|
Post by Bwoods11 on Feb 9, 2017 10:38:30 GMT -6
the DNR should be able to assess where the deer numbers are higher?? Be careful what you wish for! The DNR will issue EVERY landowner 3 each! Managing the entire zone by one designation is old school. My county has some great deer habitat in 7-8 townships, then black dirt on the rest. My point is, that is not how it should be managed. Lottery in an area, where guys see 30-40 deer per sit, does that make sense--no, but then again, even lottery in an area where there is no deer (some farm country) the limit should be zero. They should be able to assess this, if not, in todays world, just incompetent (which I know most of them fit that bill).
|
|
|
Post by mnaaron on Feb 9, 2017 10:59:51 GMT -6
I agree completely bwoods however not sure they have the desire to tackle that level of detail. Should be a no brainer in black dirt areas like you talked about.
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Feb 10, 2017 8:26:34 GMT -6
I am hoping to get a truck full of guys to attend and raise some hell in brainerd feb 21. Wish mtg was little closer Go for it, give em hell. Maybe just ask them, do you plan on doing anything different?? I'd love to see something different. Let's try something? You ask 10 guys what they want, you get 10 different answers. Phase in some changes. It's literally amazing that the only changes we have made in MN in the past 25 years... besides some doe tag changes, is adding more days to the gun season and muzzy season. Exception;SE MN
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 10, 2017 8:30:30 GMT -6
Be careful what you wish for! The DNR will issue EVERY landowner 3 each! Managing the entire zone by one designation is old school. My county has some great deer habitat in 7-8 townships, then black dirt on the rest. My point is, that is not how it should be managed. Lottery in an area, where guys see 30-40 deer per sit, does that make sense--no, but then again, even lottery in an area where there is no deer (some farm country) the limit should be zero. They should be able to assess this, if not, in todays world, just incompetent (which I know most of them fit that bill). You will need full scale upper level buy-in/changes to do any of this and I don't think the MN DNR is willing to do ANY of that.
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Feb 10, 2017 8:45:00 GMT -6
Managing the entire zone by one designation is old school. My county has some great deer habitat in 7-8 townships, then black dirt on the rest. My point is, that is not how it should be managed. Lottery in an area, where guys see 30-40 deer per sit, does that make sense--no, but then again, even lottery in an area where there is no deer (some farm country) the limit should be zero. They should be able to assess this, if not, in todays world, just incompetent (which I know most of them fit that bill). You will need full scale upper level buy-in/changes to do any of this and I don't think the MN DNR is willing to do ANY of that. I'm sure they won't, but it wouldn't be that hard to manage by county.
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 10, 2017 8:50:49 GMT -6
......we do........and by habitat zone within those counties, if they are clearly split between heavily forested and primarily ag ground............it seems to be working pretty good for us so far..........
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Feb 10, 2017 8:52:40 GMT -6
No harder than managing a trapezoid random area of landscape the way they do it today.
With that said, going to County isnt going to fix much. There are still vast areas in a county that have zero habitat, and areas ideal for deer.
But the fact is there has got to be some level more granular than its managed for today. Frickin ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 10, 2017 8:53:12 GMT -6
My impression of the MN DNR is that they'd like to run things almost completely opposite to how the WI DNR runs things.
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 10, 2017 8:54:39 GMT -6
No harder than managing a trapezoid random area of landscape the way they do it today. With that said, going to County isnt going to fix much. There are still vast areas in a county that have zero habitat, and areas ideal for deer.But the fact is there has got to be some level more granular than its managed for today. Frickin ridiculous. See my post above.............
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Feb 10, 2017 9:14:51 GMT -6
We crossed paths on the interweb with our posts....
|
|
|
Post by Bwoods11 on Feb 10, 2017 9:22:27 GMT -6
......we do........and by habitat zone within those counties, if they are clearly split between heavily forested and primarily ag ground............it seems to be working pretty good for us so far.......... Iowa manages by county as well. Simple and effective. If I want a doe tag in my county (Union) I order it online, or I go into the local Walmart and request a doe tag for Union County (done in 5 minutes)...I even have landowner preference as a NR!! Now some counties do not issue any doe tags, the northern Iowa corn belt counties. Some have limited doe tags, but landowners do get preference (which I think they should!) It seems so simple, we could do the same thing here, and when I say landowner tags that counts against the total allotment. So if there are 1000 tags in Todd County for instance, landowners would have some preference and counted toward the overall number. Basically, I would like to see MN do it like Iowa....and/or Wisconsin, which is similar.
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Feb 10, 2017 9:26:54 GMT -6
Right fucking on Kurt.
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 10, 2017 9:38:50 GMT -6
I think one of the biggest issues MN faces, even with management by county, would be the fact that the counties are so large. No way can you have that amount of land mass, much of it with completely different habitat types. Getting a "line" in counties with different habitats, and thus different deer densities would be a much bigger help to the "problem" areas that have too many or too few deer than just about anything else they could do right now. You issue the antlerless tags by county and then zone type(our Zones are designated as Farmland Zone and Forest Zone) and you manage them differently and issue tags at the proper rate for the density.
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 10, 2017 9:43:14 GMT -6
Boy, I don't know. Asking/requiring the MN DNR to essentially micro-manage deer on a partial county basis seems pretty far fetched to me. My concern is that if they did that...the areas (like where you can see 200 deer in a few miles...which I have NEVER seen anywhere in this state) where there are "too many" deer will be effectively dealt with. The areas with "too few" deer will get nothing...except even fewer deer because now there are fewer filtering in from the areas with excesses. Meanwhile, with the spectre of CWD looming....there will be nothing done to improve buck age structure.
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Feb 10, 2017 9:46:53 GMT -6
I just looked. Whip, just what I was thinking too.
Ottertail county currently has 5 different permit areas that encompass parts of the county.
One thing I have thought about and suggested on forums is tracking some level of info by township.
When I buy my deer license, I have to tell them what permit area I am going to primarily hunt in. Why cant we also widdle that down to the township we hunt in as well. Its all just data. Instead of saying I am hunting in permit area 240, how about I say I am hunting in Nidaros township? When I register a deer, I register it from Nidaros township. How hard is that? Then you really have some data that can be mapped via the databases, reports that can really drill down where maybe hotspots are, where hunter densities are insanely high, etc..... It would paint a picture in High Def, versus our current method of having a picture taken with a disposable fuji camera.....
|
|