Why not multiple bucks in managed/intensive harvest zones?

[PurpleFloyd]

4 hours ago, ANYFISH2 said:

I carry no torch for MDDI, these are my own thoughts, take them for what they are.

 

I Believe MDDI accomplished an accelerated reduction of bag limits, because of the noise they made.  The same winter was harsh, but I do not believe the change would have been so stark or effective without the push.

 

The audit, it didn't really expect a lot to come of it in the first place.

That said, because of the audit the DNR is beginning a long range plan and revising Thier goal setting process.  Will much change? We will see.

As far as the committees having insurance, forestry, and AG at the table, they belong Thier!  They are stakeholders in the deer population as well, my hope is the hunters voice is not drown out.

 

Purple and Wanderer I am sure our beliefs are far closer the same than they are different.  I like good discussion, that's how minds open, and positive change happens.  Thank you.

Yeah, we are more than likely not that different and I certainly don't mind having advocates for deer hunting. 

 

Where I draw the line is when honest advocacy gives way to dishonesty and deception which is what happened in this case and was exposed. 

 

I think as a general rule deer hunters like seeing more deer than less and like seeing bigger deer than smaller. The friction point comes when one group tries to force their standards of acceptability on others and degrades their way of hunting even if legal just because it's different. That and trying to mandate statewide regulations that may work well in some places but not well at all in others. 

 

[delcecchi]

The insurance people function as a surrogate for the city folks and others who don't hunt, farm, or log.  But their insurance is affected by the total number of deer car collisions.   The more money the insurance companies shell out the higher the rates.  

 

If there are a lot of hail storms your homeowner's insurance goes up.  Same with car insurance.   Lots of deer hit, rates will go up.   Fewer deer hit, rates will go up more slowly or stay the same.  

 

Looks like about 40k crashes per year in Minnesota, with about $4000 damage per crash  according to state farm.  MN DPS has different numbers...   Must be that many such crashes don't get reported to the state.

[Wanderer]

Yep, I think we're in synch.  Just maybe a different view on this group.

 

Two points on APRs (no pun intended), APR doesn't mean:

 

The whole state has to be 4 points or more on a side.  It could be 3, or whatever.

 

Just because a buck has to have 4 points on a side doesn't necessarily mean it's a "trophy class" buck by the book standards.  There are plenty of young bucks that make that minimum.

[PurpleFloyd]

10 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

Yep, I think we're in synch.  Just maybe a different view on this group.

 

Two points on APRs (no pun intended), APR doesn't mean:

 

The whole state has to be 4 points or more on a side.  It could be 3, or whatever.

 

Just because a buck has to have 4 points on a side doesn't necessarily mean it's a "trophy class" buck by the book standards.  There are plenty of young bucks that make that minimum.

Or it could mean at least 1 polished 3" antler.

[Wanderer]

Why, yes it could - and does. 

[delcecchi]

Yes or no?

 

[Wanderer]

Can't tell from that pic but I woulda known by the time he made it that far.

 

If he woulda made it that far. 

 

Seriously, by right beam, probably not.  Left is hard to tell.  Another reason I carry binos while hunting.  And personally I would have let him go unless I REALLY REALLY wanted to kill a deer, which has happened within the past couple seasons.  But not this year.

[ANYFISH2]

For me yes.

[Coach1310]

18 hours ago, delcecchi said:

The insurance people function as a surrogate for the city folks and others who don't hunt, farm, or log.  But their insurance is affected by the total number of deer car collisions.   The more money the insurance companies shell out the higher the rates.  

 

If there are a lot of hail storms your homeowner's insurance goes up.  Same with car insurance.   Lots of deer hit, rates will go up.   Fewer deer hit, rates will go up more slowly or stay the same.  

 

Looks like about 40k crashes per year in Minnesota, with about $4000 damage per crash  according to state farm.  MN DPS has different numbers...   Must be that many such crashes don't get reported to the state.

I understand why they "think" they should be there... the bottom line is I don't feel they should be at the table.  I also understand how it works, but I dispute that their presence helps my insurance rates....  I was told by two big insurance companies over the years, when asking about my rate hikes... first I was told, was because of Hurricane Katrina, second I was told was because of Hurricane Sandy.... I no longer work with either company, however I feel this is a crazily flawed system.(I also understand I may have been told that just to get me off the phone as I wasn't a necessarily happy camper)  A homeowner in MN should not suffer because of a Hurricane over a thousand miles away.  Maybe their methods have changed(I hope so), but I truly feel the insurance companies are at the table to influence the sweet spot where they can charge the most and pay the least, which, in my opinion, is flawed.  I get it, insurance is all about risk management... and deer/car is part of the calculation, but I don't think insurance folks should be allowed at the table to lobby about the deer population is all.  I get it, we don't want 20 million deer and cars hitting them all over the place, but I don't think we are anywhere near that kind of issue and there are always enough hunters in the state to prevent that from happening.

 

As a hunter, I am pretty easy going.. just want to see a deer or two, shooting one is not important, but from a management perspective, I would love to see some areas go to different regulations to see what might work.  I would be in favor of a buck lottery in certain places, just to see its impact.  I have an 11 year old, who was fortunate enough to take his first deer last year and is hoping to do that again this year(no luck yet!)... in talking to another hunter in our area, he had mentioned he had taken a shot at a deer one morning... my son of course asked "was it a buck"... the hunter replied he didn't know, as he couldn't see it well enough... needless to say, it we had a great conversation on the way home about ethics, making sure you know what you are shooting at, etc... he's heard these things before, but it was a great refresher... my point being, I would hope some modifications would lead to folks being more careful about pulling the trigger, which may help with management, but will definitely help with hunter safety.  

 

I don't envy the DNR... lots of loud voices and too many variables in the management game to ever put a plan in place for any length of time without one variable forcing you to change it.

[PurpleFloyd]

On 11/10/2016 at 8:23 PM, delcecchi said:

Yes or no?

 

Yes. It registers on the S.O.S (sticks of sausage) scale so it gets a tag.

[SmellEsox]

Without MDDI, we would have had continued overharvest after the tough winters in central MN.  Without question.  It may only be one particular deer manager, but MDDI made a difference here.  My thanks to their efforts!

[certified jumbo]

I'm not exactly sure on the political side who gets the credit.  I wasn't behind the closed doors.  It could be MDDI or someone else.  

 

But what I do know is that in both of my hunting areas, one in NE MN and one in central MN, we are currently having excellent hunting and seeing lots of deer!!

[fivebucks]

I think the biggest reason for more deer in the northern half of the state is a couple of mild winters.  Up there Mother Nature makes the rules.  I did actually see fewer deer this year than last year.  This year was 4 and last year 5 for 8 days of hunting.  Good thing was the last day each year provided me a small buck for the good eatin table.

[hockeybc69]

11 hours ago, SmellEsox said:

Without MDDI, we would have had continued overharvest after the tough winters in central MN.  Without question.  It may only be one particular deer manager, but MDDI made a difference here.  My thanks to their efforts!

 

Hey Smelly

Its definitely not one deer manager. We have our own issues where we hunt. Harvest down 35% over the last 10 years, yet he(our deer manager) will tell me over and over and over that the population is stable and healthy... MDDI was a big help in MN, but I am worried the DNR will slowly go right back to where they were. The DNR is full of excuses every year when things dont quite meet their pie in the sky predictions. Wind, rain, corn, smelly hunters(you should wash your socks), hot, cold, sleet, snow, expensive gas, bullet shortages, lazy hunters, people sulking that Trump was elected and not hunting, etc.

I will chew off my left arm if they ever actually admit that their population modeling sucks and that macro managment just doesnt work. Glad to hear the people having a great season, but there are many of us that continue to struggle to see deer even though the DNR models say we have tons of deer and need to be a Management area again. It would be nice if they had some boots on the ground to actually verify their bullsh!t models....

[Wanderer]

Hate to break it to you but the harvest SHOULD be down from what it was 10 years ago.  MN has never seen populations so high as they were for about a 10 year run when managed and IH areas started hitting the map.

 

[PurpleFloyd]

How can anyone say the MDDI did any good considering the timeline between the audit and this season? There has not been enough time for any changes that might have been made to make any impact on the population for this year's hunt. 

 

The hunt seems better and people are happier because a few individuals aren't all over every message board pizzing and moaning about how bad everything is.

 

 

[Getanet]

1 hour ago, PurpleFloyd said:

How can anyone say the MDDI did any good considering the timeline between the audit and this season?

 

 

 

You know I'm not a huge fan of the MDDI. But I believe Brooks being one of the most outspoken critics of the DNR was a catalyst for much of the state going to a doe lottery last year and remaining that way this year. I believe that was a helpful to the herd overall. MDDI wasn't the only group involved, but they/he definitely rattled a few cages.

 

Unfortunately, if you follow the MDDI's Facebook page at all you'll see that rather than being an organization that could effect some real change, they can't resist their urge for sophomoric meme's and phony press releases from the DNR. 

 

I never had any expectations that the audit was going to actually make a difference.

[rkhinrichs]

Does brooks have any bio degree? Or is he just know for Arrow affliction and double bulls?

Edited November 16, 2016 by rkhinrichs

[Getanet]

When he was running for MDHA president his bio said he had a degree from the U in Political Science. I know he was successful selling hunting equipment. Was that what you mean by Arrow Affliction and Double Bulls? I'm not a bow hunter so I'm not familiar with any brands/products in that industry.

[Satchmo]

While Brooks can certainly be a colorful and some may say abrasive, noone should doubt the fact that he has worked relentlessly at making deer hunting better for everyone in MN. His approach may make some people uncomfortable,  but challenging the status quo and questioning the good old boys network would not get anything accomplished if your not willing to ruffle some feathers. 

[PurpleFloyd]

10 hours ago, Getanet said:

 

You know I'm not a huge fan of the MDDI. But I believe Brooks being one of the most outspoken critics of the DNR was a catalyst for much of the state going to a doe lottery last year and remaining that way this year. I believe that was a helpful to the herd overall. MDDI wasn't the only group involved, but they/he definitely rattled a few cages.

 

Unfortunately, if you follow the MDDI's Facebook page at all you'll see that rather than being an organization that could effect some real change, they can't resist their urge for sophomoric meme's and phony press releases from the DNR. 

 

I never had any expectations that the audit was going to actually make a difference.

Could be. But his motivation for doing so was not what he made it appear.

 

The deer herd will come and go based more on habitat and weather than anything. 

[SmellEsox]

On 11/16/2016 at 6:53 AM, PurpleFloyd said:

How can anyone say the MDDI did any good considering the timeline between the audit and this season? There has not been enough time for any changes that might have been made to make any impact on the population for this year's hunt. 

 

The hunt seems better and people are happier because a few individuals aren't all over every message board pizzing and moaning about how bad everything is.

 

 

It was MDDI and Brooks that caused the DNR to go to lottery for a few years in central MN.  The deer manager in my area wanted to continue with basically unlimited doe harvest after those two difficult winters.  We would not be experiencing good hunting here this year if it were left up to our manager.  Two years of mild winters and laying off doe harvest can make a huge difference in deer numbers in some of the best deer habitat in the midwest.

[hockeybc69]

On 11/16/2016 at 6:21 AM, Wanderer said:

Hate to break it to you but the harvest SHOULD be down from what it was 10 years ago.  MN has never seen populations so high as they were for about a 10 year run when managed and IH areas started hitting the map.

 

 

Hate to break it to you as well, but here are the facts.

In 2006 there were stakeholder meetings for Central MN. It was decided to stabilize or slightly increase populations in 8 of the 9 permit areas under review. 

We were at a run rate of approx 5000 deer harvested annually in PA 240 when that decision was made in 2006 to stabilize the population in that area. We are now down 34% in harvest. Every year since the decision to stabilize the populations has been declining. They kept us in Intensive Harvest 2 more years after the DNR agreed with the stakeholders team members to stabilize the herd. 

How is any of this showing any herd stabilzation at all? From the very start of the deer management after the Stakeholders meetings, they kept the gas pedal down and have continued to allow deer to be taken at ridiculous rates. 

 

 

[Satchmo]

Hockey,

The DNR still has the gas pedal down where they can get away with it. In Area 246, we went from 250 antlerless permits in 2014, to 500 in 2015, and then took a huge leap to 3000 antlerless for 2016. It may have been able to justify a moderate increase, but to increase them 6 fold is utterly ridiculous.  I've been hunting this zone for over 30 years and I can tell you that the big woods population in that area will get beat right back down pretty fast. Stupid!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

2 hours ago, SmellEsox said:

It was MDDI and Brooks that caused the DNR to go to lottery for a few years in central MN.  The deer manager in my area wanted to continue with basically unlimited doe harvest after those two difficult winters.  We would not be experiencing good hunting here this year if it were left up to our manager.  Two years of mild winters and laying off doe harvest can make a huge difference in deer numbers in some of the best deer habitat in the midwest.

 

I never had an issue with protecting does. In fact, going back several years I tried to no avail to convince the pro APR crowd that it's better for the population to take a young buck than a doe for the freezer but that was sacrilege. 

The problem that I had with the MDDI was that the motive behind the push to increase the herd was to set the table for a statewide APR push. 

Interestingly I am still having conversations with hunters who are if the mindset that we can go hunters choice statewide and they think that will be sustainable and lead to bigger bucks. 

 

You have no argument from me that it's a good idea to take fewer does in the areas that have low DPSM. They all taste great in a stick of sausage.