I feel we should skip the complaints about specific actions by the DNR in the request and save those for private discussions with interested legislators. We need to get many groups in favor of the audit for a variety of reasons. Business groups, metro residents with too many deer, farmers, and those in the northeast whoa re concerned about conifer regeneration and moose populations. then our legislators will listen.
You only need to concern yourself with getting "enough" folks onboard to initiate the audit, everyone else is just extra baggage and a waste of resources to try to sway them. Concentrate on the "low hanging fruit" get as many of the easy groups on board as fast as you can. How many that will take and which groups those are is probably different in MN than it is anywhere else, you will have to sort that out for yourselves. If "everyone" is not on board, that's ok, you won't need all of them. You can't make everyone happy, ever. Get in you Governors head, it worked in WI.
I am still waiting for comments from the Wis. forum members on their opinion of the recent audit in their state. I know little about Wis. hunting and have not lived there for over 30 years. My gut feeling is that I am not impressed with the results.
I will say this as one of the biggest critics of the "deer czar" Kroll Report audit that recently took place. I am very excited about the changes to our rules and management policies. The biggest thing is, my daughter is very excited about the coming changes, she doesn't understand all of what's going on, but enough to know that it should make our herd and hunting better in a few short years if it is handled correctly and the new rules are followed without to much DNR tinkering. I could go into details, but I don't have time right now.
I hope that the threat of an audit leads to changes in our DNR and that the audit will not be necessary.
Changes made without an audit will be short term at best. Something needs to be done to the way your long-term management is handled. In 2 or 3 years your DNR will be back to it's old shenanigans. Your changes need to reflect that the DNR cannot just go back to the fly-by -the-seat-of-there-pants management tactics that they currently use.
Asking for an audit reminds me of the saying... Be careful what you ask for, as you just might get it.
We didn't implement everything that was suggested by our auditors, that is why you have to stress that hunter involvement in the process is key in the audit request. Suggestions get made and discussion by involved groups have final say in what gets implemented. It doesn't always work that way 100% because some things are dependent on others to work properly, so you have to look at the big picture.
I fear an audit might lead to lower deer populations in the northeastern part of the state, lower populations in ag areas, and the hunter being left out by a group of people doing the audit who have no interest in hunting. Just my two cents... What if the audit leads to more goal setting based on social carrying capacity and not sound biology?
If any of those things you fear actually happen, it is because those who are requesting the audit let them happen. Your not trying to fix individual localized populations of deer numbers, you are fixing the model so it better represents a broader and more varied range of habitat and localized populations. The folks doing your audit have to have an interest in hunting or what qualifies them to lead the audit? As the folks requesting the audit you should be making suggestions on who or at least the types of guys you would like to do your auditing. It is an external audit, so no one from in the state of MN should really be involved, unless maybe you have some biologists at UM that you trust to not be in anyone's pockets. Again, you stress a science based approach to your management, that keeps the social aspect to a minimum and the science based biology at the forefront.
