Is the DNR throwing off it's own population model?

[buckfawn]

Does anybody know exactly how the SAK model is used. I know it plugs in the harvest from the previous year (especially adult buck) to figure out the herd size and sex ratios, but could it be that the aggressive doe harvest the DNR has implemented the past few years is throwing off the model by changing the ratios of harvest? Or could QDM be throwing it off by skewing the buck harvest toward older bucks? Anybody ever see exactly how the formula interprets these things?

[highview72]

They are absolutely throwing off their own model. In basic terms, Warnke believes that the more deer registered means there are more deer out there. The problem is that with this stupid EAB and T-Zone stuff, you are forced to shoot does. In order to get your buck sticker, hunters are shooting the first legal deer they see. That automatically skews all the numbers. Just think about it. Every year for the past 4-5 seasons we have been killing more and more antlerless deer but yet somehow every year they estimate the population to be higher.  The SAK system only works if hunters can be choosy about the deer they shoot and hunters normally passed on fawns and button bucks. Now these yearling deer are being registered in large numbers which under the SAK means that the population is very large. Which we all know is not true.

[Fish]

This is not a question IF the T-zone and EAB effect the SAK model but how much it is effected.   A year or two ago, the DNR itself hired 3-4 outside biologist to review the SAK model.  They found it is an accurate way to estimate the deer herd.  But, with the use of T-zone and EAB, statistically, the model could be up to 60% off.  Yes, meaning about 700,000 vs. 1.7 million.
 
Per a resource I know, who has a high ranking position in a national organization, he had spoke with one of the top biologist last week.  The biologist stated the fawn drop number came in a month or so ago.  The numbers were so down, they would never have had the amount of EAB areas.  But since DNR quotas were set in March, they let it ride.
 
Please contact our State Reps, I have.  http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx
Don't forget to cc each member in the Natural Resources commitee in both the Assembly and Senate

[Dan Schmidt]

FYI:

Short answer is the DNR does not use SAK in EAB units. If you would like to see the method, see attached Power Point program. The DNR also does not use SAK in units that have been out of EAB for less than 3 years.

Dan S.

[Fish]

No disrespect, Dan, but they may not use it now but according to Dr Mark Boyce in his presentation 12/5/2006, it seems it was used thru 2006.  For those who have some time, here is the presentation.  http://dnr.wi.gov/news/mediakits/mk_deer.asp
It's the last video on the page.
 
Although they might not use it now, the number of 2006 are plugged into the new method(if they are really using it).  The 2006 numbers are vague and statistically skewed.  Dr Boyce and his panel stated the error margin of over 60%.  That can't be overlooked.  Also, with the total number of EAB units, why even have the SAK model? more than half of the state was EAB.
 
And for them to use the furbearing model in EAB units, well.....I think the DNR has proven how well that has worked for them.  By their own admittion, bear population is twice the estimated population and wolves well above the estimate of 500.  Don't believe everything the DNR says.
 
Best resource for the size of the deer herd?  Ask the hunters.  From Dane, Columbia, Sauk, Dodge, Jefferson, Door, Marinette, Green and more, I've spoke to many hunters, most have seen little to no deer.  Proof is there, the numbers are flawed.

[highview72]

Regardless of what model they are using to come up with a population goal, the end goal is still way out of whack. As I responded before, the area I hunt in northern Oconto county has a population goal of 20 deer (per square mile of deer habitat) Not per square mile but sq. mile of deer habitat. So if you break that down you will have 1.2 deer per 40 acres of wooded property. So say you own or lease 160 acres.(pretty large hunting lease),You mean to tell me a tract of wooded land that size should be holding less than 5 deer?  Go ahead and do the math. If the DNR gets their way, that will be reality. Maybe it already is!

[tageater]

If most doe are registered multiple times and there are road kills registered to get stickers I would think that would throw things off. They had it screwed up before EAB anyway.

[buckhunter21]

I don't know if you guys checked the DNR website today at all, but the preliminary results are in for the 9 day gun season.  As much as 30% decline up north and 20% decline south.  AND they are admitting on top of that they they might have overestimated the deer herd...You think?????  Take a look and sound off!

[Fish]

buckhunter21....the saddest part of this is the DNR knew a month or two before the season the fawn numbers were way down.  But since the quota is set in March, they let it go.  I've heard from a very reputable source that if they would have had these numbers before March, many areas would not have had T-zone or EAB.  People make mistakes, I can understand but what really upsets me is they could have corrected it AND/OR been honest and told us hunters.  I believe many hunters would have hunted different....i.e. Not shot doe for next years EAB tag.  Now what, if your area is not EAB next year, are you going to eat EAB tag soup?  Wasted animals.  I, for one, would stop hunting this season if I knew EAB wouldn't be in our area