Knowledge of Forest Certification Program needed

[EOB]

How about an open records request? Get their emails.

 

[bat man]

Was that at the Cambridge, Mn. meeting for Block 4?

Hinckley Art. The one you attended.

 

[wiscwhip]

In 1.5 years I have heard the term 'certified forest' twice. Leslie on Tuesday and Merchant on Wednesday. Guy in the audience said folks from DNR were visibly distraut when I gave my forestry connection speech on Thursday.

Made those DNR reps squirm a bit Brooks. LOL good for you. Uh-oh, cat out of the proverbial bag! What was the audiences response to that portion of your presentation? I hope many had questions about it for you afterwards.

 

[bat man]

What was the audiences response to that portion of your presentation?

There were blank looks all over the room. I said 'you guys have no clue what the hell I am talking about do you?' Everybody shook their heads no.

 

[wiscwhip]

Hopefully you have gathered enough new info the last few days to make this one of the central issues in the fight. Get this on TV in the Metro if at all possible. Keep up the great work sir!

 

[wildfire]

Is it just a coincidence that putting wolves back on the endangered list has anything to do with forest certification?

 

[bwoods11]

Brooks--I believe you found the connection. In a meeting in Alexandria with the DNR.... back in (?) 07 or so. There was one guy from the St. Cloud area (near St. Johns University). He kept saying we need to lower the deer herd so he could grow trees. The rest of the group present was intent on keeping the deer population the same or increasing it. This guy seemed to get the DNR employees attention, more than anyone else!

He wanted to grow white pine in that area. The whole time I'm thinking good luck with that?? Cage them if necessary. Anyway, that sticks out from the meeting.

 

[Riggsgwp->]

Is it just a coincidence that putting wolves back on the endangered list has anything to do with forest certification?

I was thinking the same thing. I bet SFI and FSC are bankrolling the whole hippie wolf hugging crowd.

 

[wiscwhip]

Is it just a coincidence that putting wolves back on the endangered list has anything to do with forest certification?

Maybe, but that is a whole 'nother group of "huggers". I think they like to fly solo so they can brag they are the ones saving the world.

 

[bat man]

 

[wiscwhip]

Well there you go, in 2006 the FSC audit called for a herd reduction and by the looks of your current situation, your DNR complied, much like everyone else's.

 

[bat man]

From: Merchant, Steve S (DNR)<Steve.Merchant@state.mn.us>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: SFI FSC certified forests
To: Brooks johnson <basecampbrooks@gmail.com>


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

Steve.merchant@state.mn.us

651-259-5220

 

[biglakeba$$]

Then why do we have a stakeholders process.


Its wasting everyones time and money for a process that apparently is trumped by this.


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

Then why did our biologists agree to the 2005-2007 densities?

Brooks is advocating for simply the number of deer THEY agreed to 7 years ago. That’s it!!!!!

 

[wiscwhip]

Apparently everyone in MN government, from the DNR to the Legislature, is ok losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lost hunting revenues. If that is truly the case and the money doesn't matter you are all scr#w#d! They have no other incentive to increase the numbers if they are fine with losing the dollars generated by the deer herd.

 

[sandbur]

Breaking my "silence" to say that "you are all scr#w#d is totally accurate. I'm sure the forest certification requires all kinds of lengthy paperwork signed by all kinds of muckety mucks and that paperwork is legally binding. If the State agreed to manage for a certain density...then they must do so to keep that certification. If they don't, they likely are looking at losing the certification and quite possibly a monetary fine as well.

IMHO the only options people (who want more deer around anyway) have are:
Refuse to ever shoot a doe again
Require those who hunt on your land to never shoot a doe again
Do as many habitat improvements on your land as you possibly can to increase your ability to carry higher numbers of deer who use your place as "home base"
Join together with others who think the way you do

Back to silence

Yup, but the public land hunter is left with nothing.

Unless we can change hunter's ideas to only shooting one deer and looking at the real deer numbers on a piece of ground. that is hard for a non-local hutner of public land to do. For years he has trusted the DNR.

 

[wiscwhip]

Your only hope may lie in Post #60. If the Forestry Certification Audits call for keeping the herd numbers at a given level to promote regeneration of woody species, your threshold should then be something just south of that number. Given the general consensus among foresters is that detrimental browsing occurs at 20 DSPM, you should push for somewhere in the 16-18 DPSM range and the DNR's should be happy with that. This 7-13 DPSM is total crap. That is the compromise that the "hunting" stakeholder group should strive for moving forward. That and getting the proper metrics in place to be able to "prove" the numbers are accurate from year to year and laws in place to keep the DNR from decimating the herd again for future generations of hunters.

 

[wiscwhip]

Yup, but the public land hunter is left with nothing.

Unless we can change hunter's ideas to only shooting one deer and looking at the real deer numbers on a piece of ground. that is hard for a non-local hutner of public land to do. For years he has trusted the DNR.

Then sooner or later the public land hunter(of which I am one) will either adapt and lower his expectations of harvesting multiple deer, or face the reality that one MUST own land to have quality deer hunting in the future. The alternative is to quit hunting deer and hunt other game such as waterfowl or upland birds, which are mostly hunted on public lands or private lands that a person can gain permission to access for the purpose of strictly hunting birds. Or simply quit hunting altogether, which would be a tragedy for our future generations.

 

[bat man]

Your only hope may lie in Post #60. If the Forestry Certification Audits call for keeping the herd numbers at a given level to promote regeneration of woody species, your threshold should then be something just south of that number. .

The number I have read is 10 dpsm for sufficient hardwood regeneration.

 

[wiscwhip]

If "10" is the number then you are already below that threshold in many areas. If WI drops our herd to 10 DPSM I will quit hunting deer altogether, or just drive the 13 hours out to WY and hunt with my brother, the area he is in is overrun with muley's, whitetails, and speed goats. I have only seen the "10" number mentioned once. I have seen it stated that "20" causes detrimental browse in multiple other reports and articles. I am sure this is going to be one of those numbers that is open to interpretation and manipulation as well, just like all the rest. It will fully depend on who is blowing the smoke and what their agenda really is. Given that fact, I guess I would be prepared for the "10" number to be used in any future debates on the subject. Again, if the State is willing to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, there isn't a whole lot you can do to overcome that. Once the money doesn't matter, they have no reason whatsoever to change things. As little as it matters right now, those guys out there in PA get the hikers and birders to start footing part of the wildlife management bill, the hunters voice will mean squat there as well.

 

[foggy]

WOW! A BUNCH of stuff has been uncovered here in two days! I watched that TV presentation by Pennsylvania. EXACTLY what has transpired here in MN. We need a fricking uprising!! Seems like some behind the curtains movements by many anti-hunter / anti-gun / pro-wolf (yadda yadda) groups. This needs some big exposure soon!

I think a big figure that is well-known by Minnesotans needs to come forward to put pressure on our leadership to make some big changes......SOON!. Perhaps if this info is bundled properly (as it has been put together now) a person such as Ron Schara would step up and do the right thing for sportsmen.

THIS THREAD IS A GAME CHANGER FOR MINNESOTA.

WHERE IS THE MDHA?????? AWOL??