Minnesota Deer: The Search For Answers

[SD51555]

I'm starting a new thread to get this issue current and more readily searchable. Here's today's data dump:

Summary
*The search for the culprit continues to twist and turn as new groups are implicated in policy recommendations.
*Minnesota Forest Resource Council (MFRC) and Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership (MFRP) have emerged as policy recommenders against deer.

*2006 FSC Audit findings are posted below showcasing the DNR response to the 2005 deer browse corrective action request.
*Stated goals of deer reduction are specifically mentioned in the DNR response to forestry concerns.
*In 2006, DNR stated that woodland populations were now below 20 DPSM.
*Herd reductions in spite of mild winters were noted as management successes to the concerns of population.
*Wolves and harsh winters were lauded as benefits to keeping the herd in check by the FSC auditor.
*The call for "accurate deer density information and information on deer density
as it relates to responses in the vegetation" was not met. The DNR stated what they were doing, but they did not demonstrate that they have this data or ability to gauge it. Nonetheless, the CAR was closed.

*In 2004 MFRP advocated for deer populations "below at least 15 deer per square mile."

*The MFRC has recently (March 23, 2011) been studying climate change policy initiatives and has an eye on "deer population management" (while specific notes are unavailable) in a presentation prepared by Calder Hibbard (U of M professor and MFRC member).

*It's now very clear that the deer population was reduced for the benefit of the forests (this includes Southeast Minnesota as part of the FSC audit).

The question we have left to answer is this: If forestry concerns were allayed by the end of 2006, why did the aggressive herd reduction continue for so many subsequent years?

Evidence

• 2006 CAR response from 2005 FSC audit
• Minnesota Forest Resource Partnership white paper (2004)

2006 Corrective Action Request Response




Minnesota Forest Resource Partnership white paper (2004)

http://mnforestpartnership.com/images/Productivity.pdf

From the paper

---------------

 

[SD51555]

I punched this up in a blog post if anyone wants to share the current state: http://brwhitetails.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-deer-collapse-big-forestry-is.html

 

[bat man]

Awesome info Skoog. But I am no longer for certain it will get us anywhere? We know why the reduction took place, but will it ever lead to any change? Will hunting trump timber in St Paul?

At least we have flushed the agenda into the open so it can be on the table if we do a deer plan.

So we have circled back to the magic number of 20 dpsm of deer habitat. Possible 15 or less up north.

I don't know how the Ottertail area can escape a huge reduction next year.

Timber trumps hunting for economics. DNR successfully slid the reduction past the hunters of MN. Not too tough. Its not outside the realm of imagination that the DNR has told many of our elected 'yes we did that. WE had to get deer under 15 -20 DPSM of habitat and the public would have been furious, but we had to do it big picture. Audit away and waste your time because we had no choice.' Our elected back off. The way they did it was wrong, but they were going to do it one way or another.

Damage control may come in a written deer plan. Our DNR should be able to map the state with max deer per zone based upon % habitat, and manage for a harvest goal of bucks but that has bit them in the ass in SE where APR's render their buck harvest based model useless.

Maybe the focus should be shifting towards how to micromanage to satisfy timber while having deer in other areas. Oh wait, I am already doing that on the pieces that I hunt. Never mind.

Quality deer hunting on public lands appears a memory.

 

[sandbur]

well written, Batman.

I was just thinking about my area where I live-221. West Branch says this area is about 50-50 ag-other. And the aerial survey says we have 7.2 dpsm. Right on 15 dpsm.

My counter claim would be that much of the non-ag 50% is not timber. It is ditch, what used to be called wasteland, and some larger tree plantations.

Do we need to seperate dmu's or parts thereof into wildlife areas and timber areas?

 

[bat man]

[QUOTE="sandbur, post: 50416, member: 87"

Do we need to sseperate dmu's or parts thereof into wildlife areas and timber areas?[/QUOTE]

What happens in the winter when the wildlife deer become timber area residents?

 

[sandbur]

Does anybody have the prefawn population for Camp Ripley? Our area manager says it is still too high.

 

[sandbur]

[QUOTE="sandbur, post: 50416, member: 87"

Do we need to sseperate dmu's or parts thereof into wildlife areas and timber areas?

What happens in the winter when the wildlife deer become timber area residents?[/QUOTE]
There will be browsing pressure in wintering areas, regarrdless of even a dpsm of 10 or less in my opinion.

However, in 221, corn foodplots and closed canopy pine plantations with some browse along swamp edges seem to provide good wintering cover.

 

[wiscwhip]

Timber trumps hunting for economics. DNR successfully slid the reduction past the hunters of MN. Not too tough. Its not outside the realm of imagination that the DNR has told many of our elected 'yes we did that. WE had to get deer under 15 -20 DPSM of habitat and the public would have been furious, but we had to do it big picture. Audit away and waste your time because we had no choice.' Our elected back off. The way they did it was wrong, but they were going to do it one way or another.

Quality deer hunting on public lands appears a memory.

Get the above information to as many media outlets as you can, especially TV news. At least then maybe you could get many hunters to stay home for a few years and not waste money on a license if they know that the DNR has been lying to them and the herd is down and will remain down indefinitely. It appears your best chance to improve numbers now is to limit the numbers of guys in the woods that will kill the first thing that walks by, and it seems the DNR has already given them a reason to do so, if they know the truth. Given the current information on the table and the fact that is has gotten you nowhere, I would expect values of deer hunting land in the northern 2/3rds of the state to tank, and good luck being able to afford a piece in the SE, it is all you really have left now.

 

[wiscwhip]

What happens in the winter when the wildlife deer become timber area residents?


There will be browsing pressure in wintering areas, regarrdless of even a dpsm of 10 or less in my opinion.

However, in 221, corn foodplots and closed canopy pine plantations with some browse along swamp edges seem to provide good wintering cover.

bur, I don't think you have to convince anyone here that what you say is true, good luck convincing the Forestry people and the DNR of what you are saying! That is the uphill fight.

 

[sandbur]

With stakeholders now going into discussion phase, what ideas can we come up with to counter the forestry numbers?

Ask for designations of wildlife areas and timber areas within the dmu's? Part of a new long term plan?

Does anyone with written forest management plans for private lands have any reference to keeping deer numbers low?

 

[sandbur]

Assuming we will be limited to 20 or 15 dpsm in the transition belt of Mn., could we ask that thi be applied to habitat acres that are measured like they are in Wis., instead of to all acres? Include the parts of fields close tohabitat?


SD-You do lots of digging in the literature. Is there any reference to how the land mass is measured in determining the acres and deer density?

 

[SD51555]

I've spent hours reading audits, position papers, endless stakeholder group and task force websites trying to find the last piece of the puzzle. The language used to talk about forests is eerily reminiscent of the Earl Butz farm policy of farming fence row to fence row. Focuses on maximizing economic value and viewpoints on deer and private landowners as hindrances to progress are disturbing to say the least. When presented with the idea of "Get big or get out" of forestry, MN opted for get big and the deer had to go. Private landowners are still in the way. What's next?

 

[SD51555]

Assuming we will be limited to 20 or 15 dpsm in the transition belt of Mn., could we ask that thi be applied to habitat acres that are measured like they are in Wis., instead of to all acres? Include the parts of fields close tohabitat?


SD-You do lots of digging in the literature. Is there any reference to how the land mass is measured in determining the acres and deer density?

I haven't found anything on measuring density. The only effort I could find that tried to analyze browse trends driving density concerns was the study referenced in the DNR response to the CAR in the 06 FSC audit, the Itasca State Park study. Here's the report:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/60320/Cosgrove-2598.pdf?sequence=1&ei=XPLpVK6hDMzdsATmjYDoDg&usg=AFQjCNEIo0Thrt3cX-AVktzYzizJ1Ot2Cg&sig2=5sWIRS62pEX31Y2YqtKbQA

It's a quick read. You can skip to the bottom of page 5 to read their conclusions in english vs statistician mumbo jumbo. Here are there findings. Guess what, they didn't find the answer the DNR was hoping for. They couldn't produce a correlation between deer and regeneration problems.

 

[Riggsgwp->]

We need a deer plan then we need Mn LOU
Start by getting all the disgruntled hunters to join and pledge to be responsible with harvest. Then have members sign up 10 people to LOU with the same pledge. It may take a few years but with enough members spawns change. I would gladly pay dues and attend banquets as long money stays within LOU community for education and such and there is no affiliation with DNR or any deer group whatsoever.

 

[Riggsgwp->]

Heck we could take all proceeds and just fund banquet after banquet. It would be a way to fund all habitat improvements for members without our wives getting on our case! All members can volunteer to work a banquet so there is no one person making money on the organization. If there was too much money then we could buy land and have a lottery to hunt it. It could get out of hand in a hurry but it would be fun:)

 

[SD51555]

Need more evidence that the DNR doesn't know what's going on? Let's go back to the Itasca State Park study of 2009 as well as the Itasca State Park Plan of 1998.

Itasca Park Plan (1998): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/parks_trails/mgmtplans/itasca_plan.pdf&ei=Wf3pVKDQK8yYgwT6mYP4Ag&usg=AFQjCNF-qQgI15-vpmNysB9ZMVe-xPIQtA&sig2=z273TK7lnCzPQw4W_yzFjw

Itasca Browse Study (2009): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/60320/Cosgrove-2598.pdf?sequence=1&ei=LwHqVIzlF9DfggSGgILQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEIo0Thrt3cX-AVktzYzizJ1Ot2Cg&sig2=xQH4aBnFEAwwkYZvEbiFtg

The 1998 plan documents deer densities of 15-17 at the time the plan was written.


At 15-17 DPSM deer are still being blamed for regeneration issues. However, the plan contradicts itself in one snapshot. Deer, poor planting, and weather are the reasons cited for pine regen issues. However, in the paragraph before, it is clearly notes that a lack of fire can cause the pine lands to be overrun by more desirable browse species.

Lastly your honor, in 2009 the study commissioned by the DNR, under the direction of Cosgrove, Kopp, and Wallace showed deer densities at 33 DPSM, twice that of 1998. This study couldn't produce a correlation between between deer numbers and regeneration problems.

Closing Arguments
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I submit to you that the failure of pine regeneration in Minnesota is not caused by of an abundance of deer. I submit to you that the once abundance of deer in Minnesota was caused by the failure of pine regeneration driven by 20th century fire suppression. Upon failure of pine regen, more preferred species show up and begin to dominate the forest floor providing the platform necessary for a growing deer population. What we've shown here today is that you can shoot as many deer as you want. Absent fire, pines may never recover in parts of Minnesota where soils are more hospitable to deciduous species that can crowd pines out. My client the whitetailed deer is innocent and should be found not guilty.

 

[Riggsgwp->]

It may take a lot of time and etc. but so does fighting the DNR and MDHA. LOU sounds like more potential fun to me.

 

[bat man]

Did you read my Dr William Sharpe Penn State email?

Dear Mr. Johnson: The simple answer to your last two questions is no. Most would agree that the deer herd reductions begun by Gary Alt have not resulted in significant improvements in the regeneration of acid sensitive and commercially important tree species such as red oak and sugar maple particularly on public lands. An objective review of forest inventory (FIA) data would lead one to this conclusion. Acid tolerant species such as black cherry and red maple are doing fine as they were before Alt's program. Proponents of the deer only hypothesis to explain regeneration and plant biodiversity problems will tell you that there are " legacy effects" from years of overbrowsing and that we now have "legacy recalcitrant vegetation" that are the result of too many deer and that it will take decades to overcome this. These ideas are hogwash. Wide spread use of herbicides to kill this vegetation have for the most part failed indicating that it is not the vegetation, but the soil environment that is preventing the growth of desired plants. Soil liming has been shown to overcome these issues, but nobody on the deer only side of the issue wants to talk about it. The sad truth is that, in those areas with the most severe problems, deer numbers are controlled by habitat quality not hunting. Changing deer harvest quotas may have some small benefits in years of mild winters and good acorn crops , but that will be about it. The forest has been so damaged by past and current forestry practices, early periods of extreme wild fires and acid rain so as to render it incapable of supporting diverse plant and animal communities. Efforts to remedy this situation should not focus on deer at all ,but on those forest management actions required to affect a positive change in forest soils. The limiting factors to achieving a productive, diverse forest ecosystem have very little to do with deer. bill sharpe

 

[SD51555]

It looks like the exact same framework. Environmental factors (acid rain and fire) changed and the ecosystem did with it. I have to apologize, I did miss that email.

 

[West Branch]

SD, will you be at your place on May 8th? I will be picking up my trees at Itasca Greenhouse, you should host a land tour that day. If a few people planned their tree pickups that day you could probably get a few people to show up. Gotta put you on the spot :)