It passed!
- Thread starter SD51555
- Start date
leexrayshady
5 year old buck +
The final vote was today right? Anybody here the outcome
SD51555
5 year old buck +
In case this hasn't been posted. Here's the one pager from the auditor's page:
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/announce/DeerPopulationManagement.pdf
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/announce/DeerPopulationManagement.pdf
SD51555
5 year old buck +
This was the final vote. It's a done deal. Now we've got to make sure it's framed up correctly before they dive in.
B
bat man
Guest
Good reason to keep the scope focused to collecting the necessary hard data to make objective science based estimates of the herd from multiple reliable metrics. Had we been doing this for the past decade there is no way the herd could have been taken back so far. We would never have met.
Assume for a moment that Novmbrs speculation that that internal dismantling of the WI DNR is a cash driven from special interests. The only way you can effectively fool the public about herd size and declines is to get rid of the data. The only way to keep the DNR accountable is to make sure the data is collected.
Last edited by a moderator:
foggy
5 year old buck +
^ I'm confused and concerned with the timing suggested in this synopsis. check the last paragraph?? Next year?
B
bat man
Guest
All 14 finalists had a one page overview like this printed for review.
The audit made the cut for THIS year.
Last edited by a moderator:
West Branch
5 year old buck +
I think I am confused by what is being called hard science vs. sociology. The way I see the MN deer management is that the goals are set socially, even in the Missouri video posted earlier the guy says that deer populations are based on what is socially acceptable. But it appears that MO uses WAY more data in evaluating where they are at.
One of our primary issues in MN is that the deer population model does not reflect what is being seen in the field. A lot of areas in Central MN have a flat population in the last 10 years based on the model, which isn't even close to reflecting what hunters and others are seeing.
I am pretty Grund worked on developing the deer population model, does he not think that is hard science? From what I have heard from him he seems to be pretty confident in the model. Pretty sure this paper is based on the model currently used and he worked on developing it, see pdf here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_5j6tlPtBjgOWJCeHJJQzZYVGEybjNEa0ItYk85eHpTaWNN/view?usp=sharing
The other primary issue is very low DPSM goals (primarily socially based). From my conversations with them I think one of last things any of those biologists want to do is give hard numbers on what the deer population could be over large permit areas. They say something along the lines of: "if you want more deer work with your neighbors."
The fix for that would be that we get higher goals and have the DNR tell the complainers: "If you want less deer, work with hunters". Its still going to be a social issue.
So I guess the way I saw it is that the goals are set socially, but they still have to use hard science to get to those goals. And our biggest issue seems to be that they don't have enough inputs into the model for accurate results.
I have not been keeping up with MDDI stuff and the deer audit things for the last 4 weeks, so I have missed some of things that have been discussed relating to some of the above.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
WB, if you look back at the links I posted from the WI process, you will find that this is very much the way we do things in WI as well. But again, as you say, WAY more hard scientific data used to reach those final kill quota numbers.
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
From Emily at the MDC, you guys tell me if any of this is helpful.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To access the deer population, the Missouri Dept. of Conservation collects / reviews a variety of information listed below with the vast majority being at a county-level scale:
· Biological Data:
o Harvest – This is collected via Telecheck and allows us to evaluate the composition of the harvest by antlered buck, button buck, and doe to the county level. We also collect age-at-harvest data from opening weekend of the November Portion at meat processors, which is incorporated into our population models.
o Population Simulations- Currently these are produced via a simplistic accounting style population model, which incorporates annual harvest data, survival and reproduction rates from previous Missouri research projects. However, we are transitioning to Statistical Population Reconstruction (blurb about this was in the Population Status Report I sent last week) for population simulation purposes, however, we are in the process of acquiring data to fulfill specific requirements, including conducting a research study to gain updated survival and recruitment rates (http://mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/deer-hunting/deer-research-project).
o Bowhunter Observations – Specifically designed for monitoring furbearer populations, fall deer bow hunters observations provide population indices of deer at a county-level. We also recently added means to evaluate fawn:doe and sex ratio from this survey.
· Social Data & Information:
o Production Landowner Surveys – Sent to 9,000 production landowners from a USDA list. The goal is to access their perception of deer population and how they manage deer populations.
o Deer Hunter Attitude - Sent to 18,000 deer hunters to access their perception of deer population and how they manage deer populations.
o Post-Season Firearms Survey – Sent to 35,000 firearms deer permit holders, stratified to ensure a representative sample of hunters is achieved. Helps access deer hunter density, hunter effort, opinions of regulations (considered and current), etc.
o Post-Season Archery Survey – Sent to 35,000 archery deer permit holders, stratified to ensure a representative sample of hunters is achieved. Helps access deer hunter density, hunter effort, opinions of regulations (considered and current), etc.
o Public Comments/Feedback – This includes feedback that throughout the year via emails, phone calls, letters
§ Open Houses / Web Platform: Additionally, in the past year we’ve held a total of 22 open houses to discuss considered regulations changes and gain the public feedback. We also had a web platform that provided the same information at the open houses with a method to provide comments.
o Internal MDC Post-Season Survey – We also survey MDC staff after the deer season regarding their perceptions about the deer population and their perceptions of the public’s view of the deer population since they interact with the local public on a daily basis. This is another method to assess deer populations at a regional and county level.
o Feedback from MDC Committees – MDC has a Deer Regulations Task Force composed of MDC staff from all regions and Divisions that discuss and provide feedback regarding regulations and management efforts.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To access the deer population, the Missouri Dept. of Conservation collects / reviews a variety of information listed below with the vast majority being at a county-level scale:
· Biological Data:
o Harvest – This is collected via Telecheck and allows us to evaluate the composition of the harvest by antlered buck, button buck, and doe to the county level. We also collect age-at-harvest data from opening weekend of the November Portion at meat processors, which is incorporated into our population models.
o Population Simulations- Currently these are produced via a simplistic accounting style population model, which incorporates annual harvest data, survival and reproduction rates from previous Missouri research projects. However, we are transitioning to Statistical Population Reconstruction (blurb about this was in the Population Status Report I sent last week) for population simulation purposes, however, we are in the process of acquiring data to fulfill specific requirements, including conducting a research study to gain updated survival and recruitment rates (http://mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/deer-hunting/deer-research-project).
o Bowhunter Observations – Specifically designed for monitoring furbearer populations, fall deer bow hunters observations provide population indices of deer at a county-level. We also recently added means to evaluate fawn:doe and sex ratio from this survey.
· Social Data & Information:
o Production Landowner Surveys – Sent to 9,000 production landowners from a USDA list. The goal is to access their perception of deer population and how they manage deer populations.
o Deer Hunter Attitude - Sent to 18,000 deer hunters to access their perception of deer population and how they manage deer populations.
o Post-Season Firearms Survey – Sent to 35,000 firearms deer permit holders, stratified to ensure a representative sample of hunters is achieved. Helps access deer hunter density, hunter effort, opinions of regulations (considered and current), etc.
o Post-Season Archery Survey – Sent to 35,000 archery deer permit holders, stratified to ensure a representative sample of hunters is achieved. Helps access deer hunter density, hunter effort, opinions of regulations (considered and current), etc.
o Public Comments/Feedback – This includes feedback that throughout the year via emails, phone calls, letters
§ Open Houses / Web Platform: Additionally, in the past year we’ve held a total of 22 open houses to discuss considered regulations changes and gain the public feedback. We also had a web platform that provided the same information at the open houses with a method to provide comments.
o Internal MDC Post-Season Survey – We also survey MDC staff after the deer season regarding their perceptions about the deer population and their perceptions of the public’s view of the deer population since they interact with the local public on a daily basis. This is another method to assess deer populations at a regional and county level.
o Feedback from MDC Committees – MDC has a Deer Regulations Task Force composed of MDC staff from all regions and Divisions that discuss and provide feedback regarding regulations and management efforts.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
That is all great data to base population metrics on MO! One big thing that you won't see on the MO list that shows up on the WI list and is necessary and totally relevant to MN is the Winter Severity Index and it should be included in the list for MN metrics. MO also has their share of predators, but they mostly prey on fawns. In MN, as in WI, you must also concern yourselves with predation of a considerable amount of adult deer by wolves in areas where they are prevalent.
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
How is winter and Wolves going to be factored in when we won't know about wolf harvest, if any, and who knows what the winters will be like in years to come?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
How do they figure in the EHD/Blue Tongue kill numbers in MO? It would be somewhat the same idea I think? The wolf harvest doesn't matter, all that matters is the DNR collects the information on how many deer the wolves(or winter weather) killed over the year and adjusts the kill the following year to prevent multiple year overharvest issues. You have to get those numbers in the spring to set kill quotas for the following fall seasons. You obviously can't worry about how severe the winterkill/wolf predation is going to be in Nov when you are hunting, because as you said, you don't know what those numbers are going to be for the upcoming winter. You can however use those numbers the following spring as if they were considered "hunter kills" and if that puts your numbers of surviving deer(aka overwinter DPSM number) lower than expected, you adjust the number of antlerless tags lower for the upcoming fall seasons. That way, you catch and deal with the higher number of dead deer the first year after it takes place, and adjust the following fall kill quota accordingly to prevent too large of a slide in deer numbers over a multiple year span. I hope that makes sense?
buckvelvet
5 year old buck +
Congrats guys, from a bystander over here in MI.
Why are your posts on the 1st 3 pages deleted but quoted over and over again?
Why are your posts on the 1st 3 pages deleted but quoted over and over again?
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
Yes!
That is why we need a system that can adjust accordingly and in a timely fashion. Something that has not happen here the last 10 years!
M
MoLandOwner
Guest
TMIL
5 year old buck +
I know, right? They say it takes them that long to compile the data. Government workers, what can you do?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
How freakin' convenient for them! Sounds like you guys in IL could use an audit of your deer management program. Any state in the country that is managing their deer herd using one metric, I don't care which metric it is, is using irresponsible management tactics. Lazy @$$ officials in your DNR allowing it to take place need to be called to task. Much of the data used for the population metrics isn't that hard to collect, and your license dollars should be used to collect it if need be. But I suppose in IL about $0.87 out of every license dollar goes to line some politico's pocket anyway, so there is no money left for data collection or deer management.
