|
Post by biglakebass on Jul 14, 2017 17:00:13 GMT -6
They already do it.
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Jul 14, 2017 17:00:33 GMT -6
Why can't we do simple population surveys like they do for grouse etc...drive the same route same time of year and record what you see. Over time it gives you trends. They do annual roadside counts in the farmland region, Waste of time if you ask me. Use hunter info, we are the ones border to border with feet on the ground,MN DNR doesn't trust the people who pay their salaries to accurately report anything. This is a Nanny State
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 17, 2017 7:33:14 GMT -6
WHEREAS declining deer hunter satisfaction led to a 2015 legislative audit of the DNR deer model.
WHEREAS the model was discovered to be flawed and discarded for a subsequent model which is now being replaced by a 3rd population model.
WHEREAS models fail without data collected to verify their accuracy and drift.
WHEREAS the MN DNR has stated they do not have the resources or feel the need to collect the data suggested by the OLA audit.
THEREFORE we recommend legislation requiring questions be asked when hunters purchase a deer license as a means to collect legitimate deer herd data to be used as a measure of accountability towards publicly announced deer goals.
Did you hit a deer while driving in the last 12 months. (yes – county) How many days did you spend hunting deer last year. Appx how many deer did you see while on stand.
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Jul 17, 2017 7:39:41 GMT -6
I think it might be wise to just collect this data on firearms license purchases.
reason being is 2 fold: 1. People will get annoyed answering the same questions on Archery, muzzy and firearms(Yea I know, go cry me a river to those that bitch) 2. People would be reporting their same personal data 3 times.
If its collected from a single source, then there is no overlaps or duplicate data collected.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 17, 2017 7:56:40 GMT -6
I changed and specified firearms.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Jul 17, 2017 8:00:06 GMT -6
WHEREAS declining deer hunter satisfaction led to a 2015 legislative audit of the DNR deer model. WHEREAS the model was discovered to be flawed and discarded for a subsequent model which is now being replaced by a 3rd population model. WHEREAS models fail without data collected to verify their accuracy and drift. WHEREAS the MN DNR has stated they do not have the resources or feel the need to collect the data suggested by the OLA audit. THEREFORE we recommend legislation requiring questions be asked when hunters purchase a deer license as a means to collect legitimate deer herd data to be used as a measure of accountability towards publicly announced deer goals. Did you hit a deer while driving in the last 12 months. (yes – county) How many days did you spend hunting deer last year. Appx how many deer did you see while on stand. There is a survey given when I register a deer in WI and it has these questions and some other good ones to add. If I get a minute I will try and find the list of ?s
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Jul 17, 2017 8:14:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sd51555 on Jul 17, 2017 11:44:06 GMT -6
You'da man Brooks!
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 17, 2017 13:44:04 GMT -6
My last 2 meet with elected have been less than satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Jul 17, 2017 14:00:41 GMT -6
Wasn't the meeting this AM? Why dissatisfying?
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Jul 17, 2017 14:15:32 GMT -6
Argh.....
Start the spin that this is also an effort that would be an effort that could impact public safety.
If the DNR doesnt know where deer live in excessive numbers, how can drivers be safe?
The DPS nor the DNR has ANY idea where the most dangerous areas are outside of zone 601.
|
|
|
Post by DoubleLiver on Jul 17, 2017 18:33:05 GMT -6
Do you think the deer population is too high, too low or just right?
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Jul 17, 2017 18:46:22 GMT -6
Too low.
|
|