B
bat man
Guest
I made an effort to incorporate the suggestions others have made here. While I agree in principal with Art in his assertions that playing nice and trying to spell out the benefits to more people would be helpful, digestion of the data we have compiled leaves me wanting change, and not wanting the DNR to be able to spin their way out of the mess they have created.
None of us have all the answers, but I believe the hunters of MN are entitled to the nominal expense of an audit of our DNR's model. Long term change is the goal, and the DNR needs help. They are failing.
If some would like to meet and hammer out a final draft, I am all in, otherwise I feel we need to wrap this up and keep moving forward.
I am confident this letter will be printed in 20 to 100 local newspapers and the ODN etc with a request that concerned hunters fwd it to their elected and request written confirmation they will back the audit when proposed.
Its the next step?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our DNR is tasked with many functions, and from a hunting standpoint whitetail deer are the number one priority. Deer hunters and viewers spend billions of dollars annually, and the same animal causes millions in damage to crops and vehicles. Finding the sweet spot that keeps everybody happy is an impossible task, but working towards a reasonable compromise when it come to deer numbers, and then successfully managing for that level is what management of the deer herd is all about.
There are many different tools used to manage a deer herd, and our DNR’s primary tool is a model. The model is used both to estimate the herd size, and to aid in setting harvest allocations. The model in its simplest terms receives data inputs, and spits out information our DNR uses to make decisions in managing our deer herd. An audit of this model and how our DNR uses it is needed. The model is not functioning in the real world as it should on paper. DNR recalibration and data collection is not at a level that allows the model to function.
When the deer harvest of 2014 is tallied, it may be the lowest recorded harvest since 1982. Steve Merchant publicly stated the harvest will fall somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 deer. Our DNR will issue press releases stating the record low harvest was due to a conservative harvest approach in response to hunter demands to rebuild the herd, and kudos to them for finally taking action, but how did the herd slide so far? How did a deer harvest that was closing in on 300,000 animals in 2004 shrink so far that we will harvest less than 150,000 deer 10 years later. Could we really see the lowest harvest in 33 years? Either the model, or how we use it have failed us.
The MN DNR led 2005 – 2007 stakeholder goal setting proceedings suggesting a statewide herd reduction of 11%. Revisions to those stakeholder meetings would later change that figure to a 9% reduction from 2005 levels, but the herd has been slashed much, much further. The DNR model would suggest the state is now at that goal (fall 2013), but the model stands alone in that belief. From 2004 through 2013, deer vehicle collisions are down 51% as reported by the MN Department of Public Safety. The deer harvest is down 41%. Pope and Young record book entries by our Chatfield MN based conservation group are off 49% with consistent membership. Area meat processors report deer tallies 40% lower than DNR suggested reports. Hunter satisfaction with deer seen on stand has dropped 40+% in central MN.
How can the model show the herd is only down 9% (fall 2013) when every other data set suggests the MN deer herd has been slashed well past 40%? An audit is needed to answer that question. Inadequate data collection, coupled with a lack of confidence in the collected data leading to improper recalibration are likely part of the answer. Our DNR model allows them to go back in time and change deer densities to match what the model suggests, disregarding data they collect to the contrary. Here is an example.
In early 2006, zone 225 in East Central MN was one of the zones to go through the stakeholder goal setting process. The DNR data said there were 24 deer per square mile in zone 225. The stakeholders agreed to a 25% reduction (new goal of 18 or range of 16 – 20 dpsm). That same fall, the DNR performed a ground survey and calculated 7 deer per square mile. The DNR thought there must be a mistake, so they flew the zone in 2007 and they counted 8 deer per square mile. Then they threw the 2 counts into the garbage, adjusted the original density estimate from 24 to 16 dpsm, lowered the goal from 18 to 12, and walked away from zone 225 while continuing to sell 5 antlerless tags per hunter. Two science rooted data collection tools indicated there were 7.5 deer per square mile. The DNR spent the time and money for 2 scientific tools to verify the models accuracy, and when the data did not match the model, they ignored the real numbers and continued over estimating the herd, and selling excessive antlerless tags in a unit proven to be well below the stated goal. The money spent on these discarded surveys would be better served elsewhere, and an audit of the DNR's deer management process will help give the DNR the tools necessary streamline the herd monitoring process, and become more fiscally responsible and efficient with the taxpayers dollars. An audit will offer suggestions for better use of existing herd monitoring tools, or adopting new tools used to estimate the herd size that the DNR can have more confidence in.
Further north the 2007 stakeholders voted to stabilize the deer herd size in zone 240. At the Brainerd listening session last winter a gentlemen wanted to how zone 240 had an estimated 42 dpsm in the mid 2000’s and was to remain at that level, but now had less than half the deer but was at goal? It is the magic eraser and its ability to go back in time to change estimated deer numbers. The DNR model will suggest the herd size has been the same from 2006 through 2013, but the number is now 19 instead of 42 deer per square mile. The deer harvest is down 42% in zone 240 during that time period. The herd size has been anything but stabile.
Underestimation of the herd can cause problems as well, but we have tools in place to address issues when numbers grow too high. Programs are in place to help farmers with depredation issues, and areas with excessive deer vehicle interaction are addressed at the hot spots.
The model cannot function optimally when you don’t apply science based double checks. The more science rooted checks that are used, the better the model will perform. MN DNR Deer Research Biologist Marrett Grund states the farmland area model functions best when we fly the ‘transition’ areas (where big forest meets the prairie areas) and count the deer every 4 to 5 years. When winter conditions are right, helicopters fly a predetermined stratified grid of a deer zone and count the deer. The counts are put into a formula that estimates the herd size of the unit. Aerial deer counts run about $15,000 per unit, and Lou Cornicelli claims there is no better way to estimate the herd size. From 2004 through 2013 we only flew and counted 42 different units. That puts us on pace to fly the transition units once every 12 – 15 years when the models accuracy falls off quickly after 4 - 5 years. Failure to count the deer lessens the models potential. An audit will help us understand how often the units needs to be counted, and may offer additional methods of counting deer, and estimating herd densities. Wisconsin has 14,000 unpaid volunteers tracking deer sightings every year about this time. Iowa has the states bowhunters collecting data in regards to deer and other game and non game species while on stand. Trends of this almost free data may help avoid the wild swings of our deer herd numbers. These options could prove of value in MN as well.
Our model or its use and interpretation by the DNR is failing as a tool for managing the deer herd. Last December, with the deer harvest likely 98% calculated, some concerned members of the Morrison County MDHA chapter scheduled a visit with Beau Liddel, the Area Manager of the DNR Little Falls office. The MDHA members had concerns with the low deer numbers, and the continued use of intensive harvest in the zone. They were informed that for 2014, zones 221, and 222 would again be intensive harvest, with a probable early antlerless rifle season. Had these concerned hunters not combined with several area groups to make some noise, the zones would have experienced a further reduction of the herd. Now the regulations are out and each zone is allowed only one deer per hunter. The DNR appears to be using social pressure more than science based measurement in selecting harvest designations. Winter kill is a DNR described ’non-factor’ in central MN and off the table as a reason for the changes. Model based recommendations were not used when public pressure mounted. Our DNR’s model and deer management strategies need an over haul. We need more herd monitoring tools. We need more and better utilized science based management tools. We really need an audit to help our DNR figure out what tools are available to help better monitor and manage our deer herd. A 9% scheduled reduction has cut the herd in half. Every data set except the DNR model confirms this. Lets audit the model and see if we can fix it.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brooks Johnson
MDDI (MN Deer Density Initiative)
None of us have all the answers, but I believe the hunters of MN are entitled to the nominal expense of an audit of our DNR's model. Long term change is the goal, and the DNR needs help. They are failing.
If some would like to meet and hammer out a final draft, I am all in, otherwise I feel we need to wrap this up and keep moving forward.
I am confident this letter will be printed in 20 to 100 local newspapers and the ODN etc with a request that concerned hunters fwd it to their elected and request written confirmation they will back the audit when proposed.
Its the next step?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our DNR is tasked with many functions, and from a hunting standpoint whitetail deer are the number one priority. Deer hunters and viewers spend billions of dollars annually, and the same animal causes millions in damage to crops and vehicles. Finding the sweet spot that keeps everybody happy is an impossible task, but working towards a reasonable compromise when it come to deer numbers, and then successfully managing for that level is what management of the deer herd is all about.
There are many different tools used to manage a deer herd, and our DNR’s primary tool is a model. The model is used both to estimate the herd size, and to aid in setting harvest allocations. The model in its simplest terms receives data inputs, and spits out information our DNR uses to make decisions in managing our deer herd. An audit of this model and how our DNR uses it is needed. The model is not functioning in the real world as it should on paper. DNR recalibration and data collection is not at a level that allows the model to function.
When the deer harvest of 2014 is tallied, it may be the lowest recorded harvest since 1982. Steve Merchant publicly stated the harvest will fall somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 deer. Our DNR will issue press releases stating the record low harvest was due to a conservative harvest approach in response to hunter demands to rebuild the herd, and kudos to them for finally taking action, but how did the herd slide so far? How did a deer harvest that was closing in on 300,000 animals in 2004 shrink so far that we will harvest less than 150,000 deer 10 years later. Could we really see the lowest harvest in 33 years? Either the model, or how we use it have failed us.
The MN DNR led 2005 – 2007 stakeholder goal setting proceedings suggesting a statewide herd reduction of 11%. Revisions to those stakeholder meetings would later change that figure to a 9% reduction from 2005 levels, but the herd has been slashed much, much further. The DNR model would suggest the state is now at that goal (fall 2013), but the model stands alone in that belief. From 2004 through 2013, deer vehicle collisions are down 51% as reported by the MN Department of Public Safety. The deer harvest is down 41%. Pope and Young record book entries by our Chatfield MN based conservation group are off 49% with consistent membership. Area meat processors report deer tallies 40% lower than DNR suggested reports. Hunter satisfaction with deer seen on stand has dropped 40+% in central MN.
How can the model show the herd is only down 9% (fall 2013) when every other data set suggests the MN deer herd has been slashed well past 40%? An audit is needed to answer that question. Inadequate data collection, coupled with a lack of confidence in the collected data leading to improper recalibration are likely part of the answer. Our DNR model allows them to go back in time and change deer densities to match what the model suggests, disregarding data they collect to the contrary. Here is an example.
In early 2006, zone 225 in East Central MN was one of the zones to go through the stakeholder goal setting process. The DNR data said there were 24 deer per square mile in zone 225. The stakeholders agreed to a 25% reduction (new goal of 18 or range of 16 – 20 dpsm). That same fall, the DNR performed a ground survey and calculated 7 deer per square mile. The DNR thought there must be a mistake, so they flew the zone in 2007 and they counted 8 deer per square mile. Then they threw the 2 counts into the garbage, adjusted the original density estimate from 24 to 16 dpsm, lowered the goal from 18 to 12, and walked away from zone 225 while continuing to sell 5 antlerless tags per hunter. Two science rooted data collection tools indicated there were 7.5 deer per square mile. The DNR spent the time and money for 2 scientific tools to verify the models accuracy, and when the data did not match the model, they ignored the real numbers and continued over estimating the herd, and selling excessive antlerless tags in a unit proven to be well below the stated goal. The money spent on these discarded surveys would be better served elsewhere, and an audit of the DNR's deer management process will help give the DNR the tools necessary streamline the herd monitoring process, and become more fiscally responsible and efficient with the taxpayers dollars. An audit will offer suggestions for better use of existing herd monitoring tools, or adopting new tools used to estimate the herd size that the DNR can have more confidence in.
Further north the 2007 stakeholders voted to stabilize the deer herd size in zone 240. At the Brainerd listening session last winter a gentlemen wanted to how zone 240 had an estimated 42 dpsm in the mid 2000’s and was to remain at that level, but now had less than half the deer but was at goal? It is the magic eraser and its ability to go back in time to change estimated deer numbers. The DNR model will suggest the herd size has been the same from 2006 through 2013, but the number is now 19 instead of 42 deer per square mile. The deer harvest is down 42% in zone 240 during that time period. The herd size has been anything but stabile.
Underestimation of the herd can cause problems as well, but we have tools in place to address issues when numbers grow too high. Programs are in place to help farmers with depredation issues, and areas with excessive deer vehicle interaction are addressed at the hot spots.
The model cannot function optimally when you don’t apply science based double checks. The more science rooted checks that are used, the better the model will perform. MN DNR Deer Research Biologist Marrett Grund states the farmland area model functions best when we fly the ‘transition’ areas (where big forest meets the prairie areas) and count the deer every 4 to 5 years. When winter conditions are right, helicopters fly a predetermined stratified grid of a deer zone and count the deer. The counts are put into a formula that estimates the herd size of the unit. Aerial deer counts run about $15,000 per unit, and Lou Cornicelli claims there is no better way to estimate the herd size. From 2004 through 2013 we only flew and counted 42 different units. That puts us on pace to fly the transition units once every 12 – 15 years when the models accuracy falls off quickly after 4 - 5 years. Failure to count the deer lessens the models potential. An audit will help us understand how often the units needs to be counted, and may offer additional methods of counting deer, and estimating herd densities. Wisconsin has 14,000 unpaid volunteers tracking deer sightings every year about this time. Iowa has the states bowhunters collecting data in regards to deer and other game and non game species while on stand. Trends of this almost free data may help avoid the wild swings of our deer herd numbers. These options could prove of value in MN as well.
Our model or its use and interpretation by the DNR is failing as a tool for managing the deer herd. Last December, with the deer harvest likely 98% calculated, some concerned members of the Morrison County MDHA chapter scheduled a visit with Beau Liddel, the Area Manager of the DNR Little Falls office. The MDHA members had concerns with the low deer numbers, and the continued use of intensive harvest in the zone. They were informed that for 2014, zones 221, and 222 would again be intensive harvest, with a probable early antlerless rifle season. Had these concerned hunters not combined with several area groups to make some noise, the zones would have experienced a further reduction of the herd. Now the regulations are out and each zone is allowed only one deer per hunter. The DNR appears to be using social pressure more than science based measurement in selecting harvest designations. Winter kill is a DNR described ’non-factor’ in central MN and off the table as a reason for the changes. Model based recommendations were not used when public pressure mounted. Our DNR’s model and deer management strategies need an over haul. We need more herd monitoring tools. We need more and better utilized science based management tools. We really need an audit to help our DNR figure out what tools are available to help better monitor and manage our deer herd. A 9% scheduled reduction has cut the herd in half. Every data set except the DNR model confirms this. Lets audit the model and see if we can fix it.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brooks Johnson
MDDI (MN Deer Density Initiative)
