MN 2015 Goal Setting

[West Branch]

I am sure some of you have seen that the goals have now been released. The most interesting thing in the summaries for the recommendations in Block 4 is these notes, 11 out of 11 permit areas had one of these two quotes as management implications! Even permit area 247 with the goal of stabilize had quote #1.

Block 4 notes:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/deer/2015/gs/gb4_finalgoals.pdf#page=27&view=fit

This recommendation will result in management for population levels similar those directed by previous goals.

This recommendation will result in management for population levels above those directed by previous goals. If the goal is met, populations will be above those experienced during peak population years.

It just further shows that they have little grasp on what the deer populations currently are and what they were ten years ago with the previous goal setting. Maybe I am a bit too cynical but I think the DNR is hoping to get back to issuing excessive antlerless permits ASAP!



http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

 

[West Branch]

I don't think that's cynical at all...I'd call it realism. Since they've delayed the next round of goal setting meetings until the audit is completed, I'm anticipating 2015 and 2016 deer seasons to be conservative. If we get two mild winters to go along with those conservative seasons...I'd guess 2017 will be anything but conservative.

Meanwhile...it would sure be nice if MBI, MDHA, QDMA, MWA, etc. would get together and come up with a united educational message for the hunters of MN. I think we have about 2 years to educate hunters to not buy into the kill 'em all attitude that has existed here for so long.

Pretty similar to what I have been thinking!

Saw this article the other day, MDHA wants to get funds to buy pine forests to keep it from being turned into potato fields.

http://www.startribune.com/deer-hunters-seek-19-million-to-save-forest/306385131/

Interesting snippet:

Under another unusual aspect of the proposal, some of the land purchased could be turned over to a county for management, and some would remain under MDHA ownership and management. None would be turned over to the state.

That is pretty damn ambitious of the MDHA to keep some under their management. Hard to say what will come of this, but Craig E. seems to be going out and trying to get some things done at MDHA.

 

[wiscwhip]

Seems like both those quotes by the MN DNR are a very skewed view of what the population was like in MN years back. I think when they say the number will be at or above prior goal with the new changes, they must mean that they will be at the levels that were reported AFTER your DNR skewed them and "cooked the books" to make the population goals lower than they should have been in the first place.

 

[sandbur]

Two of us from our MDHAChapter were talking yesterday and we both agreed that Criag was making some positive changes.

 

[leexrayshady]

One thing I dont like unless i misinterprited it wrong is that they will use the landownder/ hunter survey to gude the 2016 deer regs for the zones that havent had the goal process done yet.

"In the interim, and through a contract with the University of Minnesota, we are sending surveys to a random sample of hunters and landowners in permit areas that were slated for consideration in 2015-2016. Briefly, those areas are in north central, northwestern, western and south central Minnesota. If you receive one of these surveys, please do fill it out. Your response is important. The surveys include questions about deer population desires as well as other season-related issues. In the absence of the goal-setting process during 2016, information from these surveys will help inform our population management decisions for the 2016 deer season"

 

[SD51555]

172 gets a 25% increase from 2014 levels. Given the easy winter, I wouldn't be shocked if we see an increase in doe tags over LY.

 

[biglakeba$$]

This time at least the DNR is going to be under the watchful eye of many hunters.

The last stakeholders meeting for permit area 240 in 2007, we were to be stabilized. Somehow our are manager kept us at Intensive Harvest for 2 more years after that.....

 

[sandbur]

This time at least the DNR is going to be under the watchful eye of many hunters.

The last stakeholders meeting for permit area 240 in 2007, we were to be stabilized. Somehow our are manager kept us at Intensive Harvest for 2 more years after that.....

It's kind of the same old story, right Mark?

Lee and Mark-we need to keep up the pressure.

 

[wiscwhip]

Keep that fire stoked under the @$$3$ of all those "watchful eyes" and don't let them forget they only voted for a 25%-50% increase in already skewed numbers and that any slip like that by the DNR in quota numbers should be dealt with at the Capitol in St Paul and the Audit Committee.

 

[MoLandOwner]

Wow 157 is going from 6 deer to 7.5 per square mile.

Big Deal!

 

[foggy]

Wow 157 is going from 6 deer to 7.5 per square mile.

Big Deal!

Billy Preston - Nothing From Nothing

 

[SD51555]

I didn't even catch it until now. The arrowhead region got terrible goals. They went bucks only in the arrowhead, but then come back with goals to stabilize two of the zones? We must not have a presence in the arrowhead region.

I was busy fuming over our 25% increase in 172.

 

[West Branch]

I didn't even catch it until now. The arrowhead region got terrible goals. They went bucks only in the arrowhead, but then come back with goals to stabilize two of the zones? We must not have a presence in the arrowhead region.

I was busy fuming over our 25% increase in 172.

I wouldn't get too caught up thinking about the permit areas to be stabilized. 117 and 127 has <1 hunter per sq mile and in 2014 the harvest was <0.1 DPSM. 10 years ago it wasn't much better, harvest was . The only people going to hunt up there have been going for the "experience" for years. Wolves have probably killed more deer than hunters up there for many years.

 

[bat man]

The arrowhead region got terrible goals. They went bucks only in the arrowhead, but then come back with goals to stabilize two of the zones? We must not have a presence in the arrowhead region.

The MDHA representative (was either Applegren or Treveena) skipped voting night w/o notice. His absence killed any odds of growing the herd up north. Nature conservancy and sugar loaf etc were certain more deer would hurt the forest when harvest is off 70% in some of those zones.

Process is still a bogus farce in my eyes. Results could easily be bought for very little cash. Its gotta go.

 

[sandbur]

Is 157 part of the proposed elk area?

Are we leaving room for the elk?

 

[MoLandOwner]

Is 157 part of the proposed elk area?

Are we leaving room for the elk?

can't be....can it?

 

[bat man]

It will be a lot of fun to watch the wolves hoover around the elk during calving season. I thought Wisconsin learned of the elk wolf lesson?

 

[sandbur]

It will be a lot of fun to watch the wolves hoover around the elk during calving season. I thought Wisconsin learned of the elk wolf lesson?

But we aren't Wis. We don't learn as fast.

Will more deer hunter license dollars be spent to feed the wolves elk veal?

 

[foggy]

^ Art....Are you saying were not as smart as a Cheese-head? o_O:eek:

 

[West Branch]

Is 157 part of the proposed elk area?

Are we leaving room for the elk?

Proposed Elk areas are potentially in permit areas 156, 181, 199, 183 and 159.