New MN Deer Advocacy Group

[SmellEsox]

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?

So tell me, what do you and the majority want? I'm very curious what the mindset of the majority is. Because every deer hunter I talk to thinks the DNR isn't doing a very good job.

[SmellEsox]

Getanet, your findings are really sad, but I think are probably true. Even if we do get an audit, the response of our DNR will probably be similar and status quo. And despite the online submitted comments, words spoken at stakeholder meetings, and the U of M survey, I highly doubt I will notice any change in deer populations.

I will say that Pennsylvania did have too many deer at one time. Incredibly high numbers and they did need a herd reduction. MN never really had a deer problem. We had a few areas with a lot of deer that may have had to be reduced somewhat, but it was never at a point where they were destroying their own habitat.

[smsmith]

Because every deer hunter I talk to thinks the DNR isn't doing a very good job.

Other than 3-4 guys on this site, I've spoken/communicated with zero (0) folks who are happy with deer hunting in MN or the job the DNR is doing in regards to deer management in MN.

FTR...I'll stand by my "prediction" of it being a long time before any new APR zones are implemented. I see Earn a Buck and/or early antlerless seasons being attempted to meet goals before APRs being implemented...but hey...as 3-4 guys here point out every chance they get...what do I know?

[laker1]

Zone 1 has multiple problems,over harvest,two of the hardest winters on record that everybody forgot,and yes wolves.

I wonder also are we reaching the point of too many hunters in many areas. Area 172 has like 26 hunter/sq mile at times.

[Bureaucrat]

Zone 1 has multiple problems,over harvest,two of the hardest winters on record that everybody forgot,and yes wolves.

I wonder also are we reaching the point of too many hunters in many areas. Area 172 has like 26 hunter/sq mile at times.

It has been there, I'll give ya that. This last year in the northern part where we hunted there were far fewer people in the woods. It was fairly busy down one stretch of public land road, but all those guys bugged out by noon on Sunday and were gone. By sunday afternoon, there were less than 3 shots heard on the evening sit.

By Monday it was back to business as usual and there was nobody up there. Our camp alone lost 2 guys this year due to low expectations. Tuesday we didn't hear a gun shot all day or even wednesday morning for that matter.

The southern part of 172 could be a different story though. I'm not familiar with that part.

[creepworm]

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?

Yes! Take the number of people involved in the MDDI/signed the petition and divide that by the number of deer hunters. If that number is less than 0.5 you are the minority.

[creepworm]

So tell me, what do you and the majority want? I'm very curious what the mindset of the majority is. Because every deer hunter I talk to thinks the DNR isn't doing a very good job.

I am not vain enough to appoint myself the "voice for MN deer hunters" so I will not speak for everyone but what I "want" is for people to realize is that not everything that causes fluctuations in the deer population is under MN DNR control. Also, I wish the MDDI would realize the DNR has done just about everything they have wanted, but it is still not good enough. I believe the ultimate end game for the MDDI is young buck protection. The reason I believe that is it is in writing, basically in those exact words. What I also "want" it for the MDDI to stop cherry picking statistics and comparing MN to other states, every state has their own challenges and just about every other state north of the Mason-Dixon line is dealing with a declining deer population. Yet somehow it is the MN DNR that is doing a terrible job while other game management agencies in Kansas, Wisconsin, South Dakota, etc. are being used as models that the MN DNR should strive to be like when they are facing the exact same challenges as the MN DNR is facing.

Basically, what I really "want" is for people, especially the MDDI, to realize that the deer population will not be turned around in a month. It will take a few years of favorable weather. The MDDI seems to not realize that there were less tags this year (the exact thing they wanted) and fawns are only born during the spring. Therefore, there will be no increase in the deer population in January. It will take time, even if deer hunting were shut down entirely.

[Farmsfulltime]

Excellent post , One thing mddi does not accept either is there are many different stakeholders at the table and 50, 40, 30 , deer per square mile will not happen . Those numbers are totally out there and that's what mddi leadership has said is possible or wanted . To think the deer hunters are the only say in deer management is selfish to not understand that others have a vested interest in the deer population . I hunt them and enjoy deer but am unwilling to feed 25per square mile year after year. So when I interact with DNR I make sure they know my thoughts and I am thankfull that they manage for all groups involved . One thing also if the guys want more deer manage your habitat for that and let your neighbors manage how they choose don't try to change laws to suit your ideal .

[PurpleFloyd]

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.

Since you have an established relationship with him, ask him if he is suddenly anti apr,when will he be removing the pro apr content on his and the MDDI site. Anyone can say what they want. His actions and advocacy on his own site say otherwise.

As far as trust in the DNR, all the MDDI seems interested in is damaging it for their own gain. I have seen this before and it never ends well for those who try it.

[PurpleFloyd]

I am not vain enough to appoint myself the "voice for MN deer hunters" so I will not speak for everyone but what I "want" is for people to realize is that not everything that causes fluctuations in the deer population is under MN DNR control. Also, I wish the MDDI would realize the DNR has done just about everything they have wanted, but it is still not good enough. I believe the ultimate end game for the MDDI is young buck protection. The reason I believe that is it is in writing, basically in those exact words. What I also "want" it for the MDDI to stop cherry picking statistics and comparing MN to other states, every state has their own challenges and just about every other state north of the Mason-Dixon line is dealing with a declining deer population. Yet somehow it is the MN DNR that is doing a terrible job while other game management agencies in Kansas, Wisconsin, South Dakota, etc. are being used as models that the MN DNR should strive to be like when they are facing the exact same challenges as the MN DNR is facing.

Basically, what I really "want" is for people, especially the MDDI, to realize that the deer population will not be turned around in a month. It will take a few years of favorable weather. The MDDI seems to not realize that there were less tags this year (the exact thing they wanted) and fawns are only born during the spring. Therefore, there will be no increase in the deer population in January. It will take time, even if deer hunting were shut down entirely.

Good post.

[PurpleFloyd]

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?

A big factor in the dissatisfaction is the magazines and deer hunter groups that project unrealistic sustainable expectations and people actually buying into the notion they should be able to sit in a stand on their 40-50 acre plot and have deer walking by like they do on those canned hunts where you pick the one you want and shoot.

Once you get south of 212 and away from the river valleys it is unrealistic to think you can have a short season, no dives,no party hunting and enough mature deer walk by to make everyone satisfied.You are looking at densities under 1 per square mile. My guess is with the wolf numbers there is a lot of northern forest land that can't hold 30-50 deer per square mile either.

[Getanet]

The forest certification process is not a “smoking gun” or a “boogeyman.” It’s really nothing we didn’t already know. When this whole discussion started what where the reasons given for the herd decline:

• Timber/Insurance/Farmers wanted less deer

• Weather (two brutal winters and late/wet springs)

• Wolves

• Too many bonus tags given out

Those were all logical. The DNR has to serve many masters, not just deer hunters. They did look to reduce the herd size. But unforeseen issues (the previous two winters) and a rapidly growing wolf population they have little legal authority to control reduced it further than they wanted - in my opinion.

Hunters – and give Brooks and Co credit here – raised a ruckus. The DNR listened. It responded with tighter restrictions this year. Hopefully that will be the case this coming season too.

But look at this email exchange the MDDI pasted to its Facebook page. They seem to think it helps their cause, but to me really illustrates the issue here. What the MDDI leadership wants runs contrary to what the DNR believes is best for the environment – not just deer. They can try to find as many "boogeyman" as they like, but it doesn't get past the fact the deer numbers we had at one point - while great for hunters - wasn't great in the big picture.

From: Merchant, Steve S (DNR)<[email protected]>

Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM

Subject: RE: SFI FSC certified forests

To: Brooks johnson <[email protected]>

This was a very public and transparent process. It was heavily covered in the press.

See http://www.iatp.org/news/too-many-deer-in-forests-mn for example.

You are right though, this was a major factor of why forest deer population goals were generally lowered. And in gets back to my whole original point of this debate we are having. You are simply advocating for deer populations that will negatively affect ecosystem health, and thus jeopardize not only MN forests, but deer habitat and long-term (sustainable) deer populations. The science is clear on that. The numbers you throw out there are not sustainable. No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for.

Steve Merchant

Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

[email protected]

651-259-5220

[smsmith]

No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for.

I'll believe that no deer biologist in MN will support 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn. I will and do not believe that to be true "anywhere"...because those numbers (and higher) are currently managed for in many states.

[SmellEsox]

The forest certification process is not a “smoking gun” or a “boogeyman.” It’s really nothing we didn’t already know. When this whole discussion started what where the reasons given for the herd decline:

• Timber/Insurance/Farmers wanted less deer

• Weather (two brutal winters and late/wet springs)

• Wolves

• Too many bonus tags given out

Those were all logical. The DNR has to serve many masters, not just deer hunters. They did look to reduce the herd size. But unforeseen issues (the previous two winters) and a rapidly growing wolf population they have little legal authority to control reduced it further than they wanted - in my opinion.

Hunters – and give Brooks and Co credit here – raised a ruckus. The DNR listened. It responded with tighter restrictions this year. Hopefully that will be the case this coming season too.

But look at this email exchange the MDDI pasted to its Facebook page. They seem to think it helps their cause, but to me really illustrates the issue here. What the MDDI leadership wants runs contrary to what the DNR believes is best for the environment – not just deer. They can try to find as many "boogeyman" as they like, but it doesn't get past the fact the deer numbers we had at one point - while great for hunters - wasn't great in the big picture.

From: Merchant, Steve S (DNR)<[email protected]>

Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM

Subject: RE: SFI FSC certified forests

To: Brooks johnson <[email protected]>

This was a very public and transparent process. It was heavily covered in the press.

See http://www.iatp.org/news/too-many-deer-in-forests-mn for example.

You are right though, this was a major factor of why forest deer population goals were generally lowered. And in gets back to my whole original point of this debate we are having. You are simply advocating for deer populations that will negatively affect ecosystem health, and thus jeopardize not only MN forests, but deer habitat and long-term (sustainable) deer populations. The science is clear on that. The numbers you throw out there are not sustainable. No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for.

Steve Merchant

Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

[email protected]

651-259-5220

So what was the result of the study in Itasca? What level of deer allows for sustainable forest management and where is the MN data that supports it? What level of forest ecology damage can society tolerate? 0%? 25%? Where is the MN science?

[Getanet]

I'll believe that no deer biologist in MN will support 20-25 dpsm pre-fawn. I will and do not believe that to be true "anywhere"...because those numbers (and higher) are currently managed for in many states.

The important question is would any credible deer biologist support the kind of numbers being advocating for in MN? I don't know, but the DNR doesn't seem to think so.

[smsmith]

Where is the MN science?

It doesn't exist. In an email exchange with Marrett Grund sometime last fall I was referred to the forestry report from PA stating that dpsm's in excess of 20 resulted in poor forest regeneration (in PA). When I asked him for the research from MN showing similar results the response was....crickets chirping. The research has not been replicated here.

In addition, there are plenty of folks in PA (with actual degrees and everything) who are (and were) saying that the issue with forest regeneration in PA is (was) not solely a deer issue. Yes, in some areas of PA the herd was out of control (dpsm's in excess of anything any part of MN has ever approached..65-130+) and needed to be reduced. Not so much for the forests...because where those numbers existed the areas were generally not forests...it was in agricultural areas. In the heavily forested areas of PA densities never approached those numbers.

Now, with the reductions in place what has been the result? Have the forests begun to recover? Nope. Why? Because according to many the issue wasn't deer...it was acidified soil from years and years of acid rain. Certain trees cannot survive/regenerate in those conditions.

Deer played/play a role in forest regeneration...no doubt. However, they are NOT the only factor at play. Just like the university research that has been posted here and elsewhere shows that much of the ag crop depredation blamed on deer is NOT being done by deer.

Deer aren't an evil animal to be controlled like vermin. They are a highly valuable asset to states. They bring in billions of dollars of revenue to states. Why a state would choose to short change itself rather than maximize ROI is beyond me.

[SmellEsox]

The important question is would any credible deer biologist support the kind of numbers being advocating for in MN? I don't know, but the DNR doesn't seem to think so.

Here's what it says about deer numbers on the MDDI HSOforum:

"MDDI is the MN Deer Density Initiative. MDDI is committed to increasing deer densities in MN to levels that satisfy the hunter without damaging their habitat. MDDI is tired of the wind rain corn scenario the MN DNR uses to placate the hunters of MN into thinking the deer are still there. They are not."

Doesn't sound like they are asking for unreasonable numbers. In fact I thought they would be ok with the harvest of 225,000 scenario.

[smsmith]

Doesn't sound like they are asking for unreasonable numbers. In fact I thought they would be ok with the harvest of 225,000 scenario.

Nobody I've spoken to who is associated with MDDI wants unreasonable numbers. To a man, everybody I've spoken to would be pretty doggone happy with average harvests in the 225K range. We all realized harvest numbers go up and down based on legitimate, uncontrollable factors...but we all also realize that harvesting 139K deer points to many factors that WERE and ARE controllable.

Harvests varying from 195-235K should be the target in MN IMHO. We all realize its going to take a few years to get to that point. We all also realize that our DNR commish made the statement that our state should likely be looking at average harvests around 180K. I've spoken with zero (0) people (associated with MDDI or not) who think 180K should be what our state's annual average goal should be.

[Getanet]

Doesn't sound like they are asking for unreasonable numbers. In fact I thought they would be ok with the harvest of 225,000 scenario.

The email between Brooks and Steve Warrant didn't cite numbers. I'm not sure if you saw it, but here is what Steve wrote - he was respectful but quite clear that whatever numbers the MDDI wants doesn't fit with its goal of "without damaging their habitat."

"You are simply advocating for deer populations that will negatively affect ecosystem health, and thus jeopardize not only MN forests, but deer habitat and long-term (sustainable) deer populations. The science is clear on that. The numbers you throw out there are not sustainable. No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for."

[smsmith]

The email between Brooks and Steve Warrant didn't cite numbers. I'm not sure if you saw it, but here is what Steve wrote - he was respectful but quite clear that whatever numbers the MDDI wants doesn't fit with its goal of "without damaging their habitat."

"You are simply advocating for deer populations that will negatively affect ecosystem health, and thus jeopardize not only MN forests, but deer habitat and long-term (sustainable) deer populations. The science is clear on that. The numbers you throw out there are not sustainable. No credible deer biologist anywhere will support the kind of numbers you are advocating for."

And that response is based on the 20 dpsm research out of PA...which has been challenged by a number of scientists.

What the MDDI is advocating for is the return of a deer herd which can sustain harvests in the 195-235K range.

If that return isn't possible...then I and many other MN deer hunters would appreciate our DNR making a public statement to that effect along with the valid (MN based) science backing up why such a return is impossible.

[laker1]

For decades in like 172 DNR Biologists did support pre Fawn population as high as 30 deer per sq. mile.

Problem with many zones from south to north in the zone habitat varies and uses vary.

I believe in many zones of low agriculture,low pine plantatons 30-40 deer post fawn is very realistic to maintain.

[Getanet]

Harvests varying from 195-235K should be the target in MN IMHO. We all realize its going to take a few years to get to that point. We all also realize that our DNR commish made the statement that our state should likely be looking at average harvests around 180K. I've spoken with zero (0) people (associated with MDDI or not) who think 180K should be what our state's annual average goal should be.

For argument's sake, let me be the first to say a 180,000 average doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Let me explain. We have about 510,000 individuals who hunt in MN. Our hunter success rate over the 20 year period of 1994-2013 was right about 35%, and that includes some pretty lean years and some of the best we’ve seen. 35% x 510,000 = 178,500.

Now, we’ve certainly had higher harvest totals than that. That was also when bonus tags where handed out like candy – inflating the harvest totals.

Those bonus tags that hammered the does, but helped push our harvest total to 195,000 or better from 2000-2009, is part of the reason we're in the situation we are now.

We never had a success rate over 41.7%. Unless we get back to the practice of liberal bonus tags (which I don't advocate), or our hunting population skyrockets (doubtful) the high end of the harvest total would be in the ballpark of 215,000.

Where am I off?

[smsmith]

For argument's sake, let me be the first to say a 180,000 average doesn’t sound unreasonable to me. Let me explain. We have about 510,000 individuals who hunt in MN. Our hunter success rate over the 20 year period of 1994-2013 was right about 35%, and that includes some pretty lean years and some of the best we’ve seen. 35% x 510,000 = 178,500.

Now, we’ve certainly had higher harvest totals than that. Many years in fact. But that was also when bonus tags where handed out like candy – inflating the harvest totals.

Those bonus tags that hammered the does, but helped push our harvest total to 195,000 or better from 2000-2009, is part of the reason we're in the situation we are now.

Where am I off?

I don't think you are off, other than when we were harvesting 220K plus deer the bonus permits/antlerless permits could have been reduced/leveled off...rather than continuing to sell as many..or more.

For continued argument's sake, if 180K average harvest is okay by you...what type of variance from that number would also be okay?

[Getanet]

You gotta admit, at a certain point those bonus permits were a pretty good sales/marketing scheme and just free money for the DNR. How many do you think were bought and never filled?

Success rate seems more important than harvest totals. To me, consecutive years of a 30% success rate is definitely as signal things have gone south.

[DaveT]

The email between Brooks and Steve Warrant didn't cite numbers.

That's completely intentional. The DNR doesn't have a clue what the real numbers are. The DNR doesn't care what the real numbers are. There is virtually no science at work with the DNR's system. It's all about perception. Do you think there's too many deer? Do you think we should reduce the deer herd based on your feelings? How much should we reduce the deer herd? 25%? OK, we'll get right on that by selling everybody and their Grandmother 5 doe tags. Then we'll adjust the model's numbers 3 years after the fact so that the model says we're at goal, even though the model is never accurate and we don't actually input any real data to the model.Then if anybody complains we can tell them this is what they wanted while having zero accountability.

The whole system is a joke.