Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

retch sweeny
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:05 am

Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby retch sweeny » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:23 pm

Using the latest Data from the DNR given to me as a member of the deer management unit goal advisory board, I created this map showing the current status of deer population in each DMU and how it relates to the current population goals. This map is based on the current population goal of 737,000 deer statewide.

The reason I chose 20% as the limit for the "Tan" color is because the trigger point for whether a DMU is put into Oct. T-zone or EAB is this: If a unit is 20% above goal for a year, it becomes a herd control unit and has an Oct. T-zone hunt. If that hunt does not reduce the herd below the 20% over goal situation and the unit is 20% above goal for 2 years, it becomes an EAB unit until it falls below 20% above goal.

Image

After hearing from people around the state and how they saw few if any deer during the 2008 season, it got me wondering if get the herd to an "At Goal" condition was going to damage deer hunting since seeing deer is important to those that spend time in the woods each fall. As a member of the DMU goal advisory board we are tasked with making recommendations for what the population goal should be set at. It dawned on me that while in certain areas of the state, there are pockets of high over population and certain areas that don't have a population problem as much as they have goals that are set too low.

I took the DNR spreadsheet with current estimated populations and adjusted the Over Winter goals

I Increased the over winter goals as currently set by making the following changes:

Units currently set at 10 deer per square mile of range would increase to 12,

Units currently set at 12 deer per square mile of range would increase to 14,

Units currently set at 15 and 16 deer per square mile of range would increase to 19,

Units currently set at 17 and 18 deer per square mile of range would increase to 22,
 
Units currently set at 20, 21 and 22 deer per square mile of range would increase to 25,

Units currently set at 25 deer per square mile of range would increase to 28,
 
Units currently set at 30 deer per square mile of range would increase to 33

This would bring the over winter population goal up from 737,000 to 882,600 deer and would take some units out of EAB and even more out of herd control seasons. This increase had a noticeable effect on the map I posted above. Here is the new map.

Image

The data from the DNR that was used to make the first map (at the top) was the same data used by them to create this preliminary season structure map for 2009.

Image


Noticing that many of the units on the DNR spreadsheet that were over goal were just barely over the 20% trigger point, I made adjustments to the spreadsheet by increasing the over winter goal in each DMU. From that I created a new 2009 season structure map which resulted in 14 fewer herd control units and 2 less EAB (units 65B and 68B) would now become herd control rather than EAB.

Image

One of the requests of members of the DMU goal advisory board is for us to seek input from people and to get ideas. Because of this, I wanted to use the Conservation Congress and the April 13th hearing to gather public input on the population goal increased I mention above. I plane to submit the following resolution at the April 13th spring hearing in my County (Waukesha).
-------------------------------------

Title: Deer, Overwinter goals

The Problem: During the 2008 deer season, sharp declines in the deer population, coupled with years of intense harvest quotas such as EAB and Oct. T-zone, left many hunters with little if any deer sighting and we now have many units that are below goal.

Even in units that remain above goal, hunters saw fewer (if any) deer and will again be subjected to antlerless harvest seasons they don't agree with. The problem is NOT that areas have too many deer. The problem is the goals are set too low.  The current overwinter population goal is 737,000 deer. Increase the current overwinter goals by making these changes:

Units at 10 deer per sq./mi. increase to 12,
Units at 12 deer per sq./mi. increase to 14,
Units at 15 and 16 deer per sq./mi. increase to 19,
Units at 17 and 18 deer per sq./mi. increase to 22,
Units at 20, 21 and 22 deer per sq./mi. increase to 25,
Units at 25 deer per sq./mi. increase to 28,
Units at 30 deer per sq./mi. increase to 33

This brings the overwinter population goal from 737,000 to 882,600 and would take some units out of EAB and even more out of herd control seasons.

Be it resolved that the Conservation Congress at its annual meeting held in ____________ County on April 13, 2009, Recommends the Conservation Congress work with the Department and the NRB to take action to institute this modest increase in overwinter deer population goals. 

NAME: ___________________

ADDRESS: ________________________

CITY: ____________

STATE: WI

COUNTY: ________________

TELEPHONE: _______________

SIGNATURE:___________________


---------------------------------------------------

If you think this resolution has merit and you would like this change enacted, I would ask that you copy and paste the above resolution into a document and submit it at your counties spring hearing. Simply fill in the data at the bottom that pertains to you and your county and print two copies and hand them to the CC chairman at your county's hearing.

User avatar
mtnman
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:05 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby mtnman » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:09 pm

I agree 100%, and will make these available to the CC meeting on the 13th in Florennce County. I have another that I will post here shortly.
(Florence Co., WI)

User avatar
mtnman
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:05 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby mtnman » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:20 pm

New Ammendment
(Florence Co., WI)

User avatar
buckhunter21
 
Posts: 2982
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:28 pm

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby buckhunter21 » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:56 pm

Thanks for the wonderful advice and information retch sweeny!  I'm in 59B and it looks like we could be in a regular unit for next year, which is GREAT NEWS!  Does this mean that it could go back to the lottery for doe permits like what we had quite a few years back?  I sure hope so...I know for sure on one of my properties I don't plan on taking any does off that one for at least two years just for the fact of how bad things are in our area...
QDM!

User avatar
Goose
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:36 pm

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby Goose » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:00 am

Again thanks for the info.....
 
Regarding the goals, how often are these reviewed and analyzed? Around me there are many changes over time. Tree plantations are wiped out and in some areas new ones are put in. Farms go fallow and new houses/buildings go up. Large lots get divided up and houses are built ect. With the technology available ie. areal photo's it should be easier to make note of these changes. There are plenty of biologists that can go over this information and make the appropriate changes. I would think that the available deer range has to change over time....
Besides that stuff, the deer herd and it's size change every year, why are the goals the same year after year?
Or am I wrong on this?
 
Another thing I want to mention is that units that are set at the goal of 12 deer per sq. mile or less are pretty much unhuntable deer by standard hunting means. I imagine that baiting is almost a must in these hunters minds and that is unfortunate.
Is that something you just have to come to accept because of the biological carrying capacity?
Jake

Genesis 27:3 Take your bow and quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game.....

User avatar
Fish
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby Fish » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:52 pm

Another thing I want to mention is that units that are set at the goal of 12 deer per sq. mile or less are pretty much unhuntable deer by standard hunting means. I imagine that baiting is almost a must in these hunters minds and that is unfortunate.
Is that something you just have to come to accept because of the biological carrying capacity
[quote]ORIGINAL: Goose


No, you have to come to accept this because this is what you are told.  Nothing more, nothing less....
 
Attend the hearing....ask these questions.....do you honestly think it couldn't happen to your unit?  Time to wake up and smell the coffee.  (Or DNR koolaid, if you like)

wack
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:10 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby wack » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:56 am

I can't get the printer to print it. GRRRR Anybody going to the Winnebago County, Oshkosh meeting at Webster Stanley school on the 13th?

I like what I see but did I miss anything pertaining to what we do for recovery in units that are worst hit? Is there a % below goal that rings the no hunting bell? Or something more preventative than regular zone? This maybe should also coincide with what zones that need the most bears and wolves harvested?

I'm not criticizing this proposal, just the opposite, great job. I'd just like to see the proposal also cover places that are worse or could get worse, say 5 deer per mile or less, or more than 20% below goal. Another color on the map if it's needed. The next color after that is endangered. A solid plan from top to bottom.

Not to change the subject, but if we can fly over Iraq in the dark and see exactly how many soldiers or on the ground with night and infrared vision, with Google Earth technology available free to the public where I can see the bush in my front yard and the rows in my city garden, even on the DNR's satalite mapping program, you can't imagine what's available to the Government technology wise, why can't we count deer? Bears? What better way to help train our armed forces and use the technology for something constructive to boot? It's not like they're not flying over already, it's not like they don't have satellites available that can see the dandruff on your shoulder, it's not like we haven't paid for our armed forces technology. I'm not asking them to make the technology available to everyone, although one could make the argument it should be, but I am asking why not use the technology to defend our country and count deer, bears, wolves, and any other big game. If they want to find Bin Laden, maybe they should practice on Big Foot. [:D] They probably already have big foot under surveillance....[:-] We know your watching big brother, do something useful with it. 
American by birth, hunter by choice.

User avatar
Luv2Hunt
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:11 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby Luv2Hunt » Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:23 pm

This amendment will be presented as is at the Juneau County WCC Meeting

retch sweeny
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:05 am

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby retch sweeny » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:48 pm

I would like to thank all those that are taking this proposal to their counties. Lets hope it does some good.
[align=right] [/align]

User avatar
Goose
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:36 pm

RE: Help Wanted at the Conservation Congress hearing

Postby Goose » Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:15 pm

Took it to the Winnebago County meeting but 2 where handed in already!
Jake

Genesis 27:3 Take your bow and quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game.....


Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest