Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Coop Newsletter

B

bat man

Guest
For those that don't know or are not comfortable with starting a cooperative, would a twice a year newsletter be of benefit?

Most people need a leader for change, and the first step in my eyes would be discounting the current herd leader (DNR)

Share the fact set on mature deer per license sold, some doe home range size info, and eventually maps showing who does what (green = no does will be shot in 2015, striped means yearling bucks get a pass etc)

8.5 x 11 sheet of paper folded in thirds, taped and mailed cost about fifty cents per neighbor.

Find away to link it back to MDDI with a map and a star for your general area so MDDI could be your third party of repute?
 
A bi-annual newsletter would interest me as a hunter and landowner.

As soon as it turns ugly or political - I'm out. I don't want that, I don't need that, I won't support that.

A co-op needs to focus on what they can do with what they have to work with - anything outside of that is simply a drain on the co-op's resources. Co-ops are voluntary so you need to keep things simple and positive.

Let the DNR discredit themselves. In most cases they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that as it is.
 
j-bird said:
A bi-annual newsletter would interest me as a hunter and landowner.

As soon as it turns ugly or political - I'm out. I don't want that, I don't need that, I won't support that.

A co-op needs to focus on what they can do with what they have to work with - anything outside of that is simply a drain on the co-op's resources. Co-ops are voluntary so you need to keep things simple and positive.

Let the DNR discredit themselves. In most cases they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that as it is.
Click to expand...

Do you find anything ugly or political about informing hunters that the DNR wants to manage for less than 1 adult deer per license sold.? This is happening in areas where habitat could support 4 or 5 adult deer per license sold? I call that lightening and empowering.

When your DNR tells the hunters of a zone they can't have 18 dpsm pre fawn because the available habitat can not support it, you don't call them out?

When area managers provide papers showing they are managing for numbers below what they announced in 2006, youdont call them to task?

When dpsm goals are lowered without notifying the hunters?

When data shows the herd has been reduced well past planned reductions and you can still buy 5 doe tags per guy?

Wont let it slide in my area. Public distrust of that state agency is an objective, not something to hide from.
 
I like the idea of a newsletter and most of what you said. I would use the idea of linking the newsletter to MDDI where the info discrediting DNR could be found. Granted co-ops and DNR mismanagement are intertwined but they don't neccessarily need to be presented together in a newsletter. I personally don't know how to start or run a co-op so I would like to see a newsletter explaining what it takes to do it goals etc.. And having multiple landowners reading from the same source makes it easier to get coordinated. I would also like to see an area of the newsletter or MDDI where people could sign up showing interest to help connect landowners in close proximity.
 
Batman - I understand your concern - I do. My state is still in reduction mode as well. Despite low reported numbers. It may not be as bad as other states but I am still concerned. I am promoting cooperatives here as a way to "fix" the issues ourselves - and let the DNR wallow in their own mess.

The system is broken - that is clear. My point is that I think you will get a better response by using the newsletter to promote the cooperative and simply trying to improve the hunting experience vs. using the newsletter as a scare tactic for a cooperative and use the cooperative as a platform to attack the DNR. I'm not saying you hide the data, but you simply present it so the members can make their own decision.

I am simply being honest and am not trying to ruffle feathers here. If I join a cooperative I want it to be about protecting and improving what we have - embracing the fact that we as hunters have the final responsibility and that we can make a difference with or without the DNR. I'm not going to waste time ranting about the DNR - that political machine isn't going to move much or quickly. The years of effort it can take to make any real headway thru that channel - I can spend doing our own thing locally and have decent hunting restored before the DNR pulls their head out. The DNR can not make us shoot deer - however the challenge, like with any cooperative - is the idea of a little sacrifice by every hunter means no single hunter sacrifices a lot.

I didn't mean to come off as attacking your idea or anything. Like I said I see your passionate about it. I just think a clear, calm & concise message (and not the DNR sucks) will win in the end. Like I said - I mean no harm.
 
Why couldn't I have put it that way! That is so much more straight forward.
 
I am very excited by what I am seeing in the thousands of acres in our cooperative. Educating the public to DNR action and the consequences (bashing the DNR as some call it) had no negative reactions, and plenty of ah hah moments. The MN DNR deserves every bit of abuse the receive on matters deer.

You can choose to ignore that the DNR deceived the public if you like. I would never consider it. Odds are the public will take the DNR press release over what you say if you don't give them a reason to. '2014 harvest was by design and because the hunters requested it.' 'Wind rain corn' 'You are in a cold pocket, your neighbors have lots of deer.' Your neighbors believe that to be fact until you help them understand the agency tasked with managing the herd no longer works for them.

Wait until the DNR starts upping doe tags in your area again in an effort to get the herd down to 10 dpsm pre fawn and your neighbors trust them. 'cars are hitting deer' 'farm fields are being emptied by deer' 'our forests are in peril with no new trees' You will be trying to get your foot up high enough behind you that it hurts.

Your 2 day hunters suck up every bit of the DNR spin that pervades the media.

A newsletter reaches the hunters twice a year. The DNR issues press releases to multiple medium every week.

DNR holds a masters in wildlife biology. You like bigger bucks.

Growing a distrust of the entity that shit all over the hunters of your area is a solid plan in my eyes.
 
85% of the public rates the DNR deer program to a degree of favorable. (number stuck in my head)

Betting under 40% in this round of central MN surveys are satisfied with deer seen on stand.

DNR has the pulpit and everyone wants to believe the preacher.

You won't have large scale change w/o changing the public perception of the DNR's performance. Never happen.
 
smsmith said:
I just chose the wrong Goddamn state to move to....I kick myself on that subject nearly daily. I'll ride it out until I can leave this liberal bastion of sheeple....
Click to expand...

Your going to have to engage the neighbors for change. Put Bob to task. He can gather the masses.
 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the failings of any DNR's management practices in any type of newsletter related to starting management coops for any species, be it deer or otherwise. Many folks only know the information in front of them.

"I see da deer herd shrinkin' 'round me, but da DNR says on da news ehh it's because da weadder n late harvest led to a lower kill." "Golly darnit eeh, I sure hope dat Madder Nature, she cooperates der next year ehh."

Fast Forward 11 months and 3 weeks later,

"Ehh der, looks like da weadder is gonna be crappy 'gin dis year ehh?
"Yup, sure does ehh n Farmer Sven didn't get his corn in eedder."
"Oh dats too bad, looks like anodder slow season in da deer blind?!?"
Repeat.

Someone has to bring this to the attention of the masses by any means necessary. What better place to show the folks who are the most affect by it, the very hunters you are trying to convince with your newsletter, that a change is needed? It will only help your cause to point out to them that these are the reasons you are where you are and this is how the DNR has got you here. 1 panel of a 6 sided flyer is all that would be needed to state those facts, give them the other 5 panels full of information on how to instigate, form, and operate a deer coop, contacts for more information, explain to them the ways they can make a difference in spite of what the DNR's rules are, show them they can make a difference. The thing is, if you don't call out the DNR in this flyer, how many do you think would take the time to find out for themselves? "If you just handed them the newsletter/flyer and told them to check out all the bad things the DNR is doing at this online website listed on the back, that flyer wouldn't get a second look and would become a fire starter or a$$wipe as soon as you turned your back! Ask me how many items like this have been handed to me at the Wisconsin Deer and Turkey Expo that didn't make it past the very next garbage can I walked by.
 
Apparently enough over the last 5+ years to get some type of change started over here! Good or bad remains to be seen, but it's better than spinning your damn wheels in the same ruts forever.
 
I would agree that the native distrust for the DNR has existed for at least as long I have been alive, maybe even had it's roots before that. It still takes a great call to action to get changes made in WI. You can't just whisper it here and there, it happens so often, everyone thinks your just grumbling the same as everyone always does. Even here it still takes someone to rally the troops and point out what is going on and say "Hey, have a closer look, this is beyond their normal level of stupidity." It just so happens that due to the long time mistrust it is soooo much easier to muster support from the general hunting population. If no one ever points out the issues, how will they know they've been duped in the first place? Unless their hunting is far, far better than many of you report, there can be only 2 reasons they don't know, they are either too ignorant to figure it out on their own, thus they need to be educated, or they don't care enough to do anything about it, meaning they need a fire lit under their a$$. Either way they need to hear the facts, whether to educate them in the problems or to light a fire under the a$$es of those who don't care. Like I said, don't shove it down their throats with a 500 page thesis, just highlight the main issues in a small section of the newsletter and then use the rest to "combat" the issues. Most folks, at least east of the river, would like to know why you would all of sudden want them to "love thy deer slaying neighbor" and what could they possibly be trying to accomplish by listening to that a$$hole across the fence before committing to something like that.
 
Last edited:
I think Bob would beg to differ. ;)A bit of education on your part and the realization that you were not blowing smoke obviously got him on board with some neighborly habitat and management collaboration. That would lead me to believe with a half a dozen or so like minded neighbors(that's the hard part) and some more of that education, you could be in a good position. The issue is you would have to let those neighbors know what the DNR was doing that was affecting their hunting at some point, or it would feel like you were blowing smoke. Much as, I'm sure, you pointed out those issues to Bob when you got him on board.
 
I truly believe that the failings of the MN DNR do indeed need to be pointed out to the masses, and that co-ops can be a wonderful tool to bring back deer herds quicker on a localized scale. I don't however think that the the two should be mixed during what will surely be a delicate process of gaining trust and cooperation between neighbors. This task is complicated enough with the wide range of goals, levels of expections, and current thought differences on the DNR to bring politics and bashing in to it. I would agree with making the DNR irrelevant in the forming of a co-op. I have no problem, however, giving them the info to find the MDDI info and making up their own mind once trust is gained.
 
Well there you go stu. Bob, being the stand-up guy he is, must know some other stand-up guys who deer hunt, you never know where that could lead and you don't even have to be an insistent a$$ about it? It could be brought up in casual conversation over a few beers and it could just be that you mention how great it is to work with Bob on improving your land and deer hunting. How well things have been looking since you started, and if you needed to throw in a word or 2 about how the DNR doesn't seem to be helping, then that could be brought up as needed.
 
Keep it rolling, guys !! Sounds like some fires might be lit.
 
(2015 pre season letter- going out to 88 locals)

What a change a couple of years can make. When area DNR managers said DMU’s 221 and 222 were on tap for early antlerless and intensive harvest for the fall of 2014, the line was crossed. We organized our voices and stopped the madness, and 2015 will see another conservative deer season. DMU’s 221 and 222 are lottery areas this year. You have to apply for a tag. Youth 17 and under can still shoot does, but the rest of us need a doe permit.


Its up to your party whether or not you harvest does this fall, and from a management standpoint there are things you can consider before shooting does. Be aware that management decisions made by the DNR are for 500 square mile areas, and you are hunting 40 and 100 acre pieces. Your party and the immediate neighbors are responsible for the local deer numbers. If you want Brooks to review your access strategies to hold and save more of those old does – shoot him an email. basecampbrooks@gmail.com.


1 – The harvest of 25% of the adult does in your area will keep the deer numbers fairly steady. Kill more than that and the numbers drop, kill fewer and numbers grow.


2 – Winter is a huge player in our part of the state. Mild winters see many more does recruiting twins, and harsh winters (such as 2013/14) leave adult does physically drained, meaning their bodies can only support a single fawn if any. Camera surveys confirm the winter of 2013/14 also killed a lot of yearling deer.


3 – If you are worried about too many deer for the available habitat, you can check the local browse. Excessive numbers can hurt regeneration of oak and maple trees, as well as other species, and freshly timbered or hinge cut parcels can support 10 times the deer of a mature park like woods. When the deer are browsing twigs from shrubs and plants that are the size of a pencil, you either need more browse or fewer deer to stay in balance with the habitat.


Adult does are the ones that drop the bucks, and they often don’t drop twins until they are 3 years old. If you want to see more deer, consider not shooting those big old does.


The mild winter of 2014/15 combined with an early spring and timely rains have provided a great year of horn growth for the local bucks. The pictures I have seen include several 130 class bucks and some that may pass 150 inches. No true giants yet but on average the bucks are sporting nicer racks from the mild winter and a great spring and summer.


Best of luck this fall, and stay in touch.


Brooks Johnson

VP of the now defunct Mille Lacs Whitetails Chapter
 
Nice - I like the way you try to guide interested folks into making the proper choices.
 
Microsoft-Word-3.png Microsoft-Word-2.png Microsoft-Word.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top