SAK prelim report

[Centralwisconsinland]

Fish, I think you explained SAK pretty well, but my head hurts.  One thing that I heard and believe is that the SAK as a model in its true form works.  Compare it to the economy of this country when the numbers are played around with, changed, not considered something has to give. The deer estimates crashed in the 2008 season, things will not automatically turn around in the 2009 season.  Some thing has to be done to get the SAK model back to the resource that it was meant to be.  

[Fish]

I haven't even started with SAK, just on variable that causes variances in population.  I'm still working on it, I'm going to try to explain it soon

[wack]

Fish, does the SAK have a variable for wolf, coyote and bear deprivation? The DNR said 13,000 bears last year, now says over 40,000 bears, that has to have a big effect on bear deprivation numbers upon the deer herd. Say each bear kills 5 deer a year, 13,000 bears would mean 65,000 deer, 40,000 bears means 200,000 deer. 5 deer per bear is just a guess but as the example shows, we're talking a huge margin of error for the northwoods. Also 500 (goal) of wolves at the beginning of the year could be as many as 1400 by the end of the year. If each wolf eats 18 deer per year, we're talking anywhere from 9,000 to 25,200 deer in just the north woods.

 I'd be very curious as to how those numbers have been entered into the SAK report. Unlike our "in the red" budget, we can not allow the deer numbers to go in the red. We can't just borrow a million deer from Obama, when they are gone, they're gone.