New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

">

[DaveT]

Do you mean this Marrett Grund? The same one who helped destroy the deer herd in PA?

• Marrett D. Grund: member of Audubon's 2005 Deer Management Forum and co-author of

Audubon's 362-page ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan; reviewer and

conferee of DCNR's 2009 ecosystem management/deer reduction plan and forum; and

co-author (with Bryon Shissler) of the Pinchot Institute's 2009 report toward certifying

the PGC's deer management program.

[PurpleFloyd]

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

[PurpleFloyd]

A quote from someone on one side or the other. Feel free to guess who and what side

Quote:

Many in the DNR who have closely watched the heated battle in SE MN agree that expanding APR's or yearling buck protection into the transition zone of our state in zones with liberal bag limits is biologically appropriate with social support.

I know some of you have expressed interest in becoming involved. The group we have started with is about to expand. We are beginning to chart direction, and form a plan. If you are interested step forward.

We have another conference call this Thursday to begin charting a marketing plan geared to educate the public on the 'other side' of yearling buck protection. MN QDMA state funds, buffered by chapter funds are going to be spent on public education. We need to raise awareness and support.

SE MN hunters are very satisfied with the new rules, and until we can share their stories and those successes, ZERO new zones with see any form of buck management.

Let me know if you want in.

[PurpleFloyd]

And who this was

Quote:

I want in.......

[smsmith]

Here's an idea for you P.F....pick up the phone and give Brooks a call or shoot him an email. His contact info is all over the interwebs. I've already explained my former and current position on APRs. Instead of focusing on things that were said a year or two ago...try getting folks' current opinions.

For a guy who "poo poos" other "conspiracy theories" you sure seem to want to formulate and propagate your own.

Quite "Peacemakerish"

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

Thats the quest. I have a meeting January 6th with the Senator in charge of my zone and have been feeding him info every week in preparation for it.

The message is 'Bigger Bucks, Better Hunting'. It's a message every MN hunter will support. Who is opposed to 'bigger bucks or better hunting?'

Legislators who hunt will have a more sympathetic ear, and we need to find them and build rapport. One of them will need to author a bill that we can help craft.

I am meeting with my counties economic development sector for ideas as well.

I sent an email off to 'Hunting works for MN' and they will be contacting me with ideas.

Keep writing letters and emails to MN Outdoor News and the legislature to build awareness and public support. Very important. Better deer numbers come first, followed by yearling buck protection.

It's time to reevaluate the state of the deer herd in MN. The legislature can make the DNR do it, as the DNR does not appear to be real big on checking it themselves.

The dissertation of the formal message is still being worked by a professional agency, and there will be cash behind it.

This will not be a half punked effort.

__________________

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

Awesome...feed me the "party line" and I'll duplicate it

[laker1]

I think your over reaching. I do think the forest industry did get the upper hand,but talking to Wildlife DNR like 8 years ago they were overwhemed at times by the forest industry while many hunter groups were absent.

Was to a forest management meeting for a counties 10 year plan. It was I and a bunch of foresters,where were the deer hunter groups. At home watching reruns? I spoke up and said my piece. But hunters and fishermen very rarely show up to meeting effecting them. Special interest groups do.

[delcecchi]

To be fair to hunters back then, perhaps they didn't realize that "forest management" involved manipulating the deer population rather than which trees to cut down.

[smsmith]

To be fair to hunters back then, perhaps they didn't realize that "forest management" involved manipulating the deer population rather than which trees to cut down.

Good post. I doubt the meetings on forest management were advertised by the DNR as being the "let's cut the deer herd population to 10 dpsm in order to achieve FSC and SFI certification" meetings.

[O.T.C.]

No idea how this would work but back in the zone 4 days to extend your season you bought a multi-zone buck tag eventually the all-season tag and that bought you both weekends to gun hunt unless you connected the first weekend. Isn't that sorta the answer to apr ? Give less hunting days to doe permit/hunters choice people and just make an APR tag giving you more days to hunt for him. Zone 2 could be the first 4 days are the non-apr crowd and the whole 9 days is for the APR licensed hunters. No idea who or how that would look but something like that might satisfy most people idk. Well I opened the can of worms so let the bashing lol begin. Isn't that sorta some of the issue guys getting 9 days to pound everything they want in old zone 4 and we've never caught back up from it being 5 tags in 2007 I hope is correct to a downward spiral ever since. Just thinking out loud is all.

[Getanet]

It took me a while get through the past few pages, but I have a ton of thoughts, so bear with me:

• Gary Alt, Marrett Grund and the like were hailed as hero’s just a few years ago by the same type of guys that are now suddenly disparaging them. Pennsylvania was also held up one of the premier states that MN should models it deer management efforts after (during the APR rage). BTW, Gary Alt is a featured speaker at the upcoming 2015 North American Deer Summit hosted by the National Deer Alliance (The voice of the deer hunter) in partnership with QDMA, Mule Deer Foundation, Whitetails Unlimited.

• The PDF from John Eveland appears to come from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee and states the economic loss to PA due to its certification process. In reality it’s just cherry-picked information from the audit that was conducted in PA. Here is the actual key finding: “"It would be overly simplistic, however, to link a reduction in either the Pennsylvania deer herd or the number of hunters directly to DCNR's forest certification program, as many factors are involved in these trends," the audit notes. http://www.publicopiniononline.com/popul...rce=most_viewed

Finally, here’s the most important part for those who think an audit is going to solve anything. The MDDI is now simply following the lead of a similar group in PA. What the MDDI hasn’t said, or doesn’t know (doubtful) is Pennsylvania hunters actually sued their DNR in 2008 and got an audit 2010. It was conducted by a group called WMI (John Eveland also submitted an unsuccessful bid to conduct the audit – curious). Want to know what happened? Basically nothing. The audit recommended the Pennsylvania’s DNR should be more transparent in reporting deer population numbers. It also recommend changes into how deer are registered (this isn’t nearly as big a problem in MN as in PA). But here’s the kicker from the audit: “Despite WMI's suggestion that PGC publish its population estimates, the audit commended the deer program in concept. "All parties interested in deer management in Pennsylvania can be confident in the ability of the PGC to track deer population trends at the statewide and wildlife management unit scale through the SAK [sex-age-kill estimating model]," the audit states.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/hunti...es/201002210215

More interesting reading about the Pennsylvania audit.

Study Disproves Deer Allegations

http://republicanherald.com/study-disproves-deer-allegations-1.1148288

Audit of Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer management says population model 'credible,' but presents 'concerns

http://blog.pennlive.com/wildaboutpa/2010/02/audit_of_pennsylvania_game_com.html

Findings of deer audit supports plan of PGC

http://www.tnonline.com/2010/mar/06/findings-deer-audit-supports-plan-pgc Money quote: "What WMI found is that while there are pockets of low deer density across the state, the PGC is conducting an overall sound management plan of the statewide deer herd."

[DaveT]

That's great management, for sure. Down 400,000 deer hunters, plus another estimated 50,000 new hunters that haven't been realized in the same time period. Anybody interested in buying a trophy managed property in Kansas where you will see 2 to 10 bucks per day during the rut, send me a PM. The price of good deer hunting land is only going to go up with management like this in MN.

Hey Getanet, who performed that audit and what was his relationship with the PGC?

Audit of PGC's Deer Program. The audit of PGC's deer management program is, herein, listed on

two accounts. First, the audit was fraudulently set-up with 23 "fixed" questions that were designed by the

PGC staff to yield a positive response in favor of the agency's deer management program. This was

achieved, and as a result produced a fraudulent audit report. Secondly, the person (Scot Williamson) who

was hired to conduct the audit was the very same person who (10 years before) had been appointed by

the PGC to design the deer-reduction program. It was Scot Williamson in the year 2000 who, as the

PGC-appointed chairman of the Deer Management Working Group, recommended reduction of the deer

herd using increased antlerless permits, longer doe seasons, the concurrent buck/doe season, DMAP, and

switching from a county-based system of management to Wildlife Management Units. Therefore, the

audit was not only conducted by the original designer of the deer-reduction program, but the auditor was

also assisted by the PGC by being given "fixed" questions that were designed to yield a positive audit

response in favor of the PGC. This represents a waste of $95,000 of taxpayer dollars, ethics violation,

abuse of power, violation of the public trust, and likely other violations.

[smsmith]

Anybody interested in buying a trophy managed property in Kansas where you will see 2 to 10 bucks per day during the rut, send me a PM. The price of good deer hunting land is only going to go up with management like this in MN.

KS and MO are on my short list of states to start giving my tax money to instead of MN.

[DaveT]

KS and MO are on my short list of states to start giving my tax money to instead of MN.

Let me know if and when you start looking, you can billet at our place for a weekend as long as you are not offended by drinking, cussing, and general misogyny.

[Getanet]

Hey Getanet, who performed that audit and what was his relationship with the PGC?

The WMI did. Here is a link to a copy of an article discussing the organizations: http://www.qdma.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-24741.html

But I see you like John Eveland's and the United Sportman PA take on the matter. Here is some more information on him - I bolded information so folks who can't be bothered to read the articles can see it:

http://republicanherald.com/study-disproves-deer-allegations-1.1148288

What makes Eveland's vendetta unique is it has come after his bid to conduct the deer audit was rejected because it failed to meet the criteria established by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee for the Deer Management Study. Based on similar studies in other states, the bids for the audit were to come from out-of-state firms, plus his bid was more expensive and less comprehensive than that by WMI.

Regarding his points about the loss of hunters due to the certification process:

Now, Pennsylvania Quality Deer Management Association - the state branch of the nationally recognized scientifically based whitetail deer organization with more than 50,000 members - has released its review of Eveland's attacks on the PGC, which include his version of the deer harvest totals for the 2010-11 seasons and was distributed to politicians, various sportsmen's groups, the PGC and a statewide outdoors newspaper. Serving on the PQDMA board are wildlife biologists, foresters and consultants from a variety of agencies and universities who cumulatively hold more than 40 years of education in the forest and wildlife fields and more than 200 years of forest and wildlife management experience.

"Mr. Eveland claims that 2010 was the lowest in license sales due to the lack of deer, but states no facts that declines are related to deer," PQDMA board member Kathy Davis said. "According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania lost 85,075 hunters from 2000-09, or a rate of 8 percent, but the results for 2010 are not available, and by contrast, the decade before the current deer management program from 1990-2000, Pennsylvania lost 139,840 certified license holders, or a rate of 12 percent.

[smsmith]

Let me know if and when you start looking, you can billet at our place for a weekend as long as you are not offended by drinking, cussing, and general misogyny.

Offended? I'd be offended if those items weren't part of the "package"

I'm a few years out from starting to search, but if you're still down there at that time I may take you up on it.

[creepworm]

Hmmm, all this is very interesting. Seems as if the MDDI has no leg to stand on whatsoever.

[Farmsfulltime]

Little birdie told me the legislators said no audit this go around

[DaveT]

Little birdie told me the legislators said no audit this go around

Well that would be unfortunate but you know what they say about fighting City Hall.

I just hope these MN DNR people don't apply for jobs in Kansas after they finish their deer eradication program here.

[Bureaucrat]

Hmmm...

The past is the past. What you don't know is that I talked to Brooks tonight on the phone and I can tell you he is heading to the ODN offices tomorrow to record a podcast with them. One of the things he wants to WARN hunters about is the possibility of APRs heading for Ottertail County and possibly Mille Lacs county this year. He wants to get the word out that APRs or EAB may be thrust upon hunters in those areas to force the herd down since endless antlerless tags didn't get the job done.

Hunters there may be boxed in on deer management via APR and he's the one that's trying to sound the alarm.

That's today and I heard it from Brooks himself. If you want to send him an email to say thank you for helping try to head off APR there, you can reach him at [email protected]

------------

Pennsylvania

Choose to ignore the Pennsylvania problem. What's at risk is the credibility of the DNR and their ability to manage the herd. If trust in the DNR vanishes, harvest will no longer be dictated by them, but by rogue bands of landowners in neighborhood coops and the absence of public land hunters who've quit.

[creepworm]

Hmmm...

The past is the past. What you don't know is that I talked to Brooks tonight on the phone and I can tell you he is heading to the ODN offices tomorrow to record a podcast with them. One of the things he wants to WARN hunters about is the possibility of APRs heading for Ottertail County and possibly Mille Lacs county this year. He wants to get the word out that APRs or EAB may be thrust upon hunters in those areas to force the herd down since endless antlerless tags didn't get the job done.

Hunters there may be boxed in on deer management via APR and he's the one that's trying to sound the alarm.

That's today and I heard it from Brooks himself. If you want to send him an email to say thank you for helping try to head off APR there, you can reach him at [email protected]

No new APR's will happen in the next ten years. Smsmith has told us that, what, 15?20? 25? times in these threads.

I seriously have never seen an organization that can throw it in reverse without even touching the brakes the way the MDDI can. I can't decide if it is impressive (in a sad way) or just plain sad.

One last note: Fear tactics generally immediately precede the beginning of the end of an organization. Seriously, no one at the MDDI can feel good about where they are heading. I almost feel bad for all the egos that are being hurt by the complete failure of the MDDI, which can be directly traced to the leadership chosen for this organization. But, you guys can keep throwing dump against the wall, problem is, it is a very slippery wall and nothing seems to be sticking.

And a few questions. Even among minority groups, the MDDI is a minority. The MDDI has very little support, poor leadership, no direction, and overall doesn't have much of a voice. So, when does an extreme minority realize they are the minority? Very very few people want what the MDDI is selling, yet, they push their minority views onto the majority. When does this stop? Do any of the members of the MDDI feel like the minority should not be pushing their views on the majority?

[Farmsfulltime]

The mddi is going thru a process that will lead to their own demise . As time goes on and they cry wolf about different subjects the leadership in the state will see no credibility which will lead to phones and e-mails being ignored and this will die out 5 years from now no one will remember or care. By then the deer pops in the state will have recovered from weather and better hunting will be back. The DNR will still be intact and deer management will be awful similar to what we have today.

[Bureaucrat]

Really? The number of dissatisfied hunters in the 100 zones is over 75% and has fallen 22% in population and you say we're in the minority? Where were you guys at the deer hearing? Where was the HSO "Everything's Fine" advocacy team at the table?

Do you want us to just clam up and go away? Let it all be what it'll be? Ignore the information we've found and just stuff our head in the sand? Watch as the erosion of hunters continues and hunting becomes a tradition reserved only for the elite landed gentry who can privately influence the herd on their land? To hell with the plebs?