1. ESPM 5242 Policy Analysis Presentation Lou Cornicelli

2. Problem: Minnesota deer hunting regulations are too complex and need to be simplified. In 2007, the Commissioner of Natural Resources declared to the media that deer hunting regulations were too complex and were going to be simplified. Division management team later decided a team of stakeholders would be used to ‘help’ DNR.

3. Background DNR’s charge is in to manage the state’s natural resources. Deer populations are managed through regulated hunting seasons that have been in place since the late 19 th century. Today, 500,000 deer hunters annually kill 250,000 deer. Hunting regulations reside in 3 locations: ◦ Statute – changes only result through legislative action. ◦ Permanent rule – internal changes that take 1 year to implement. ◦ Expedited emergency rule – limited authority and take about 2 months to implement.

4. Where does the problem lie? The number of hunting zones: 6 firearm, 1 each archery and muzzleloader. 130 permit areas, 70+ special hunts including youth, firearm, archery. 14 different kinds of resident hunting licenses. Varying bag limits, tagging, and registrations requirements. Statutes: often poorly worded and conflicting. Rules: obsolete or politically difficult to change. Pet regulations: ability of individuals to influence their local legislator who then changes the law. ◦ Example – the language that describes a legal firearm is 4 lines long. Added to that are 3 lines of exceptions. Could this be done in one line?

5. Outcomes 1. The stakeholder team makes a comprehensive recommendation for regulatory changes. 2. DNR undertakes the rule-writing process and implements changes that are under their purview. 3. The Legislature drafts the necessary statutes and passes legislation. This project represents a stakeholder based, prospective analysis of current statutes and rules regarding deer hunting regulations.

6. Evaluation Criteria 1. Biological integrity. Can admit complexity but changes must be grounded in science. 2. Financial efficiency. Does a marginal simplification cost millions of dollars? 3. Social acceptability. Likely the most important. Is the change supported by a majority of hunters.

7. Alternatives to Stakeholder-based Process AlternativeRiskMeritSimplicity No ActionHigh Does not address problem Very Increased information only High – window dressing Some, but most people don’t read the information Very Agency driven process Moderate Moderate but would need to be managed Easier than assembling a stakeholder team Benefit/CostVery HighHighly scrutinized Uses quantitative data and forecasting

8. Data types, sources, and access 1. Hunter surveys. 1.DNR hunter surveys 2.Published hunter surveys from other states 2. Harvest data analysis. 1.Mandatory registration allows for detailed analysis of harvest, success, and patterns 2.Registration in other states could provide some comparables 3. Dataset from recommendations.

9. Analysis Techniques 1. Random survey of deer hunters. Develop survey instrument, determine margin of error and survey deer hunters directly. 2. Online public information. Develop online tool that solicits public input. Has been done previously but is more biased. 3. Forecasting. Consideration of financial consequences of changing regulations. Basically predicting fiscal and biological impacts of regulatory changes.

10. Recommendations Use a nominal group process with key stakeholders who will be charged with making recommendations to DNR on methods to simplify regulations. DNR staff will provide information, establish sideboards, and serve as advisors only. Recommendations will be distilled and an attempt at consensus (or at worst, informed consent) will be made. Results will be presented to DNR leadership for adoption, either legislatively or internally.