B
bat man
Guest
Cabin fever 5 pm
Talked with Dennis Anderson at game fair today. Going to do an interview after Labor Day. Talked to a bunch more notables as well.
B
bat man
Guest
My hope is we craft a finished letter, the letter will be sent to 100's of newspapers statewide for publication. The letter is sent to the OAD or legislative audit crew.
Then we condense the info int0 an easy to understand 3 fold brochure type of application, print of bunch of said brochures to hand out and share online, with calls to action including:
Letters to the editor
Email and phone calls to elected with an official yes or no stance on the audit
MDHA resolutions for annual meeting to get State on board
We have an official page that tracks the groups backing the audit (MBI website, MDHA or wherever) , elected committed to vote yes to the audit, and elected that have not said yes. No maybes, no I am thinking. Elected are either with us or not with us.
Then we condense the info int0 an easy to understand 3 fold brochure type of application, print of bunch of said brochures to hand out and share online, with calls to action including:
Letters to the editor
Email and phone calls to elected with an official yes or no stance on the audit
MDHA resolutions for annual meeting to get State on board
We have an official page that tracks the groups backing the audit (MBI website, MDHA or wherever) , elected committed to vote yes to the audit, and elected that have not said yes. No maybes, no I am thinking. Elected are either with us or not with us.
*Hawaii5joe*
5 year old buck +
Get the trifolds done ASAP so I can bring some with me to the MN State Fair. I will drop a bunch of at the DNR information booth. Lots of good Traffic through there
B
bat man
Guest
Depending on who is manning the booth they may welcome the help-
B
bat man
Guest
Both
We add groups supporting MDDI letter as we go and recommend they send personal reasons.
I have archery shops commuted to write from retail side.
NASP teachers from a recruitment side.
Meat processors, taxidermists etc all have a dog in the fight.
We do it both ways.
We add groups supporting MDDI letter as we go and recommend they send personal reasons.
I have archery shops commuted to write from retail side.
NASP teachers from a recruitment side.
Meat processors, taxidermists etc all have a dog in the fight.
We do it both ways.
B
bat man
Guest
Natl Archery in the schools program
NASP
NASP
B
bat man
Guest
We may be able to do a survey monkey deal with taxidermists/deer processors.
Could still have geography data with a level of anonymity.
Could still have geography data with a level of anonymity.
B
bat man
Guest
I contacted them and did not get much traction, but think they were changing leadership or something?
B
bat man
Guest
I do not have any printer but will have my laptop along. If anybody has a smaller tv with HDMI I can likely plug into it so all can see. I may have some graphics from the past 8 months we could include.
foggy
5 year old buck +
Can two. Computers be connected? That would give a few more eyes. I lack the know how to do this.
B
bat man
Guest
Special thank you to all that took the time and offered input on the audit request letter. Read it again. We need an audit, and I believe we will get it. 2 part post as it is too long for one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comes 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 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 external 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 are 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, DNR Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager, 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 suggested 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 rewrite the books to change deer densities to match what the model suggests, disregarding scientific data that they collected, which pointed 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. If the DNR is going to manipulate the numbers regardless of the scientific data they gathered, the money spent on these discarded surveys would be better served elsewhere. 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 external 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 inquired as 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 stable, and similar issues occur all across the state.
It’s not just hunters that are affected. Our DNR recognizes that hot pockets of deer numbers exist in residential and agricultural areas the state. The model, herd monitoring, and herd management techniques are not equipped to address localized overpopulations. Isolated population problems are met with unit wide aggressive doe harvest goals that often wipe out the deer on heavily hunted (public) lands, while doing little to solve the issues they are implemented for. We need a better data collection system geared towards identifying legitimate problems that farmers and other growers may experience when there are too many deer. An audit can help identify the proper monitoring tools and courses of action for these isolated problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comes 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 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 external 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 are 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, DNR Wildlife Population and Regulation Program Manager, 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 suggested 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 rewrite the books to change deer densities to match what the model suggests, disregarding scientific data that they collected, which pointed 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. If the DNR is going to manipulate the numbers regardless of the scientific data they gathered, the money spent on these discarded surveys would be better served elsewhere. 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 external 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 inquired as 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 stable, and similar issues occur all across the state.
It’s not just hunters that are affected. Our DNR recognizes that hot pockets of deer numbers exist in residential and agricultural areas the state. The model, herd monitoring, and herd management techniques are not equipped to address localized overpopulations. Isolated population problems are met with unit wide aggressive doe harvest goals that often wipe out the deer on heavily hunted (public) lands, while doing little to solve the issues they are implemented for. We need a better data collection system geared towards identifying legitimate problems that farmers and other growers may experience when there are too many deer. An audit can help identify the proper monitoring tools and courses of action for these isolated problems.
B
bat man
Guest
A model cannot function optimally when you either lack, or refuse to acknowledge 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 $15,000 per unit, and Lou Cornicelli, MN DNR Wildlife Research Manager, claims there is no better way to estimate the herd size, yet we consistently disregard or modify data collected from these aerial counts. When the aerial counts do not match the model, they are discarded. When the DNR employees who created the model have no faith in their own science based double checks, they need help. An external audit may provide this much needed help.
From 2004 through 2013 we only flew and counted 42 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. The proven inaccuracy of the aerial census techniques may be central to their limited use, but failure to count the deer lessens the models potential. If the $15,000 aerial surveys lack the ability to accurately count the deer, an audit will suggest alternate 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. Both of these states use this data to help their DNR's track herd numbers and set quota goals. Trends of this almost free data may help avoid wild swings in deer herd numbers. These options could prove of value in MN as well.
If a lack of resources, funding or personnel is causing these issues, an audit of where the deer license dollars go may be a part of the equation. MN deer hunters spent $18,400,000 on tags alone in 2012, and deer hunters and watchers spent a state reported $1.4 billion on whitetail deer. Wisconsin performed an audit similar to our request several years back for a nominal $150,000.
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 lacks confidence in the model, and its usefulness. 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, to help ensure the hunters, farmers, and residents of populated areas are dealt a fairer hand through efficient science based modeling and monitoring techniques.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brooks Johnson
MDDI (MN Deer Density Initiative)
From 2004 through 2013 we only flew and counted 42 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. The proven inaccuracy of the aerial census techniques may be central to their limited use, but failure to count the deer lessens the models potential. If the $15,000 aerial surveys lack the ability to accurately count the deer, an audit will suggest alternate 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. Both of these states use this data to help their DNR's track herd numbers and set quota goals. Trends of this almost free data may help avoid wild swings in deer herd numbers. These options could prove of value in MN as well.
If a lack of resources, funding or personnel is causing these issues, an audit of where the deer license dollars go may be a part of the equation. MN deer hunters spent $18,400,000 on tags alone in 2012, and deer hunters and watchers spent a state reported $1.4 billion on whitetail deer. Wisconsin performed an audit similar to our request several years back for a nominal $150,000.
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 lacks confidence in the model, and its usefulness. 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, to help ensure the hunters, farmers, and residents of populated areas are dealt a fairer hand through efficient science based modeling and monitoring techniques.
Thank you for your consideration,
Brooks Johnson
MDDI (MN Deer Density Initiative)
leexrayshady
5 year old buck +
well done guys that looks really good
