I would not say that the trend is up, because when we take things like this into consideration I think that is within reason to remove or discount outliers or years that there is a spike as it is not effective in calculating data.
And are we saying that 13% of the deer tested are positive? Where is that. I did not think that even around Mt. Horeb or down by Lake Geneva are there that many positive deer. Is this an estimate? or were that many actual positive tests taken?
yr.....analyzed....positive......%.......Deer Harvested
01......1091...........3......... .27 %........444,384
02.......40123.......205....... .51 %........338,763
03......14940........117....... .78 %........483,951
04......19150........145....... .76 %........517,169
05......24821........181....... .73 %........465,760
06......30264........205....... .68 %........506,947
07......9314.........135........1.45 %.......518,573
08......12289........181........1.47 %.......451,885
09......6359..........59......... .73 %..........N/A
What I see from this is that regardless of the number of deer harvested or tested that it is no where near 13% Not by a long shot. In fact I see no direct correlation between the number of deer harvested and the percentage of deer testing positive. Also, no matter how important the DNR makes this out to be and regardless of the amount of money spent on eradication, it ain't working.
What I have figured out is that the DNR has no clue how to deal with this. Maybe they should quit shooting in the dark
