I remember that the SAK method of determining deer population came under fire during the Deer 2000 study. Of course, the DNR maintained that it is and was the Holy Grail of deer management. Those of us with some training in statistics were able to see the inherent problems with a system that placed so much emphasis on the previous years' buck kill to determine population in the subsequent year.
When I pointed that out at a meeting, one of the DNR talking heads (I believe it was Hauge) told me that it was only one of several factors in making the calculation. When I pressed him further, stating that buck kill is the only independent variable that can be measured with certainty, I was told that the DNR had various " formulas" in place to take into account such things as weather, etc. I asked if there was a way for us in the public to get a look at these other " formulas" , I was told that he' d " look into it" . Of course, that never went anywhere...
Let' s think about the SAK method for a minute:
“The buck kill is very important for the SAK model, but let’s just pretend we didn’t have SAK, or it was an inflexible model that generates numbers based on input,” Zeckmeister said. “That’s not what we have — we make adjustments based on what happens out in the field. If we have good hunting conditions — frozen swamps and just the right amount of snow — we can expect a good kill, even with a lower population. We would look back at that year and say, ‘Boy, maybe we harvested more deer that we should have.’ So, we have to adjust the SAK. That’s where professional input comes in.
Think about that: basically, the DNR can get results from SAK that indicate a lower population, but the DNR can simply ignore the results, based on the input of " professionals" . Of course, we have no way of seeing what this input is, since it is purely SUBJECTIVE.
...we make adjustments based on what happens out in the field...
Really? Last time the harvest was below expectations, we were told that the estimates were right, but it was a " brown year" (too warm). So much for making adjustments...
In other words, the DNR can say the population is whatever they want it to be.
Then...
“We’re looking back at not just 2002, but also 2001. I think that’s wise management,” he said. “If we go through this whole process that we’re going through now and the SAK shows we have fewer deer, what’s wrong with that? Let’s go with it. But, we’re not there yet.
Fine. But is that likely to happen?
How many wanna bet the DNR comes back with a much higher estimate on deer population based on all kinds of subjective gobblety-gook like " prion fear" ?