Call to action for Concerned MN deer hunters

[bat man]

So this effort is simply to have the dnr do more accurate counting? Or to just increase numbers? I guess in my opinion things aren't that bad, they are reducing doe harvest and in a couple of years numbers will rebound nicely. It actually is probably a good thing to have a dip in population from time to time. Would slow disease and give habitat a chance to rebound. Everyone on here knows that deer are hard on habitat, that is why they have to cage newly planted trees. At least in the areas I hunt the bag limits seemed to line up pretty close with populations so for me the models are good enough. And if you are just concerned about numbers they are already re-evaluating that. But this is just my opinion and do not support it.

Then count yourself among the lucky few. Even back in the hey day of deer number when everybody was concerned I saw no documentation to support the degrading habitat issues that are often spoken of. Do you have any such data?

Your assertion that the DNR will allow numbers to rebound nicely is one many on this forum would disagree with. But we all hope your optimism is warranted.

 

[biglakeba$$]

I would love for someone to show me deer damage in our woods.
Our numbers have plummeted, even though my wildlife manager tells me the populations has been the same for 7 years.
Our harvest is down 40% from 2007 when the DNR said they would keep our populations stable.
We see a fraction of the deer we did 7 years ago.

There are happy hunters, and I am sure you may have what you consider good hunting or good populations. Thats great.

The fact is that the DNR just surveyed deer hunters and we are now staring at nearly 80% dissatisfaction, and our DNR is telling us there is nothing to worry about.

There is a HUGE disconnect and the audit is to get some accountability and process changes so that they can manage deer in a better manner.
The models they use are a complete disaster.
Once the models are fixed or whatever needs to happen, the hope would be that we could have more deer.

So to answer your question in short, the audit is to increase numbers where they can be increased and to get a better way to monitor the deer herds so we dont have these HUGE flucuations.

 

[wiscwhip]

A-C-C-O-U-N-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y.....right now your DNR has none and by the sounds of the hunter surveys, they could use some oversight.

 

[bowhunternw]

I am sure that you have already formed your opinion but read this article. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2014/jul-aug/north-shore-forest.html There is a section in there about deer. I love deer hunting as much or more than than most but realize that we need to have balance. I am not going to argue with you but like I said I think things are being handled and would rather see efforts spent in other ways.

 

[Greta&Gus]

I am sure that you have already formed your opinion but read this article. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2014/jul-aug/north-shore-forest.html There is a section in there about deer. I love deer hunting as much or more than than most but realize that we need to have balance. I am not going to argue with you but like I said I think things are being handled and would rather see efforts spent in other ways.

The north shore has always had fewer deer than north central and east central regions. You can't really compare some of the areas across the state to each other because of the different habitat and ag dynamics. Keeping the iron range at a lower population to help with the moose and native vegetation if fine by me but that same logic cannot be applied to everywhere. We also used to have large herds of caribou and elk roaming the state, but that is not feasible with the expansion of society. We shouldn't look at the past and try and replicate it in the future landscape if it isn't reasonable.

 

[West Branch]

I am sure that you have already formed your opinion but read this article. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2014/jul-aug/north-shore-forest.html There is a section in there about deer. I love deer hunting as much or more than than most but realize that we need to have balance. I am not going to argue with you but like I said I think things are being handled and would rather see efforts spent in other ways.

Yup, I have read that article and agree that there can be issues along the north shore and in the arrowhead. One thing to note is that they use permit area 126 as an example that they wanted to reduce the DPSM from 6 to 4. Per the DNR models the DPSM has been at 4 since 2009, in the article they say in 2014 it was below 4.

Permit area 126 prefawn DPSM:
2009 - 4
2010 - 4
2011 - 3
2012 - 3
2013 - 3
2014 - 2

 

[bat man]

I am sure that you have already formed your opinion but read this article. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2014/jul-aug/north-shore-forest.html There is a section in there about deer. I love deer hunting as much or more than than most but realize that we need to have balance. I am not going to argue with you but like I said I think things are being handled and would rather see efforts spent in other ways.

To each their own. If you think its okay that the agency tasked with managing the herd through intention or malfeasance slashed the herd in half thats your call. I represent deer hunters and won't sit by and watch a 9% scheduled herd reduction slide past 50% without making some waves.

My area forester who has covered much of the state for 25 years says the only regeneration issues he has ever seen are in wintering areas like the article you describe. That does not justify a wholesale reduction past announced goals statewide.

 

[West Branch]

The north shore has always had fewer deer than north central and east central regions. You can't really compare some of the areas across the state to each other because of the different habitat and ag dynamics. Keeping the iron range at a lower population to help with the moose and native vegetation if fine by me but that same logic cannot be applied to everywhere. We also used to have large herds of caribou and elk roaming the state, but that is not feasible with the expansion of society. We shouldn't look at the past and try and replicate it in the future landscape if it isn't reasonable.

Permit area 178, which is the south side of the Iron Range supposedly has a goal of 18 dpsm pre-fawn per some articles I read last winter. Although some numbers in the article were supposedly from the DNR and were incorrect based on current reports. So higher goals than areas that have better habitat and easier winters. Brooks can you verify the goals for permit area 178?

 

[wiscwhip]

The north shore has always had fewer deer than north central and east central regions. You can't really compare some of the areas across the state to each other because of the different habitat and ag dynamics. Keeping the iron range at a lower population to help with the moose and native vegetation if fine by me but that same logic cannot be applied to everywhere. We also used to have large herds of caribou and elk roaming the state, but that is not feasible with the expansion of society. We shouldn't look at the past and try and replicate it in the future landscape if it isn't reasonable.

e.g., thousands of wolves roaming the countyside.

 

[bat man]

Permit area 178, which is the south side of the Iron Range supposedly has a goal of 18 dpsm pre-fawn per some articles I read last winter. Although some numbers in the article were supposedly from the DNR and were incorrect based on current reports. So higher goals than areas that have better habitat and easier winters. Brooks can you verify the goals for permit area 178?

178 has a goal range 13 - 16. 14 dpsm in 2012, and 13 in 2013.

 

[biglakeba$$]

I love deer hunting as much or more than than most but realize that we need to have balance. I am not going to argue with you but like I said I think things are being handled and would rather see efforts spent in other ways.

What other ways and what do you see that needs change if you feel things are good where they are at?

 

[bowhunternw]

To each their own. If you think its okay that the agency tasked with managing the herd through intention or malfeasance slashed the herd in half thats your call. I represent deer hunters and won't sit by and watch a 9% scheduled herd reduction slide past 50% without making some waves.

My area forester who has covered much of the state for 25 years says the only regeneration issues he has ever seen are in wintering areas like the article you describe. That does not justify a wholesale reduction past announced goals statewide.

You don't think that there are wintering areas all over the state, maybe that is why winter kills have been worse. (Depleted browse) All I am saying is I think that a dip in population is probably a good thing from time to time, all game goes through it. Now if these numbers were the future then I would be disappointed but obviously they are working on bringing them back up. Good news is it is an easy winter.

 

[West Branch]

178 has a goal range 13 - 16. 14 dpsm in 2012, and 13 in 2013.

That's what ends up frustrating me the most. The DNR doesn't care an article being published with incorrect information. Based on the current population models the DNR doesn't believe a lot of the forest zone areas were ever over 20 dpsm. The 26 DPSM number in this article is BS.

From 1/31/14:

The population goal for permit area 178 was set at about 18 deer per square mile. The DNR set out to reduce deer numbers in ensuing years by allowing hunters to take more antlerless deer. Permits were issued liberally. The deer population — and the annual deer kill — began to drop.

By 2012, the deer density had dropped from 26 to about 15 per square mile, just under goal. Hunters saw and killed fewer deer. A follow-up goal-setting group again was convened in 2012 to re-evaluate the deer population.

“Their message was to stay the course,” Rusch said. “Stabilize. No change.” - See more at: http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/event/article/id/290325/publisher_ID/36/#sthash.8O8WAbTv.dpuf

 

[bowhunternw]

What other ways and what do you see that needs change if you feel things are good where they are at?

Personally I think farm country in MN is the biggest problem right now. Habitat is almost non existant for any kind of wildlife in many areas.

 

[LessRice]

I think you are missing the point of the audit. Personally I don't have any skin in the MN deer hunting game, but the point of the audit is to make the MN DNR more accountable for the stats and population goals that they are defining. If there are areas that the deer herd maybe does need a reduction, a new model should be able to define it and properly set the goals. The way it sits right now the DNR can basically spit out information and has no one to answer to. Hard to keep someone in check, especially government, without an audit and making them accountable for their infomation...

 

[biglakeba$$]

All I am saying is I think that a dip in population is probably a good thing from time to time, all game goes through it.

Couldnt agree any more. The DNR cant keep populations perfectly stable.

But a dip in harvest that has progressively worsened every year for several years, resulting in a harvest of half the deer as compared to 8 years ago is completely unacceptable.
dips and rises in harvests should be the norm. You are absolutely right.

But a 50% decrease in harvest is not a "dip".

 

[West Branch]

You don't think that there are wintering areas all over the state, maybe that is why winter kills have been worse. (Depleted browse) All I am saying is I think that a dip in population is probably a good thing from time to time, all game goes through it. Now if these numbers were the future then I would be disappointed but obviously they are working on bringing them back up. Good news is it is an easy winter.

Per the DNR since 1997 the winter of 2013-2014 is the only one that would have had a significant impact on the deer. South of Hwy 210 if you find a winter killed fawn the DNR will tell you it was probably hit by a car, because winter kill isn't an issue in those areas. I believe Brooks found a couple last winter and that is what they told him about the area he is in.

The issues started back in 2009 and the DNR did not react until 2014 and they blamed it on the winter. Many areas saw a large drop in harvest in 2013, but per the DNR unless the area was in the arrowhead or close the Canadian border in NE and NC MN winter should not have affected the deer population in 2012-2013.

In the forest zone from 2008-2011 prefawn DPSM amounts were overestimated by over 50% in 23 of the 36 permit areas. That is an area north and east of a line that would run from Pine City to Brainerd to Wadena, and north to Roseau. The models were updated in 2012. The incorrect numbers are still being used by the DNR in some areas. See my earlier post mentioning permit area 178. There seems to be a disconnect between the biologists sitting down in Madelia and some local wildlife managers, especially in the forest zone.

 

[McLovin]

Feb 11th is deer day on the hill. Hackbarths Mining and Outdoor Rec committee with DNR present. Gonna be fun. Nobody tell McLovin.

I'm on my way Brooks. Wait...what?

 

[Jakarta]

Email sent to Pat Garofalo and Dave Thompson others BCC,d.

 

[SD51555]

So this effort is simply to have the dnr do more accurate counting? Or to just increase numbers? I guess in my opinion things aren't that bad, they are reducing doe harvest and in a couple of years numbers will rebound nicely. It actually is probably a good thing to have a dip in population from time to time. Would slow disease and give habitat a chance to rebound. Everyone on here knows that deer are hard on habitat, that is why they have to cage newly planted trees. At least in the areas I hunt the bag limits seemed to line up pretty close with populations so for me the models are good enough. And if you are just concerned about numbers they are already re-evaluating that. But this is just my opinion and do not support it.