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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: