B
bat man
Guest
It is doable with the right consultant suggesting the changes.
It passed!
- Thread starter SD51555
- Start date
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Here you are Brooks(and everyone else), the what and the why of WI deer herd monitoring metrics...
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/DTR/metrics.pdf
You saw how they were presented in the "Juneau" document I linked earlier.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/DTR/metrics.pdf
You saw how they were presented in the "Juneau" document I linked earlier.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I think 2 other very important, specific things that need to have some discussion are the fact that many of your DMU's have large areas of 2 vastly different habitat types in the same unit and the difficulty with high population pockets throwing off unit wide numbers, this makes it very hard to manage properly. The other issue is the numbers the MN DNR uses and how they handle the Winter Severity Index, just look at the difference in the way it was handled 2 years ago in WI and MN.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
MO, can you get info like this from the MDC? They must have something like this out there for the public to view? IA? KS? MI? OH? PA? C'mon guys, your DNR's must have this info, the more suggestions the MN guys have, the more informed data they can present to the OLA. IN, IL, guys from the NE? What works in your states? Management in the south is vastly different, so it may not apply, but the more states that use a given metric just proves it's effectiveness. If it didn't work, no one would use it.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Brooks, here is a list of a panel of "consultants" that you may want to talk to in the coming days, they can support your thoughts on SAK coupled with other data being a useable tool.
http://www.outdoornews.com/December-2006/SAK-is-proclaimed-best-in-the-nation/
foggy
5 year old buck +
One thing for sure: The MDDI "movement" and some of the discontent that was expounded upon (endlessly) was genuine and well thought-out. Not enough can be said for the integrity of Stu, Art Brooks, Mark, and others involved. I respect the fortitude and knowledge that our group used to get the effort to this point. I think the DNR and MDHA FINALLY listened to us as a result of the FACTS and un-relenting pressure applied thru the media. DO NOT let them off the hook now. Lets keep the pressure on thru the audit....in order to get the RIGHT outcome. :)
OH....and the QDMA really never did have any club in Pequot Lakes and they did take down that dot that says they were present....when in fact they were not. TWO wins then....even if it takes a banning to get it right. ;)
OH....and the QDMA really never did have any club in Pequot Lakes and they did take down that dot that says they were present....when in fact they were not. TWO wins then....even if it takes a banning to get it right. ;)
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
This ^^^ is what I'm talking about!
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I would suggest Dr. Timothy Van Deelen at UW-Madison as well. I would volunteer to contact him as well, if need be. He and I exchanged a few emails during the Aldo Leupold class. His PhD dissertation(Seasonal Migrations and Mortality of White-tailed deer in Michigan's Upper Peninsula) may be a huge help with WSI and the way it is handled in N MN. He was involved with the SAK evaluation as well. I forgot to mention he has a bit of experience with urban/Metro deer population dynamics also.
sandbur
5 year old buck +
I don't think MDHA can support the audit because of the vote this spring at the annual meeting. A handful of chapters do officially support the audit.
Foggy deserves credit, also. Just a reminder that at least 5 MDHA members from 3 different chapters were involved in writing the audit. Some are no longer members after the vote this spring.
We do need some plan for going forward.
Foggy deserves credit, also. Just a reminder that at least 5 MDHA members from 3 different chapters were involved in writing the audit. Some are no longer members after the vote this spring.
We do need some plan for going forward.
Well instead of asking us about how many coots and canada geese i killed last year (neither of which you could get rid of if you tried), they could ask a few pertinent questions about hunter effort, deer sightings, and such when we buy deer licenses. This info would be tied to our MNR numbers & our zone preference so they could match it up with the related harvest data.
B
bat man
Guest
I believe a chart that lists all (or most) herd monitoring tools used for modeling of populations, as well as the benefit they can provide could be put together with midwest states on the other axis with 'x' showing if said state employs the tool.
And MDHA will be a part of the process. The have the tools in place to assure long term accountability. I have a 2014 Camry, cel;l phone and a laptop.
And MDHA will be a part of the process. The have the tools in place to assure long term accountability. I have a 2014 Camry, cel;l phone and a laptop.
TMIL
5 year old buck +
In Illinois, they use strictly deer-vehicle collision data provided by the Department of Transportation. And it takes the DOT a year to put together their reports. Don't look to Illinois for ideas fellas.
B
bat man
Guest
They most certainly did.
It will be worth the effort to get MDHA on board and if they struggle then rouge forces can wake up and help out. They have made a swing as the info finally hit home and some lights went on. We can help them move forward. They can help us move forward.
Spoke with their lobbyist yesterday and the attention we have garnished makes it much easier to have conversation with those who have influence. Makes issues hard to ignore.
j-bird
Moderator
All I will say about IN is that there are a few good and some not so good things.
Not so good:
We do not have an estimated deer population (I don't think the state has a clue - especially after 2 EHD outbreaks).
We have no idea how many actual hunters we have (all they know are those that have tagged deer and annual license sales - we have some exemptions from needing a license).
Harvest goals are based on crop damage, vehicle and other data and not on target density levels. Tracking these are important as "indicators" only. Much of the data comes from outside the DNR.
We have 1 dedicated person (Deer Wildlife Biologist) within the DNR tasked to focus on deer and deer alone.
The good:
Anlterless quotas are county based for more localized population control.
Annual harvest report published with lots of data broken down to understand what actually happened released to the public.
Only allowed to harvest 1 antlered deer per hunter across the entire state regardless of weapon to promote antlerless deer harvest.
IN seems to be a totally reactive type of management based on harvest data, accident counts and crop damage figures.
IN also has a very low percentage of public ground as compared to more northern states - so private land management is much more important. Actually IN is the lowest based on 2000 numbers as a percentage among IN, IL, OH, MI, KY, MN, WI & MO. Michigan, Minnesota & Wisconsin range in the 15 to 20% public ground category while the others are far lower at roughly 5% or less. So looking at those similar states and how they manage may be more relevant to MN.
Not so good:
We do not have an estimated deer population (I don't think the state has a clue - especially after 2 EHD outbreaks).
We have no idea how many actual hunters we have (all they know are those that have tagged deer and annual license sales - we have some exemptions from needing a license).
Harvest goals are based on crop damage, vehicle and other data and not on target density levels. Tracking these are important as "indicators" only. Much of the data comes from outside the DNR.
We have 1 dedicated person (Deer Wildlife Biologist) within the DNR tasked to focus on deer and deer alone.
The good:
Anlterless quotas are county based for more localized population control.
Annual harvest report published with lots of data broken down to understand what actually happened released to the public.
Only allowed to harvest 1 antlered deer per hunter across the entire state regardless of weapon to promote antlerless deer harvest.
IN seems to be a totally reactive type of management based on harvest data, accident counts and crop damage figures.
IN also has a very low percentage of public ground as compared to more northern states - so private land management is much more important. Actually IN is the lowest based on 2000 numbers as a percentage among IN, IL, OH, MI, KY, MN, WI & MO. Michigan, Minnesota & Wisconsin range in the 15 to 20% public ground category while the others are far lower at roughly 5% or less. So looking at those similar states and how they manage may be more relevant to MN.
MN Slick
5 year old buck +
Here’s a good 50,000 foot level view of how Missouri manages it’s deer herd from MDC biologist Jason Sumners. Of particular note is the public trust doctrine for wildlife and how it should be the basis for wildlife management, his emphasis on using scientific based information to manage deer, the importance of public input, and the economic benefit of deer and deer hunting to the state of Missouri. I’ve been part of the bow hunter observation survey he mentioned since I started hunting in MO back in the late 80's while attending college. Minnesota could do much worse than to just follow Missouri’s deer management template to a T!!!!! I’ll try to find more in depth info when I have a few moments.
P.S.-I’m still looking for a like minded guy to buy the farm next to me in MO, haha.
http://mdc.mo.gov/media/video/google-hangout-jason-sumners
P.S.-I’m still looking for a like minded guy to buy the farm next to me in MO, haha.
http://mdc.mo.gov/media/video/google-hangout-jason-sumners
foggy
5 year old buck +
^^^^ This MO program is like what MN used to have in the way of management....and WHAT WE AGAIN NEED to foster. Great video.
B
bat man
Guest
Realize the scope of this audit as its currently sits is related to the herd monitoring techniques and the effectiveness of the model. The hope is an audit will discover weaknesses in herd monitoring and data collection with suggestions for more science based data collection that will allow our DNR to effectively model the herd. Collecting this data would add a level of accountability in regards to where we are at according to 'goal'. Collecting this data would go a long ways towards legitimizing our goal setting process as it would be tied to a set of numbers or metrics versus our new social perception system.
B
bat man
Guest
Current goals setting process is bunk because the model sucks and we do no herd monitoring. If we had legitimate estimates we would have something to work towards but the estimates we use are in constant flux and are not legitimate.
