier herd and a better hunt by the APR crowd.The latest data after more restrictive doe harvests has the harvest rebounding to 353k but still far from the harvest data of the early 2000's.

Interesting is if you look at the harvest data across the northern 1/4 of the country the harvest numbers all follow similar harvest trend lines with the first part of the last decade being the best ever in terms of harvest numbers and those numbers dropping down similar to what we are seeing in Minnesota and Wisconsin.Yet the MNDNR has no bearing on the numbers of any other state.

What has been consistent across those areas is the rise in the push for APR whether it is regulated or self practiced and we see the results of that in a reduced number of bucks harvested than would have traditionally been taken coupled with increased pressure on the doe population which damages the herds ability to replenish itself after bad weather events. And now today those same people who pushed these policies and got us in this situation are now pointing the blame at the DNR for the problems while using the MDDI as a backdoor way to push for more of these population damaging policies.

[DaveT]

WOW! Pretty amazing stuff, Buro. Thanks for shedding some light on why the DNR has waged war on the MN deer herd for the last roughly ten years. I used to hunt zone 1 near Cook in the 80's, I would equate the deer I see in zone 236, right outside the metro, to what I used to see up north. [Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]. All we want is some deer to hunt...

Bring on the AUDIT!

[Bureaucrat]

PF, I couldn't agree more. As I push ahead further with an open and inquisitive mind, I have no desire on my part to ever advocate for APRs. I came across a half hour program from Pennsylvania where this issue was laid out and discussed in total.

Please watch the video below. It's gonna take almost a half hour, but you'll find a great deal of info about the Pennsylvania program, the forest certification dealings, and the tactics that were put in place to get them to where they ended up; frustrated and down 300,000 hunters.

You will even hear called out specifically that APRs were used as a tactic to frustrate buck hunters and force their attention and harvest onto does.

The harvest tactics put in place as a result of the deer reduction called for via the FSC certification are the exact same that happened in Minnesota and along the exact same timeline of MN's certification path. It's a three-part play list.

[smsmith]

PF, I couldn't agree more. As I push ahead further with an open and inquisitive mind, I have no desire on my part to ever advocate for APRs.

You will even hear called out specifically that APRs were used as a tactic to frustrate buck hunters and force their attention and harvest onto does.

Bingo. APR's have been used in a number of states to manipulate hunters. Gary Alt is the master mind...a number of MN DNR folks are Alt associates.

[Jameson]

The MN DNR always touted the main objective of APR's was to shift hunting pressure from the bucks to the does. If older bucks became of it, so be it, but the success of APR's was to be measured in the increase harvest of does. As long as we the hunters of MN remember that APR's are a tool originally designed to increase the hunting pressure on does then I believe most will see that APR's don't have a place in most of MN.

[smsmith]

The MN DNR always touted the main objective of APR's was to shift hunting pressure from the bucks to the does. If older bucks became of it, so be it, but the success of APR's was to be measured in the increase harvest of does. As long as we the hunters of MN remember that APR's are a tool originally designed to increase the hunting pressure on does then I believe most will see that APR's don't have a place in most of MN.

I agree. The one caveat I'd offer is that at least a couple of states (MO and TX come to mind) are using APR's for different reasons than the MN DNR. Given the track record here, and the MN DNR's continuing refusal to admit that our herd has been reduced...I will not support APRs in my area.

[BLACKJACK]

I will not support APRs in my area.

The problem is, you won't have a choice. How many times have you heard an APR advocate say 'it should be statewide'. Lots. Get enough rabble-rousers to say it -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease -- and pretty soon it gets implemented even though the majority don't want it.

[smsmith]

The problem is, you won't have a choice. How many times have you heard an APR advocate say 'it should be statewide'. Lots. Get enough rabble-rousers to say it -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease -- and pretty soon it gets implemented even though the majority don't want it.

That's possible I suppose, but I sure don't see it happening (here or anywhere in the state) for quite a number of years. The one area I could see it being proposed is the NY Mills, Perham, Sebeka area.

Since any new APR zones have to be approved by the Legislature (or the Legislature would have to give the power to add more APR zones back to the DNR...and we all know how quickly and readily the Government gives power back once it has it )...I'd guess any new APR areas are a decade plus away. I'll be pushing up daisies by then most likely

[DaveT]

A lot of interesting reading at this link. A lot of similarities between PA and MN deer "management". I think Buro may have found the smoking gun. Hopefully we can get this ship righted faster than PA. I've been traveling out of state to deer hunt for over ten years and I've wondered in recent years why I see so many hunters from PA in other states, now I know why.

http://www.acsl-pa.org/PACrossfire.htm

[BLACKJACK]

Interesting link!! Skimming thru some of the links on there found one titled 'The Dirty Dozen' which outlines some of the sins of the Pennsylvania game management, one of them was titled 'Ecosystem Management' which rang a bell, so I went to the MN DNR webbb-site and searched on 'ecosystem management', all kinds of info there!! What it boils down to is they are not managing for game species; game species like deer, grouse, pheasants, are just a by-product of their management philosophy. The push for prairie species in one fine? example, manage for birds and butterflies and screw the pheasants.

Also interesting to read that they are losing deer hunters in droves, the same thing is going to happen here in MN if the problem isn't corrected. You're already seeing that in the number of duck and pheasant hunters, no ducks and pheasant, no hunters.

Also very interesting to read about Gary Alt, for years he was hailed as a deer management guru, especially by the APR advocates, now the truth comes out about his mismanagement of deer.

[smsmith]

Talk to some PA guys about Gary Alt when you get a chance. He was a bear management guru...and highly respected. That respect wasn't replicated when he was brought in as the deer management guru.

[BLACKJACK]

I was doing some more reading on that site and found a document titled 'The mismanagement of Pennsylvania's deer herd and I pulled out these two paragraphs (the underlining is mine):

Therefore, about a decade ago Gary Alt and the Game Commission initiated a new statewide deer

management program to dram

atically and permanently reduce the size of the deer herd. What ensued

was the rape of one of the commonwealth's most important resources. Through 2009, the herd was

systematically reduced using the increased allocation of antlerless licenses, the increas

ed allocation of

DMAP permits, antler restrictions (which wastes an estimated 40

-

50% of the yearling buck resource

each year), and a concurrent buck and doe season. Although the PGC claims that the herd has been

reduced by 25%, it is believed that the her

d may have been decimated by 75

-

85% in many areas. In

north central areas of the state, estimates of deer densities as low as 1

-

2 deer per square mile indicate a

program that has superceded the realm of "sound science". At such low numbers, a deer herd c

ould take

decades to recover even if left unhunted.

The impacts to sportsmen, to the state's economy, and to the Game Commission itself have been

devastating. Pennsylvania's hunting tradition is in jeopardy. Sportsmen who fail to even see a deer

during

hunting season, let alone bag one, are losing interest. This is especially evident for young

hunters, the future of sport hunting, whose ranks have declined by 10% in the last 10 years

–

since the

new deer program was begun. General license sales had dec

lined from a high of about 1.2 million

hunters to about 800 thousand

–

a 1/3 decline in the ranks of sportsmen. Lodges and outdoor businesses

have gone bankrupt, jobs lost, and the economy has suffered by possibly hundreds of millions of dollars

and more

[nonteepical]

Don't forget where Marrett Grund came from before here.

[smsmith]

Don't forget where Marrett Grund came from before here.

and Gino D'Angelo