Help dummy down the MN deer fact set

B

bat man

Guest
We need a tool or fact set that makes it simple to understand the DNR needs the audit. Below is a letter people can share but I need to be sure it is easily understandable and unquestionable. Comments please. Bullet proof it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Session has started and all 201 of our elected are back at work in St Paul. While you may think our DNR holds all the cards for managing the deer herd, it is not true. Our elected are the ones that can dictate goals, objectives and direction to any agency tasked with managing a state resource. Deer are no exception.



Deer management is a complex task, and there exists an assumption that no matter what the DNR does, somebody will always be angry. Right now that somebody is the hunters of MN, and rightfully so. In 2005, MN adopted a new social process to manage the deer herd. Stakeholders representing growers, drivers and hunters were selected to recommend adjustments to the size of the states deer herd. A 9% reduction to the states deer herd was the resulting goal.



To work towards the new goal, our DNR uses a model to estimate the size of the herd. This model uses inputs (almost exclusively harvest data) to calculate the estimated herd size. Tools that double check the model are virtually non existent. Herd monitoring tools are not being used as often as our model designers say is necessary, and the result is model that consistently misses the mark when estimating the herd.



In 2008, Marret Grund (MN DNR Wildlife Populations and Research) came right out and said the model is performing so poorly, he felt a ‘recalibration’ was required. What Grund refers to as recalibration I call the magic eraser. The magic eraser has the ability to go back in time and change estimated numbers as ‘new information’ becomes available. The magic eraser has the ability to go back and change an announced 25% reduction of 25 deer per square mile, to a new 25% reduction of 15 deer per square mile. The magic eraser makes the model work for DNR officials sitting behind computers in St Paul. But there are things the magic eraser can’t change.



That eraser can not change the harvest. The harvest was down almost 40% from the average harvest during stakeholder proceedings BEFORE the brutal winter 2013/2014 and hunter outcry put an end to excessive doe tags. While I agree that harvest is not directly related to the herd size, the harvest number can not be ignored when it is the only real data our DNR collects. Until our DNR makes some changes to its herd monitoring toolbox, harvest data is all we have.



That eraser can not change data collected from the MN Department of Public Safety that shows deer vehicle collisions down 50% in that same time period. Our DNR chooses to ignore the data, but the trending is real. Representatives from the Department of Public Safety have assured us the data has been collected in the same manner for the time period in question, and while overall vehicle accidents have only changed 1%, deer vehicle accidents have dropped in half.



MN DNR manipulation of the numbers used to estimate the size of the herd makes the model function on paper, but that model is not working for the hunters of Minnesota. I urge you to forward this letter to your elected and request they support the proposed audit of our deer model and herd monitoring techniques. The continued use of this failing computer program is of no benefit to any stakeholder group, and our DNR will not admit any problem even exists. The hunters of MN deserve some changes, and 2015 would be a great year to start.



Brooks Johnson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am throwing this in because of the "MN Nice" affect that you are all so fond of over there. We don't want this Brooks Johnson guy to be labeled as "a big bully trying to push his views on to our beloved DNR". So I submit the following:

"MN DNR manipulation of the numbers used to estimate the size of the herd makes the model function on paper, but that model is not working for the hunters of Minnesota. I urge you to forward this letter to your elected and request they support the proposed audit of our deer model and herd monitoring techniques. The continued use of this failing computer program is of no benefit to any stakeholder group, and our DNR will not admit any problem even exists. An audit will help the DNR determine what parts of their management model is broken, which tools are needed to correct it and how often those tools should be used to better manage the MN deer herd. The hunters of MN deserve some changes, and 2015 would be a great year to start."

Something to the affect that you are requesting the audit to try to "help the DNR" figure out the error of their ways for the betterment of all the MN citizens who enjoy seeing deer on the landscape, not step on their toes because you want to push your personal agenda on them. Much like you would help an addict(the DNR) that doesn't see that they have a problem, everybody's on board with that help accept the addict(the DNR), and then that makes the addict(the DNR) look like the bad guy for not accepting your generous offer of "help". I know, I can be a manipulative b*$t*rd when I need to be.
 
We need a tool or fact set that makes it simple to understand the DNR needs the audit. Below is a letter people can share but I need to be sure it is easily understandable and unquestionable. Comments please. Bullet proof it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 Legislative Session has started and all our elected are back at work in St Paul. While you may think our DNR holds makes all the decisions to manage the deer herd, that is simply not the case. Our elected State Legislature can set the goals and objectives of the DNR and set the direction of any agency tasked with managing a state resource. Deer are no exception.



While good deer management is a complex task, there exists the assumption that no matter what the DNR does, "somebody" will always be angry. Right now that "somebody" is the hunters of MN, and rightfully so! In 2005, MN adopted a new social process to manage the deer herd. Stakeholders representing growers (ag and forest), drivers (automobile and insurance), and hunters were selected to recommend adjustments to the size of the states deer herd. A 9% reduction to the states deer herd was the resulting goal established and presented to the public. However may changes have occurred since then.



To work towards the new goal, our DNR uses a "model" to estimate the size of the herd. This model uses inputs (almost exclusively harvest data, currently) to calculate the estimated herd size. Tools that double check the model are virtually non existent. Herd monitoring tools are not being used as often as our model designers say is necessary, and the result is the current model practices consistently miss the mark when estimating the herd.



In 2008, Marret Grund (MN DNR Wildlife Populations and Research) stated the model is performing so poorly, he felt a ‘recalibration’ was required. What Grund refers to as recalibration, I call the "Magic Eraser". The Magic Eraser has the ability to go back in time and change estimated numbers as ‘new information’ becomes available. For example, the Magic Eraser has the ability to go back and change an announced 25% reduction of 25 deer per square mile, to a new 25% reduction of 15 deer per square mile, thereby dramatically changing the determinations of the stakeholder groups, with no accountability to the public. The magic eraser makes the model "work" for DNR officials sitting behind computers in St Paul and has little or no accountability to the past, as the data changes made by the DNR are not published. But there are things the magic eraser can’t change.



The Magic Easer can not change the harvest. The harvest was down almost 40% from the average harvest during stakeholder proceedings BEFORE the brutal winter 2013/2014 and hunter outcry put an end to excessive doe tags. While MDDI agree's that harvest is not directly related to the herd size, the harvest number can not be ignored - ESPECIALLY when it is the only real data our DNR collects. Until our DNR makes some changes to its herd monitoring toolbox, harvest data is all we have.



The Magic Eraser can not change data collected from the MN Department of Public Safety that shows deer vehicle collisions down 50% in that same time period. Our DNR chooses to ignore the data, but the trending is real. Representatives from the Department of Public Safety have assured us the data has been collected in the same manner for the time period in question, and while overall vehicle accidents have only changed 1%, deer vehicle accidents have dropped in half.



Manipulation of the numbers used to estimate the size of the herd may make the MNDNR model function on paper, but that model is obviously not working for the hunters of Minnesota, where hunter satisfaction is trending lower each year. Losing the interest of our hunters will greatly diminish the revenue provided by license sales and will effect our wildlife budget and our hunting heritage.

The MDDI urges you I to forward this letter to your elected and request that your elected support the proposed audit of our deer model and herd monitoring techniques. The continued use of this failing computer program model is of no benefit to any stakeholder group, and our DNR will not address the concerns of a process run afoul. The hunters of MN deserve some changes, Lets get those changes underway in 2015 by showing your support for change!

(Brooks, I think you should use more MDDI and less Brooks J to get the proper "MDDI group think" into the letter.....rather than the Lone Ranger effect??)

Brooks Johnson
MN Deer Density Inniative (MDDI)

^ My Changes to what you wrote above. Compare. Good letter Brooks!!! GET SOMETHING IN ABOUT LOST REVENUE AND HUNTER SATISFACTION. Important.
 
Last edited:
MN Deer harvest - :(
MN Deer numbers - :(
MN Deer Hunters - :mad:
MN DNR deer population model - :confused:

WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE!!!!!

Support MDDI Effort to make a difference - :)
 
Yup, maybe less than 1/3 of the words. Those that give a shit will read what you've written Brooks...but let's face it...those who give a shit are few and far between.

Then lets do both. Send the long version, and do a timeline.

Can anybody do a timeline with the following. Find a way to put the harvest line and the DNR annual herd estimate (flatline of 1 million) in the background?

2005 - MN adopts a social process to manage the deer herd

2007 - Process concludes, 9% herd reduction scheduled

2008 - MN DNR concedes model is flawed, goes back in time and alters herd estimates to match the model.

2009 – Recalibrated model suggests continued aggressive antlerless harvest

2009 – MDHA requests antlerless harvest be reduced. Hunters claim announced herd reduction had been achieved.

2010 – 2013 Model suggests aggressive antlerless harvest continues

2014 – Harvest down 52% peak, lowest harvest in decades

2015 – Audit of the deer model proposed. Remains to be seen if hunters voice has any volume. Pretty quiet crowd for the hand they have been dealt.

Timeline could have longer write up below each bullet point?
 
I could do that in PowerPoint as well, but I don't have it on my computer at home.:(
 
MDDI - More Deer Better Hunting....png
 
I really like Johns idea of the info graphic. It really hits home for the ADD folk like myself. Pictures and Videos = Oh, I get it!
 
Well done bat man, that will get some attention!

-John
 
Top