13% below goal and in EAB

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

13% below goal and in EAB

Postby retch sweeny » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:46 pm

For another example, I will use unit 65A. I made a map that shows that with a consolidation, 65A would be lumped together with 3 other units as shown below.

Image

Each of the 4 existing units have harvest histories and overwinter populations goals established. Each unit has an established accounting of how many square miles of deer range is in that unit. 2 of these units happen to have a 25 deer per square mile (of range) population goal and 2 are set at 30 deer. When added together they would establish an aggregated population of 29,120 deer. so combining them might seem like no big deal. I made this map to show Those numbers below.

Image

At the same time, DNR uses population estimates known as SAK which stands for "Sex, Age, Kill" to determine the estimated overwinter population for each unit. I made this map to shows the most current SAK estimates as of March 12th. Based on set goal per square mile of range, this allows DNR to know how close to goal the population is. This map shows that the 4 units vary from 13% below goal to as much as 65% over goal. It also shows what the preliminary season structure will be for this year's deer season for each of the units. The 4 units below are a mix of regular season, and EAB season.

Image

This last map shows the current aggregated population goal of 26525 deer which is a decrease because aggregation also takes the two units that were at 30 per square miles and lowers their goal to 25. This map also show the the current estimated population (40,942 deer) The new unit is now 54% above goal meaning unit 65A goes from a regular season structure to an EAB  without any real change in it's deer population. It is being penalized by association with the other units. Hunters in what was the old unit 65A that is already below goal would be forced into EAB and be made to harvest does, driving the already low population even lower. I think it's clear that there are concerns with combining units. I urge caution when making your choice on the survey.

Image

Lastly, please make a point of attending the DMU meeting in your area.

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

RE: 13% below goal and in EAB

Postby Goose » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:51 am

Thanks for posting this info, its interesting to see.
What are the pro's to combining them?
Jake

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

Bigfoot
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:30 pm

RE: 13% below goal and in EAB

Postby Bigfoot » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:26 am

if i remember correctly when they audited the SAK formula,the group that did the auditing recommended bigger units so their SAK formula would be more accurate 


Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests