MN DEER DENSITY INITIATIVE

[Mayfly]

MN DEER DENSITY INITIATIVE
*UPDATE*

2 very important meetings coming up. Men and women of ACTION needed to attend. $15 bucks for a burger basket, with proceeds spent 100% locally on local print ad campaigns. (similar to MDDI ads in Outdoor News, but in your local papers)

    April 29th (Tuesday) America Janes in Cambridge. 6:30pm burgers and 7:15pm Powerpoint action plan.

    April 30th (Wednesday) VFW Little Falls. 6:30 burgers, 7:15 Powerpoint action plan.

In 2015 and 2016, MN will be going through a new round of stakeholder meetings that will determine area deer densities for the next 10 years. We will be reviewing the stakeholder process that is wrapping up in SE MN. An understanding of that process lends direction. We will also be unveiling a plan that will help make the 'hunters perception' an 'area reality' in regards to deer numbers.

DNR statistics, habitat capacity, letter writing/email campaigns, deer/vehicle history, ag complaints, hunter surveys, maps, dpsm, affidavits, local newspaper presence, videos, chamber speeches, tourism meetings, and more will be covered in the presentation, and how we use these items to influence the process. Squeeky wheel gets the grease, and we will be organizing the squeek these 2 nights.

Nothing of significance will happen without hunter participation. Please grab a couple friends and show up if you are concerned about the number of deer in the woods and fields of Minnesota. Learn how a little effort can go a long ways. You will leave with a to do list that will impact the future of deer hunting in your area.

Please RSVP:  basecampbrooks@gmail.com

[The General]

Is this about the number of deer in the woods or bucks with less then four points on each side have to remain in the woods?  I see the part talking about SE MN and it makes me think so but I'm not sure . 

[Mayfly]

Is this about the number of deer in the woods or bucks with less then four points on each side have to remain in the woods?  I see the part talking about SE MN and it makes me think so but I'm not sure .

This is about the DNR managing areas for 10dpsm when the area can hold 30dpsm. Do some research on the topic and your stomach will turn.

There will be plenty of info on it at these meetings.

Also, the only reason SE MN is brought up is because they just had their stakeholder meetings to determine the the deer densities.

Here is an email I received on the topic....

I just got done with a spreadsheet for the SE MN stakeholder recommendations.

2013 pre fawn herd was an estimated 52,000.

New goal would be 45,000.

Check out these bullet points from zone 346:

    50% of surveyed hunters desired an increase in the current population while 35% desired no change.  (15% want less deer but the stakeholders voted a 50% decrease?)

    Within the landowner survey, the greatest proportion of respondents in all strata, except large landowners in the south, reported that the deer population on their property and surrounding area was about right.

    Within the landowner survey, the greatest proportion of respondents (44%) indicated that the level of deer population should not be changed.

    But the stakeholders voted a 50% reduction to the herd size in 346?


Hunter satisfaction has fallen below 50%, and we voted to decrease the deer herd 13% in SE MN?

Average adjustment by zone was an 4% increase, but major cuts in 2 units mean recommended goal is a 13% decrease to the pre fawn deer numbers.

Average goal for SE MN would be 14 dpsm pre fawn if they rubber stamp the process.  Density goals of 20 - 40 dpsm or higher are commonplace across much of the country in states with much poorer habitat.

I realize these are only a team recommendation, and I hope the DNR takes a hard look at the survey numbers and opts to add more deer to the woods of SE MN. 

I do not believe implementing these goals will satisfy the hunters of SE MN.

[The General]

Sounds like some good info.

[Mayfly]

[Mayfly]

Reminder... this week.

[deadeye]

I plan to go to the one in Little Falls.  Anyone else going?

[Mayfly]

I plan to go to the one in Little Falls.  Anyone else going?

Lucky! I work both days.... 

[HD]

Nope, I'm not going....Thinking they know what's going on, and what's "best" for you.... bla!

Maybe I should start a lawsuit against the DNR for dropping wolves off so close to home...Ya think that would raise the deer herd numbers?

It's like putting piranhas in your favorite trout pond....Da! Knock, knock pudd'in head.....

Then, you have the QDM guy's say'in...."it's because hunters keep shooting all the little deer"....again....Knock, knock pudd'in head!  wake up...

I don't know about the SE guy's, or what they are going through...all I know is what I see and hear around here....

Spend some time out in the woods, use your trail cam's....check  out for yourself....get yer own statistics and see how far off they really are.

[Mayfly]

Spend some time out in the woods, use your trail cam's....check  out for yourself....get yer own statistics and see how far off they really are.

That's exactly the point. This is a grass roots deal.

You don't see a problem in your woods???? My deer numbers have been cut in half because of mismanagement. The DNR is managing dpsm so incredibly low. Its sad.

C'mon HD.. you're a hunter... don't tell me you aren't seeing this happening.

[HD]

Yes, I do see a population change. What I'm tired of, is the finger pointing from deer groups that have no clue why the density has changed.

On the DNR side, they need to stop listening to the wolve huggers and planting them things willy nilly when they think the population is to high in certain areas.

The main reason, I did not go, is because most (if not all) of the meetings I have gone to have been one sided and felt that this would not be any different.

Again, I do not know what, or why, the density has changed in other areas....I only know what is happening here.

[Mayfly]

Yes, I do see a population change. What I'm tired of, is the finger pointing from deer groups that have no clue why the density has changed.

On the DNR side, they need to stop listening to the wolve huggers and planting them things willy nilly when they think the population is to high in certain areas.

The main reason, I did not go, is because most (if not all) of the meetings I have gone to have been one sided and felt that this would not be any different.

Again, I do not know what, or why, the density has changed in other areas....I only know what is happening here.

This initiative is pretty straight forward. No hidden agenda.

All we are asking is the DNR to re-evaluate their dpsm goal setting process... And to find a new formula that takes into consideration predator kill, habitat, weather trends, hunting pressure, etc.... They've been on auto pilot for many years without taking any changes into consideration.

I'm the first to point the finger at ourselves for shooting so many deer but we can't expect everyone to keep such close tabs on the deer herd thats where the DNR has to step in and do their job as well. If we can't simply ask them for that then whats their purpose.

For instance, I have a buddy who's new to hunting. Going to be hunting  great spot. His first question... how many deer can I kill? Now me, knowing what my deer herd looks like I know that I cannot kill the 4 does and the one buck that the DNR allows in my area. 7 years ago?? Heck yes! There were deer everywhere! Last year? We smoked one doe and there was one less doe and we could see it. Before you'd kill one and two more would take over that territory it seemed.

In Minnesota we have incredible habitat. We have an opportunity to have some of the best deer hunting in the Midwest. Why don't we want that? There are conservation groups for every species trying to make our hunting and fishing better here in Minnesota. That's all.

[smsmith]

Some interesting reading out of PA....http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1937189

Our guys Marrett Grund and Lou Cornicelli studied under Gary Alt. 

[mathews4ever]

Not a big surprise there. Lou Cornicelli is a freakin' idiot.

[smsmith]

A push for an external audit of the DNR has begun. Elected are being contacted and forwarded this information http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

Once you look it over, if you feel we are justified in seeking such an audit, I'd encourage you to contact your elected and include the above link. Ask them if they will support the audit. If they will, forward that information to Brooks Johnson at basecampbrooks@gmail.com

Find your elected here http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[deadeye]

You use the term "audit" many, many times but just exactly what do you think or expect the "audit" will consist of?  Who is paid to perform the "audit"?  What is your stance if the "audit" indicates the DNR is correct?

[smsmith]

The audit will show what our DNR does well and where improvements can/should be made.  It will review the deer population model that is used, the data inputs (generally just aerial surveys now) that go into the population model, the public stakeholder process and it would likely review how much of the deer license revenue actually goes towards deer management (less than 25% last year, 13% was used in 2013 another 11% was carried forward).

Who is paid to perform the audit will likely be up to the Office of the Legislative Auditor.

If the DNR comes out of such an audit with a glowing review and no areas in need of correction I'll shut up about deer management...

[dew2]

I know some about deer populations from watching for 54 years I'm 63 now.I do know as fact deer were uncommon before the pine forests were logged off.That created browse and the deer returned to the once pine forests.
 When the DNR manages the populations The insurance companies have too much say.They should manage for the hunters who do support the programs!Not for claims aginst a insurance company of I hit a deer!!

[deadeye]

dew2,
Good point but it isn't just car deer collisions that need to be monitored. Too many deer can and do cause severe damage to the forest landscape.  Actual crop loss is difficult to put a number on.  Some biologist have fenced off areas in some state parks.  After a few years, the difference is dramatic between in and out of the fenced area.   I've tried it on my land in the open field.  I put up some fence around small (10 foot) circles in the field and after several weeks, the inside growth was noticeable higher and fuller that the area around it.  Ever tried starting a forest?  We planted 7-8 thousand trees on a field.  I believe the deer got 95% of them.     

[dew2]

Dont know I only go by my experience.I logged south of Duluth for a few years. Nemadji State forest to be exact.We'd clear cut,the next spring growth would bring hoards a deer an about the 3ed year NO deer but lots a berries from rotting logs and stumps.That was my time to get buckets full of raspberries and the bear would sometimes be in the berries with me.NO FEAR just eatin! The deer were seldom there.
 What trees did you plant? That is a problem for many who just plant.If you start with jack pine the deer will avoid the area then sparce plant your wanted trees STAY AWAY from deers selected saplings for feed then sparcly plant what you would like a forest to be.It takes years for natural forests to develop and longer for human intervention forests, dont expect a full forest in your lifetime.Expect lots of forage to start the young tender trees and plants are their favorites.

[smsmith]

If you read through the info on the link I posted, we're attempting to address forester, farmer, and other grower concerns as well.  Localized "hot spots" of deer damage do exist.  Currently, the DNR deals with these areas on a unit wide basis (everywhere except SE MN anyway).  This approach has not been effective in dealing with the hot spots.  They continue to exist.  However, by hammering the herd on a unit wide basis the quality of hunting has declined in many units.  These areas can be dealt with using a variety of methods...but we aren't currently doing so.

Growers need access to a variety of tools to help with concerns.  Those tools are available...we just need to implement them.

Are you planting white pines?  If so, did you bud cap them?  If not, would you consider doing so?  Would you allow others to help with a bud capping project?  Would you be open to an increase in the number of antlerless deer taken on your property?  Would you allow limited public hunting access to deal with your perceived overabundance of deer?  Would you willingly take more deer off your place to prevent damage?  Would you be open to someone from the DNR verifying the damage and then assisting with a harvest plan for your property?

[deadeye]

smsmith,
I'm not sure how increasing the deer density will address forester, farmer and other growers.   What "tools" do you suggest we implement?

No we do not plant white pine as they are just deer food. 
We have bud capped many pines.
We used to have the ability to control the herd by taking more antlerless deer but now we can only take one deer per person.
I'm not sure what "limited public" hunting would entail.  Are you referring to a land owner tag?
I can't take more deer (without violating the law).
The DNR will check crop damage but I am not aware of a program where they would check your woodland for excessive browsing. I'm also not aware  the DNR would assist with a harvest plan for my property.   

[smsmith]

You're right...they currently don't do those things.  However, plenty of other state DNR's do.  The model exists for dealing with the issues you report...our DNR just doesn't use it.

White pines do just fine here for me, without bud capping.  They do great in central WI with densities far higher than most anywhere in MN too.

Increasing deer densities isn't sole the focus of the audit (if you'd read over the info you'd see that).  As I mentioned, localized hot spots are indeed problematic.  They can be dealt with using tools that are available in other states.  Is there a "perfect fix"?  Of course not.  Can we do a better job?  Of course we can.

Limited public hunting...in WI growers with verified deer overabundance can get "ag tags".  If those tags are filled during the open season, some public hunting must be allowed (determined by DNR staff how many tags each grower gets and if they're to be filled during the season or not).  If those tags are filled before season (I believe those who qualify can take deer starting in August until the bow opener in Sept.) then no public access is required.

In SE MN there are two full time DNR staff dealing with grower issues and depredation. 

The point?  We can increase densities where appropriate and decrease them in the localized hot spots when required.  We just need a new tool box.

[dew2]

Its a tough call!I'm involved with the minnesota river clean up.Every group wants their way, and like waters theres Pheasant hunters,North grouse guys the deer guys the duck guys They should join for voices and be heard as one BUT they all want what THEY want and could care less what is out of their realm.Join forces to be a conservation group and maybe a voice may be heard.Together we could be strong singly we're weak all wanting our own!  and being selfish!! wanting what we want thinking only of ourselves!!

[smsmith]

I'd agree that hunters of all sorts joining together whenever possible would be a GREAT idea.

I'll disagree that we all want our own.  The management I do on my place benefits deer, grouse, and turkey.  I hunt grouse very infrequently, if at all.  Turkey hunting has always sounded interesting to me, but I've never done it.  The management I've done along my creek has benefited amphibious critters and the few fish that live there.  I have a number of wood duck boxes on the property, but haven't waterfowl hunted for decades.

We all have more in common than we may think 

[bat man]

If you want to help push the audit fwd, simply add your electeds name to the top, and your name to the bottom of this email and add basecampbrooks@gmail.com to the cc so he can add the elected to the list.  Fwd any replies you receive from your elected-

ELECTED NAME,

Many in MN are very concerned with the decline in deer numbers in the last 10 years, and in working with the DNR have discovered they either dont know or dont believe the herd has been taken back so far.

Please review the following information, and let us know if you can support the audit described that will up for review next session.

http://mnbowhunters.org/2014/08/14/is-your-elected-going-to-bat-for-the-states-deer-hunters/

Thank you for your attention, the residents of MN can use your support on this issue.

YOUR NAME

[dew2]

deadeye the DNR will help and a forester can review your plantings FREE as long as you designate your plant as tree farm.However then your under their rules that lots of wildlife planting people say they then cant manage their way.Its also a tax break on the planted land as ag land.BUT their rules leave you little room to do what you'd like.They say when you thin,take down dead and dieing Rules rules rules.My father did it and once they said harvest he said never again will he do it their way.

[smsmith]

For anyone who didn't sign up for the deer management email updates from the DNR...here's the latest one.  If your unit is up for a review, it'd be a good idea to stay on top of the application for the stakeholder team in your area(s).  There's a map on the email that apparently isn't able to be copy and pasted to this forum

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources header
Deer Notes - August 28, 2014

Deer population goal setting
Map of deer population goal-setting plansAs planned, Minnesota DNR will be revisiting deer population goals for the remainder of the state in 2015 and 2016. In contrast to the nine, southeastern deer permit areas under discussion in 2014, the process over the next two years will result in decisions for nearly 90 permit areas (40 in 2015 and 46 in 2016). Over the course of the next few months, the goal setting process will begin to roll out in the following five goal setting blocks:
G1: Superior Uplands Arrowhead DPAs: 117, 122, 126, 127, 180
G2: North Central Plains Moraines DPAs: 169, 172, 184, 197, 210, 298
G3: Pine Moraines DPAs: 241, 242, 246, 248, 251, 258, 259, 287
G4: East Central Uplands DPAs: 152, 155, 156, 157, 159, 183, 221, 222, 225, 247, 259
G5: Sand Plain - Big Woods DPAs: 223, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 249, 285, 338, 339
 

The process will be similar to those used in the past, with a number of public input opportunities as well as the use of citizen advisory teams. We encourage all interested folks to participate.
Because we plan to set goals and implement harvest strategies in the same year (i.e. goals set by spring so that we will be working to move populations toward goal the following fall), we have a fairly tight timeline and specific dates for the process, such as public meeting dates, are still in development.
A general timeline is available on the Deer Management web page. We will update information over the coming months. One upcoming and important component for the process will be an announcement in early October to solicit advisory team applications. Watch the DNR website and local news sources for more about the process in the coming months.
Hunter and landowner surveys
Stakeholder desires are one important piece of background data that will be considered in the discussion regarding deer population goals. The University of Minnesota has been contracted to administer hunter and landowner surveys to gauge deer population desires based on a statistically valid sample of hunters and landowners within each goal block. If you own land in one of the goal blocks listed above or if you hunted in one of the areas during 2013, you may have already received a survey.
As the random sample for each survey in a goal block is drawn (hunter survey or landowner survey), the University staff have reviewed the survey recipients to ensure that one individual does not receive duplicate surveys in a goal block.
These surveys were specifically designed to inform the goal setting process; additional surveys are under development to address other deer management considerations, such as specific hunting season regulations.
Deer data and the website
The 2013 deer harvest report is now available on the Deer Management web page under the "Resources & Links" tab. During the course of the next year, much of the background data and reports that have been posted to the "Deer Hunting" web page will migrate over to this "Resources & Links" tab.
Have a suggestion for Deer Notes? Send them to leslie.mcinenly@state.mn.us.

[smsmith]

Link to DNR page with unit info

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/mgmt.html

[deadeye]

smsmith,
In your perfect world, what would you set as the ideal deer density in area 221?  How would you determine the ideal density and how would you achieve that goal?  How long would it take to reach your desired deer density?  How would your maintain that density.