Knowledge of Forest Certification Program needed

Brooks, is that a prefawn number?
I was just looking at a report and PA240 is not considered to be in the forest zone. So it sure would be nice to understand how this all plays with permit areas that are not even in the forest zones....
 
If there is a 40 in your zone that is certified the MN DNR will use its broad brush to coat the area with anterless tags.
 
Harvest more deer so we can plant trees (MN DNR)

Cut down all the trees on public land in Western MN so we can bring back prairie chickens
(MN DNR)
 
If "10" is the number then you are already below that threshold in many areas. If WI drops our herd to 10 DPSM I will quit hunting deer altogether, or just drive the 13 hours out to WY and hunt with my brother, the area he is in is overrun with muley's, whitetails, and speed goats. I have only seen the "10" number mentioned once. I have seen it stated that "20" causes detrimental browse in multiple other reports and articles. I am sure this is going to be one of those numbers that is open to interpretation and manipulation as well, just like all the rest. It will fully depend on who is blowing the smoke and what their agenda really is. Given that fact, I guess I would be prepared for the "10" number to be used in any future debates on the subject. Again, if the State is willing to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, there isn't a whole lot you can do to overcome that. Once the money doesn't matter, they have no reason whatsoever to change things. As little as it matters right now, those guys out there in PA get the hikers and birders to start footing part of the wildlife management bill, the hunters voice will mean squat there as well.


Wisc there are many areas in Northern Wisconsin that are at 10. They just are not saying that they are managing for 10.
 
Harvest more deer so we can plant trees (MN DNR)

Cut down all the trees on public land in Western MN so we can bring back prairie chickens
(MN DNR)
And use deer hunter's license dollars for the prairie chicken hunt, for the sandhill crane hunt, for studying elk in the northwest and now maybe even the north east,,... are we still counting squirrels in the metro?
 
Wisc there are many areas in Northern Wisconsin that are at 10. They just are not saying that they are managing for 10.

These FSC and SFI goals (no numbers likely associated) will replace BCC and Social carrying capacity in the future. As in today here in MN.
 
Wisc there are many areas in Northern Wisconsin that are at 10. They just are not saying that they are managing for 10.
I would agree tom, and that is why I have turned down numerous invitations to hunt my buddies 60 acres in Douglas Co. It is not worth the 4 hour drive north to get up there and expenses to stay for the week when I can drive an hour east and see no deer and stay at the FIL's place for free.
 
I would agree tom, and that is why I have turned down numerous invitations to hunt my buddies 60 acres in Douglas Co. It is not worth the 4 hour drive north to get up there and expenses to stay for the week when I can drive an hour east and see no deer and stay at the FIL's place for free.


The question with the sad answer is will any youth continue the tradition of hunting at either place?
 
I really need to stop digging (I won't). This is getting frustrating as I keep snooping backwards. Here's today's data dig:

2003 the governors task force started this in motion:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...t2-DP4gNpxT4YE9Fg&sig2=EkM3Ukwikkomse6bquuO4g

Out of 2003's task force came this recommendation:
2003 case.PNG

Fast forward to 2007's report, and these gems are right there in the next report:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...4MAfphOkxHIxW_Ocw&sig2=-41TgZ2N8eEVjfqKiTQPLA

case 1.PNG

Then the recommendation:
recommendation 5.PNG
Looks like the weekend warriors and bush people aren't so welcome up north any more.
 
I want to pull this out in particular and ask you to read between the lines based on what we've been told about deer densities:

44.PNG
**The spooky dude in a black Tahoe with a suitcase full of cash is at the property edge looking at our places through binoculars pondering how to get us out of the way so they can realize "full economic viability" of our land.

**"Reduced opportunities to manage wildlife habitat" i.e. Accelerated harvest to "manage the habitat." Could they have seen coops coming 8 years ago as they set in motion the demolition of the deer herd? Are our efforts to grow more and better deer on our property in direct conflict with the task force recommendations and forestry officials?
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware my existence and property rights were such a gross inconvenience to the master plan until now. o_O

...by the way. Good to have you back Stu.
 
"Are our efforts to grow more and better deer on our property in direct conflict with the task force recommendations and forestry officials?"

It will be the only way to keep deer numbers at a level that is enjoyable to hunt. The caveat is, they will force you to harvest does if they so choose and unless you choose to become a violator, you will have to comply. Ask the guys in SE MN and Stu how they will accomplish that, the guys in the SE live one rule every season and Stu lived the other rule on his place in Dane Co for many years.
 
If you don't think QDMA is a player in this game think again. The only way these states team with QDMA on 'Cooperative Specialist Hires' is so they have someone on the inside to try and get these coops to kill more does.

QDMA and NDA are likely very involved in Green Forest certification.
 
I would agree stu, APR's at least give you the chance to not shoot an antlerless deer if you so choose and either take a legal buck or nothing. EAB will require you to shoot that doe before you even consider taking a legal buck and EAS gives you no chance at anything except an antlerless deer. In the end they are all lose-lose-lose for building the deer herd though, even APR's, because all too many of the Fudd's will just say scr#w it and shoot a doe late in the season to prevent going home with no venison.
 
Last edited:
Read what I just posted in the "Gary Alt" thread. SS/DD This same discussion has been going on for many, many years. The Great Gary Alt Caper.
 
Read what I just posted in the "Gary Alt" thread. SS/DD This same discussion has been going on for many, many years. The Great Gary Alt Caper.

Your right Foggy. I've been doing some digging and there are still people from last fall touting the Alt magic because some guy shot the potential new #1 buck in PA. Seriously???? Do these people really determine the success or failure of a management plan based on somebody shooting ONE large deer. The complete ignorance of wildlife management practices just boggles my mind. I guess this is how they can get folks to drink the Kool-Aid with nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
 
Your right Foggy. I've been doing some digging and there are still people from last fall touting the Alt magic because some guy shot the potential new #1 buck in PA. Seriously???? Do these people really determine the success or failure of a management plan based on somebody shooting ONE large deer. The complete ignorance of wildlife management practices just boggles my mind. I guess this is how they can get folks to drink the Kool-Aid with nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
I think people base it on whether the deer hunting they are experiencing in Pennsylvania is terrible or not. Depending on where you are, it might be terrible. Or it might be quite good. That is a nuanced, variable situation that is hard for some people to accept. Simple and easier to just say Gary Alt ruined hunting in PA and try to shout down anyone who doesn't agree.
 
Here is a twist. Forestry feedback is claiming our DNR may be using certified forests as the goat for reductions but it not true. Sent the following to Merchant. I am sure FSC and SFI would love it if our DNR was twisting their programs into something they are not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Merchant, DNR Populations,

Your assertion that we needed to lower the herd to maintain 'forest certification' is not passing the sniff test. I am getting a lot of feedback from people the forest industry that claim your assertions to be false.

Please produce these CAR's from annual audits that show herd reductions were required for compliance. Lets look at which zones had issues blamed on excessive deer browsing in what years, and see how widespread the problem really is.

We should likely have this info at the stakeholder meetings if DNR starts discussing regeneration as a reason to deny or diminish herd increases.

Brooks Johnson
 
I like what you have found Brooks, but keep in mind that ALL these groups involved are going to pass the buck around as long as they can to confuse the masses. NONE of them are faultless in this mess. The FSC and SFI can say what they want, but we have all read in their documents that overbrowsing of seedlings by deer is a huge issue and could potentially disqualify a forest from certification. The thing is, I(maybe no one else either) has seen them produce any tangible number of deer or level of browse that would be acceptable to keep a forest certified under their guidelines. By saying that overbrowsing is an issue but not quantifying the level at which it is no longer an issue, it takes the heat off of them and places it with the owners of the forests(State DNR's) to "interpret" what that level is, which can lead to them overreacting to the "decertification" threat, thereby hanging the state DNR out to dry for reducing numbers with their citizenship. I think this whole thing is/was a very well thought out plan by all involved parties to make sure the masses stayed confused as to who the anger should be directed at. The FSC and SFI are not completely faultless in this no matter what they say, did the DNR's interpretation of their guidelines go to far? Positively! But they are guidelines that were set to some extent by the "rules" of forest certification and the direction of the entities that certify those forests.
 
Our DNR received one CAR (corrective action request) that was closed in 2006 and no annual certified forest audit since that time has said we need to reduce deer numbers in the name of forest regeneration.

The mystery continues as to why a 9% scheduled reduction has the deer herd over 50% off the peak.
cleardot.gif




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merchant, Steve S (DNR) <Steve.Merchant@state.mn.us>
Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: SFI FSC certified forests
To: Brooks johnson <basecampbrooks@gmail.com>


That was it. The CAR was closed in 2006. The auditors were convinced the MNDNR was capable of managing deer over-abundance through the deer goal setting process and appropriate regulations.



Steve Merchant

Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Steve.merchant@state.mn.us

651-259-5220
 
Top