Post by leexrayshady on Dec 12, 2017 7:30:01 GMT -6
With the Minnesota Deer Plan process coming to a close, I wanted to put together a summary of what has happened to this point and let you know what you can expect next. This update is from my (Ted Wawrzyniak’s) perspective as one member of the deer plan committee’s representatives from the Minnesota QDMA and not all of it is the official stance of QDMA. I was sure to point out where I state my opinion by using the word “I” instead of “We”.
For those of you who are not aware, there was a Legislative audit that examined the practices of the Minnesota DNR in the spring of 2016.
It was recommended in this audit, among other things, that the MN DNR develop a state management plan for its deer population. This was something that had been called for several years prior to this recommendation by several Minnesota deer hunting interest groups, including QDMA. The DNR followed through on this recommendation by selecting a group of 20 individuals that represented several stakeholder groups across the state. Unfortunately, only 4 of these seats were held by members of deer hunting groups across the state, including one for the state’s QDMA group. The majority of the team consisted of individuals whose interest was to reduce the number of deer on the landscape, so we kind of had an idea of what we were in for.
More information on this deer plan process, including meeting notes, can be found here: dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/management/planning/index.html
You may go to that site and read the details of each meeting, but all things regarding deer were to be on the table for discussion. This was a bigger task that even we had imagined, but we at least had outlined all the issues during the early stages of the process. There was an extensive public input process to help guide the team, as this was important to the legislative audit group. The general topics of discussion for the deer management advisory committee were the following:
• March 28: Review of public input on deer plan topics
• April 19: Communication, information sharing, public involvement and accountability
• May 17: Healthy Deer
• June 21: Healthy habitat
• July 19: Impacts of deer on other resources
• August 16: Hunter and non-hunter satisfaction
• September 20: Deer population management, monitoring and research
• October 18: Funding
• November 15: Discussion of the important items to include in the final plan.
From our standpoint, we felt that the process could have been greatly simplified, and we brought up what we felt was the way to do this several times. There was really one thing we wanted from this process, and that was a set of metrics that could be agreed upon to be used as a means of determining how the deer population should look and then assess what work needs to be done to get to those set of objectives. To us, this was the only way to put together a plan that was mostly based on science. We did also want to see hunter input to measure satisfaction levels. These satisfaction levels would help to determine some of the metrics that are set. Our proposed metrics included metrics that would have given us objective measures of deer and habitat health, as well as take into account issues with the ag industry and issues with car-vehicle collisions among the impacts that deer have on other resources.
We have become very frustrated with this process, as it seemed that conversations were steered away from any discussion of metrics that would have led to accountability. We don’t believe this was necessarily intentional, however, as the diversity in the deer plan membership did not allow a focused conversation on any one topic that would allow us to understand how important this was. We don’t believe it was in the DNR’s interest to steer the conversations this way, as it would have potentially led to a degree of accountability that they were not prepared to deal with. With that said, it is important to note that the DNR really saved some potential issues from going off in the wrong direction.
For instance, the majority of the team was at one point, asking that a super majority be required to change controversial laws such as party hunting or APR. QDMA and Bluffland Whitetails were against this and we believe that the team would have voted to recommend it had the DNR members not stepped in and made everyone understand how that is not necessarily a good idea. The DNR also allowed the topic of annual hunter surveys to remain open when the team was discussing the possibility of surveys at intervals much longer than yearly.
Another frustration is how the public input part of this process has been largely ignored. While we spent a great deal of time on this issue at the beginning of the process, the actual feedback was rarely discussed or used in determining how we should proceed. In the public input process, a great deal of feedback was taken on buck management, yet any discussion on this topic, was ever able to get any sustained momentum. MDHA simply did not want to address it because by not addressing it, it would not change, and those individuals who were not hunters on the team, just didn’t get how important this topic was.
We did discuss funding at one of the meetings and while it is clear that there is likely more than the 15% of all deer license revenue being spent on deer management, the transparency of how much of the other 85% makes its way back to deer management activities needs to be improved. Most team members would like to see at least 50% of the funds coming back to deer management. What we found to be incredibly interesting though, it that while the non-deer hunting groups on this team seem to outnumber the deer hunting groups, they are not contributing any funds toward deer management. It would seem that for the amount of influence they have on the management of deer, they should be contributing to this from a funding standpoint.
In all, this process was probably not a complete waste of time, however, I do not believe that deer management will change significantly. I do not believe it will change deer hunter satisfaction one bit and I certainly do not believe we have addressed any of the issues that were important to deer hunters. QDMA believes strongly that having a metric based deer plan would help achieve the goals of more than just deer hunters. It will allow those with different interests to “speak the same language” and find some objective values to measure the current state of the deer herd and the environment and resources that they affect.
One good thing that will likely come out of this process is that the state will develop several regional ongoing deer councils that will meet regularly to give the DNR feedback on how to manage deer. While this is exciting to see, if public opinion will be ignored like it has been in this process, it will continue to be a frustrating and largely unproductive process. Likewise, if deer hunter groups asking for specific metrics are not taken seriously, I do not see how these groups will make much of an impact to deer hunting satisfaction.
There is one or two remaining meetings for the committee to meet to make final recommendations for the deer plan. This will occur in December and early 2018. At some point prior to the plan becoming finalized, the plan will be available to the public and you will be able to comment. We will do our best to get the word out when the plan is available for you to view.
I really don’t have a lot of hope that the plan will have much to offer the deer hunter in the state of Minnesota, but I will remain optimistic for now. Ultimately, the only way we may very well see any worthwhile change is through legislative action. While we hate to go this route, this may be the only way hunter interests are taken into account when making deer management decisions. We will put out another update once the dust settles in the deer plan process so that you will have a better sense of direction on how you can help.
For those of you who are not aware, there was a Legislative audit that examined the practices of the Minnesota DNR in the spring of 2016.
It was recommended in this audit, among other things, that the MN DNR develop a state management plan for its deer population. This was something that had been called for several years prior to this recommendation by several Minnesota deer hunting interest groups, including QDMA. The DNR followed through on this recommendation by selecting a group of 20 individuals that represented several stakeholder groups across the state. Unfortunately, only 4 of these seats were held by members of deer hunting groups across the state, including one for the state’s QDMA group. The majority of the team consisted of individuals whose interest was to reduce the number of deer on the landscape, so we kind of had an idea of what we were in for.
More information on this deer plan process, including meeting notes, can be found here: dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/deer/management/planning/index.html
You may go to that site and read the details of each meeting, but all things regarding deer were to be on the table for discussion. This was a bigger task that even we had imagined, but we at least had outlined all the issues during the early stages of the process. There was an extensive public input process to help guide the team, as this was important to the legislative audit group. The general topics of discussion for the deer management advisory committee were the following:
• March 28: Review of public input on deer plan topics
• April 19: Communication, information sharing, public involvement and accountability
• May 17: Healthy Deer
• June 21: Healthy habitat
• July 19: Impacts of deer on other resources
• August 16: Hunter and non-hunter satisfaction
• September 20: Deer population management, monitoring and research
• October 18: Funding
• November 15: Discussion of the important items to include in the final plan.
From our standpoint, we felt that the process could have been greatly simplified, and we brought up what we felt was the way to do this several times. There was really one thing we wanted from this process, and that was a set of metrics that could be agreed upon to be used as a means of determining how the deer population should look and then assess what work needs to be done to get to those set of objectives. To us, this was the only way to put together a plan that was mostly based on science. We did also want to see hunter input to measure satisfaction levels. These satisfaction levels would help to determine some of the metrics that are set. Our proposed metrics included metrics that would have given us objective measures of deer and habitat health, as well as take into account issues with the ag industry and issues with car-vehicle collisions among the impacts that deer have on other resources.
We have become very frustrated with this process, as it seemed that conversations were steered away from any discussion of metrics that would have led to accountability. We don’t believe this was necessarily intentional, however, as the diversity in the deer plan membership did not allow a focused conversation on any one topic that would allow us to understand how important this was. We don’t believe it was in the DNR’s interest to steer the conversations this way, as it would have potentially led to a degree of accountability that they were not prepared to deal with. With that said, it is important to note that the DNR really saved some potential issues from going off in the wrong direction.
For instance, the majority of the team was at one point, asking that a super majority be required to change controversial laws such as party hunting or APR. QDMA and Bluffland Whitetails were against this and we believe that the team would have voted to recommend it had the DNR members not stepped in and made everyone understand how that is not necessarily a good idea. The DNR also allowed the topic of annual hunter surveys to remain open when the team was discussing the possibility of surveys at intervals much longer than yearly.
Another frustration is how the public input part of this process has been largely ignored. While we spent a great deal of time on this issue at the beginning of the process, the actual feedback was rarely discussed or used in determining how we should proceed. In the public input process, a great deal of feedback was taken on buck management, yet any discussion on this topic, was ever able to get any sustained momentum. MDHA simply did not want to address it because by not addressing it, it would not change, and those individuals who were not hunters on the team, just didn’t get how important this topic was.
We did discuss funding at one of the meetings and while it is clear that there is likely more than the 15% of all deer license revenue being spent on deer management, the transparency of how much of the other 85% makes its way back to deer management activities needs to be improved. Most team members would like to see at least 50% of the funds coming back to deer management. What we found to be incredibly interesting though, it that while the non-deer hunting groups on this team seem to outnumber the deer hunting groups, they are not contributing any funds toward deer management. It would seem that for the amount of influence they have on the management of deer, they should be contributing to this from a funding standpoint.
In all, this process was probably not a complete waste of time, however, I do not believe that deer management will change significantly. I do not believe it will change deer hunter satisfaction one bit and I certainly do not believe we have addressed any of the issues that were important to deer hunters. QDMA believes strongly that having a metric based deer plan would help achieve the goals of more than just deer hunters. It will allow those with different interests to “speak the same language” and find some objective values to measure the current state of the deer herd and the environment and resources that they affect.
One good thing that will likely come out of this process is that the state will develop several regional ongoing deer councils that will meet regularly to give the DNR feedback on how to manage deer. While this is exciting to see, if public opinion will be ignored like it has been in this process, it will continue to be a frustrating and largely unproductive process. Likewise, if deer hunter groups asking for specific metrics are not taken seriously, I do not see how these groups will make much of an impact to deer hunting satisfaction.
There is one or two remaining meetings for the committee to meet to make final recommendations for the deer plan. This will occur in December and early 2018. At some point prior to the plan becoming finalized, the plan will be available to the public and you will be able to comment. We will do our best to get the word out when the plan is available for you to view.
I really don’t have a lot of hope that the plan will have much to offer the deer hunter in the state of Minnesota, but I will remain optimistic for now. Ultimately, the only way we may very well see any worthwhile change is through legislative action. While we hate to go this route, this may be the only way hunter interests are taken into account when making deer management decisions. We will put out another update once the dust settles in the deer plan process so that you will have a better sense of direction on how you can help.
