Confused by my DNR - frustration growing....

[j-bird]

Well I have a pretty good relationship with my District Wildlife Biologist, an I was engaged in some e-mail traffic with him and then a switch was flipped!

With the recent on-line course many of us are taking I started to investigate better ways to monitor my habitat condition (as you can see from my browse exclusion cage post). As part of that investigation I had asked my biologist if he has ever conducted a browse impact survey and his thoughts on the accuracy of bed or pellet counts for estimating deer numbers.

He didn't feel the bed or pellet counts where very accurate and claimed the best way to get a deer density or population survey was with snow on the ground and done from the air. Well that is all fine and good, but not everybody is going to spend that kind of money. Now by BIL is a pilot so I could do one if I really wanted to, but again it won't be cheap with renting the plane and fuel.

His reply to the browse study question was (and I am not kidding here), "What's a browse study?" I was floored.

So based on those responses I asked him in his professional opinion how a land owner is best to monitor deer numbers and habitat condition on the property. That was when the switch was flipped! His reply was as political and unscientific as you can expect. It starts with "The Division's recommendations......" The gist of the reply was you should hunt for 1 full day with a firearm or 5 full days with archery for every 5 acres of habitat you have. Target success rate was stated to be 1 antlerless deer per 5 full days of hunting. If you are more successful than that - keep shooting deer! The "habitat" component of the statement essentially said if you continue to see damage - shoot more deer next year.

Here I am trying to base my decisions on data and information and I get a statement with virtually no real science behind it from what I can tell. It seems like every time I think I have an understanding of the direction of my DNR I get some sort of "policy statement" that seems to lack any real science our data. No estimated herd numbers or even densities, no target levels specified, just blanket statements of different versions of saying kill more deer.

My frustration comes from being stuck in the middle. Many hunters in my state are used to the over populated numbers and I know it has created habitat damage. My general thought in those cases is that yes they need to drive numbers down, even though many hunters are against it. I think many of those hunters do not understand the habitat health aspect of the need. Now on the flip side I have hunted and live in an area with a low deer density as it is. I never had a deer behind every tree. In fact when I started I struggled to even see a deer during our 16 day firearm season. I know my density is increasing - habitat and especially cover availability has improved. I see far more deer now than ever, but how many is too many? I want to support a system where decisions are made on data and information - not blanket policies. Taking multiple does in my area will have a far more profound impact than taking the same number of does in the more populated counties. "Kill more deer" isn't management!

Rant over. Come on powerball!!!!!!

 

[Kansas-andres]

I wouldn't be satisfied with his reply either. Basically he is saying shoot them if you are seeing them on per number of hunts. It sounds like he has no idea on estimating DPSM.

Bryan Kinkel has a book on estimating deer numbers with trail cameras. The book is probably well worth the money spent and would offer a better insight on deer numbers.

IMO, estimating deer numbers with snow on the ground can be good and bad. Deer have very different movements that time of year. One Landowner with a uncut corn field will have a billion deer tracks and beds, while the Neighbors have virtually none.

Last year my friend was shocked seeing 60 deer on a all day firearm hunt. I explained to him that the Neighbors had the only standing corn field around.

I've heard many horror stories of guys shooting way to many does and not seeing deer now. We blasted does for years, but not anymore. My Dad and brother shoot a few every year. I have not shot a doe in a couple years. I see 10-15 deer per sit.

 

[j-bird]

If I did my own density study, I would do it over a few square miles around my place - to try to get a more statistical average. A square mile from the air isn't that much to cover. I liv ein farm country and it's pretty flat as well. Right now the only thing I have is for my entire county, from I think QDMA and several years ago. That is what bothers me. The state doesn't seem to know where we are or where we want to be - they just want to kill,kill,kill! Try that with driving a car and see if you end up where you want! All I want is some sort of numbers. How many deer do we have, how many deer do we want to have? My state doesn't even generate an estimated state wide population figure. We don't need concrete numbers, but we have nothing. All they seem to be able to generate is how many we killed, how many caused an insurance claim (gladly provided by the insurance industry) and how many crop damage permits/and dollars lost where applied for. I don't expect the average deer hunter to be as interested in habitat balance and take the effort to determine their density and evaluate habitat conditions and the like - it isn't going to happen. But I don't consider myself an average deer hunter (as a hunter I am nothing special), I am more of a habitat manager and as such I am seeking out a way to get this information and it seems for the most part I am going to be left up to my own devices. The DNR won't/doesn't have the support of the average deer hunter and they won't have the support of folks like me - so who's support do they have? I'll find a way to do what I feel is right despite their support - if you call it that. I've built a pretty decent place as it is and I intend on keeping it that way - even if I have to do it by myself.

 

[hillHuntR]

I understand your frustration with the "shoot more" policy the state seems to promote without gathering the best data. The DNR will never be able to get very good data though, and management will always leave something to be desired for many when they manage by counties, and density across a single county can vary so much. Sad they didn't have any familiarity with at least the idea of a browse study though. I live and hunt some of the supposed best counties in the state, but our population has had extreme highs and lows all while staying as "8 bonus doe" quota counties. I would just fence off a small piece of woods, or better yet several (10ftx10ft would do it). If that area has a ton more browse and green than the rest of your comparable woods a year later (i.e. you can tell where that caged area is from 50 plus yards, it may be time to take some does until you see improvement. If you have any deer at all there will be a difference, I would experiment around and see what works over time (if outside fence has 20% of the green growth inside fence we need to up our harvest). Might also weigh your harvests (difficult to take enough deer for good sample though), but if you take some 2.5 yr old does over the years (and at similar times) and their weights are going down it MIGHT (drought, mast crop variance, etc. confound this) indicate the habitat is suffering. There are all kinds of good studies on trail camera surveys, browse surveys, formulas, etc., but even the best of these is just an estimate (and for the study area at that) and for the time and effort involved I don't think they are any better than a landowner who has time to know his land and pay attention. That all being said it can be fun and interesting to get involved in the studies and track numbers for your land over the years.

 

[hillHuntR]

I just read your last reply...and agree. I have to admit ignorance though, I have thought a lot of things about our state for a long time but have little facts to back it up. I wonder how much of our license sales go back to the DNR...I wouldn't believe the state even if they told me the answer. I have known enough people in the DNR to believe that they often have their hands tied financially and politically. I do know what I would consider a worthwhile modeling/management of our deer herd would cost big time $$. A model is only as good as the data that goes in, and I imagine the DNR doesn't have the money to do it justice. I can't blame them for not doing a cheap, very flawed modeling job that they would then be held to the fire over for years. If they did produce a population estimate it would almost certainly not be worth the paper it was printed on to me.

Related to this issue is your biologist who may be a dud, but there could be other issues. They could just be drawing a paycheck or they could be tasked with heavily managing non-game species and permits and just don't have the time to stay on top of game species management. I could be wrong, but I bet they have tasked the different districts with different responsiblities which would be make for a very uneven presence across the state. It is very difficult to be well versed on all species and management of them. Maybe the new deer biologist will be of more help...not sure if one has been hired yet.

 

[j-bird]

HillhuntR - if it's about the money - they are missing a decent portion of the hunting community. That portion are folks like me. I have not paid a dime in over 10 years of deer hunting in a tag fee. I hunt the land I own (for those that are not familiar In has a clause that if you hunt the property you own you are not required to purchase a license). Look at the harvest report for 2013 - 17,400+ deer where tagged and not a tag was sold. That is the third largest percentage of the harvest in the state. At a minimum of $24 each - that is over $400,000 that didn't go to the DNR. Now that is just those that tagged deer - how many more hunted but didn't tag a deer? Even if the state made landowners post a registration fee of $10 for the entire deer season - your looking at a quarter million dollars a year. I bet you can get some good software and some plane time for that kind of coin.

My biggest argument is how do you drive a program if you don't know where you are or where you want to get to? Right now we are tightening a head bolt without a torque wrench. You tighten, and tighten and tighten and then SNAP! We have no "gauge" of progress - at least from what I have seen out of the state. They are not listening to the "resistance" and that is because they have no way to tell if they are close or not to their goal. In all honesty I don't see us reducing numbers to stupid low levels. Instead I see a growing number of hunters following their own desires and simply ignoring the DNR. They will pass deer in efforts to increase population levels and thus perpetuate the habitat damage. This will create further distance between hunters and the DNR and it will divide the hunters as well. Those that support the DNR's efforts and those that don't. We will have the whole "to shoot a doe or not" debate all over again. The fact remains that the DNR can not make you pull the trigger. The DNR needs to convince you to do so. As more hunters see the lower deer numbers the state is going to have an increasingly more difficult time selling their current message. I for one will monitor my habitat and make my own decisions based on my observations - the state doesn't want to help with data or base their practices on data - fine. Doesn't mean I have to play along. As long as I stay within my bag limits I'll make my own choices.