Feed deer? Minnesota DNR will, with a sigh

[h2ofwlr]

By Dave Orrick dorrick@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 02/15/2014 12:01:00 AM CST | Updated: about 20 hours ago

Map: http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_2 ... -will-sigh
Editor's note: Information as of Thursday. Feeding areas subject to change. Areas No. 117 and 118 have been removed. "

The decision Wednesday -- a reversal of the agency's prior refusal to feed deer amid an increasingly severe winter -- came as pressure from deer hunters mounted. More on that in a bit.

And that mounting pressure comes as a wide chorus of deer hunters, dissatisfied with the deer population in many areas of the state, pushes the DNR to increase deer numbers. This follows three years of falling deer harvests and a fall that saw the fewest number of deer killed by hunters in a decade.

Dissatisfied deer hunters, coming together under the banner of the Minnesota Deer Density Initiative, now have a slogan, which, like all good slogans, needs no elaboration: "More Deer, Better Hunting. (They should think about keeping the slogan and ditching the MDDI mouthful.)
If everything goes as planned, their discontent will be evident at a pair of public meetings starting Wednesday to discuss deer population goals for southeastern Minnesota. In other parts of the state, deer hunters will have opportunities later this winter to sound off on DNR officials in a series of yet-unscheduled meetings co-sponsored by the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.

Slogans, initiatives, dissatisfaction. Few deer shot and fewer seen from the tree stand. And deer dying in the deep snow. That's a recipe for something.

"I think they've gotten to an all-time low from a public relations standpoint," Mark Johnson, executive director of the Deer Hunters Association, said of the DNR. "It's not because they're bad or the commissioner is bad. It's because of years and years of not addressing things. The impression is the DNR is not out to protect the interests of the public."

DNR brass say they're listening.

"We're hearing that message," said Paul Telander, the DNR's wildlife section chief.

But we're a long way from singing "Kumbaya" at deer camp amid freshly killed whitetails, as evidenced by the deer feeding debate.


EMERGENCY FEEDING
Generally speaking, wildlife biologists nationwide oppose feeding any wild animals. The DNR is no exception with regards to deer.

"It's inadvisable," said Telander. "It doesn't have a significant impact on populations and it can increase the potential for disease to spread." Deer, which can reproduce as young as their first year of life, are resilient, Telander said, and evolved to handle Minnesota winters. And it's unlikely that a feeding operation can reach more than 20 percent of the deer in any given area, he said.

So why agree to the feeding now?

"We feel we need to act in good faith on the account that deer hunters have been putting money into," Telander said.

That would be the "emergency deer feeding and wild cervid health account." It was first established -- foisted on the DNR, really -- by the Legislature in 1997, following back-to-back severe winters that saw an estimated 30 percent of the herd perish in 1995-96 and an additional 8 percent die in '96-97.

The Legislature ordered the agency to feed the deer back then, over the wishes of the DNR. The account, in which 50 cents of every dollar from deer hunting licenses is placed, was set up for future deer feedings in emergencies. It's since been expanded to allow feeding of other cervids like elk and moose, and disease monitoring and control.

In other words, Telander can justify the dichotomy of his agency's opposition to feeding this way: Biologically, the DNR is dead-set against it, but by law and a duty to the hunters who paid into it, it must feed the animals this year.

And there's the pressure. The reversal came after Johnson spoke at one of several recent meetings with Commissioner Tom Landwehr, pleading his case.

"I can't disagree with them," Johnson said of agency officials' opposition to feeding. "What they're saying is correct, but you need to look at it from a different perspective. It's like saving for retirement: It's a few dollars at a time, but it matters. Let's say you go into a deer yard (wintering area in harsh winters) with 36 deer. Let's say if you don't do anything, six of them will survive the wolves and the winter. If you can go in and save even 12 of them, the difference in population -- that local population -- is significant. What's wrong with that?"

The DNR has since spent $10 million to deal with chronic wasting disease in the southeast and bovine tuberculosis in the northwest parts of the state. In both cases, the diseases are believed to now be at "undetectable levels," with no deer testing positive for TB since 2009 and for CWD since 2010.

So, success. But costly.

Those diseases spread via saliva, such as that left behind when deer crowd over a pile of feed -- but less so when they browse naturally on scattered buds and berries in the woods.

But Johnson, whose MDHA chapters will administer the feeding, said those concerns will be addressed. "It will be spread over the ground on packed snow, not in troughs or feeders," he said.

A pellet mixture will be used that winter forest- feeding deer can handle. (Deer stomachs accustomed to woody food can't handle a sudden diet of corn; it can kill them.) Telander said he wasn't sure when the feedings will start, but it will likely take more than two weeks, perhaps more than a month, to procure the food.

The feeding will be done in areas where the winter severity index, which accounts for snowpack and sub-zero weather, reaches 100 by Saturday, Feb. 15, and where deer numbers are believed to be below the DNR's goal. Thirteen deer permit hunting zones will likely qualify.

Telander said he'll allocate $170,000, which will allow $600,000 to remain in the account to respond to any new instances of disease.

And moving forward: "After this winter passes, we need to have a discussion about long-term feeding policy in deer," he said.

That's another way of saying he wants to convince deer hunters -- and ultimately the Legislature -- that feeding is inadvisable.

To that, Johnson responds: "I understand their position. But when they do their population goal-setting, they take into account more than biology. They take into account social impact, and that's what we're talking about here."

Which brings us back to the larger question of dissatisfaction, and the DNR's dilemma of being a group of mainly biologists serving more than the demands of science. There are more than 500,000 deer hunters in Minnesota, and they can't be ignored by the DNR -- because they won't be ignored by the Legislature.


PUBLIC MEETINGS
Brooks Johnson, president of Minnesota Bowhunters Inc. and the guy spearheading the "More Deer, Better Hunting" groundswell, has said he wants the DNR, not the legislature, to accede to hunters' demands. For several weeks, he's been urging hunters to attend public meetings on southeast Minnesota deer populations, which are being held as the DNR starts its planned review of population goals. They are:

-- 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at Lake City Lincoln High School

-- 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Feb. 25 at the St. Charles Elementary High School auditorium

The meetings co-sponsored by the DNR and MDHA have yet to be scheduled but will likely take place in late February or March and are intended for only deer hunters.

In addition to packing meeting rooms, Brooks Johnson also wants hunters to email DNR officials, as well as elected officials.

He knows they're watching at the Capitol.