Well, in rereading my previous post, I got to thinking that maybe I was somewhat to harsh in my response. I retract the comment about "the sanctimonious ones"...that is a tad unfair since it implies that I know that the people going "rah rah EAB" aren't shooting does. I guess I was in one of those moods when I posted.

Back to the thread itself: again, my biggest problems with this Earn-a-Buck rule are threefold. First, the DNR has all but admitted after the 2002 season that the SAK method of counting deer is flawed. By placing such a high reliance on the previous seasons' buck kill to calculate deer numbers, the formula essentially assumes that if the buck harvest is down, as it was in 2002 due to the discovery of CWD in the herd, then the population is also down. Taken to an extreme, the formula would tell us that if no one hunted and killed a buck, the population of deer would actually be lower, unless some adjustments to the formula were made. Such adjustments are subjective, meaning that you are now placing subjective judgements into what is supposed to be an objective, scientific way of measuring deer population. As such, we have hunters all over the state saying the same thing: "we aren't seeing nearly as many deer as in years past, but we are in a t-zone or and EAB zone." After awhile, it is pretty hard for hunters who spend a lot of time in the timber or scouting for sign to disagree with your own eyes.

Second problem that I alluded to before is the overwinter goals. As I mentioned, in Unit 61 the goal used to be about 24 deer per square mile. About 1996, it was dropped to 19, so woooolah!...we're suddenly over target! Basically, the DNR wanted a 20% reduction in herd from the previous goal numbers. Why? The habitat in that unit is sufficient, i.e. this is not a metro area that has acre after acre of habitat being paved over. So if the DNR suddenly decides again to change the overwinter goal, then EAB or t-zone never ends.

Finally, the DNR likes to go out and pontificate that the only reason that a unit is in EAB or t-zone is because the hunters in that region have not done a good enough job of shooting antlerless deer. Let's just assume that no one shoots any nubbin's (never happens, right ??). Now let's take a look at the harvest in Unit 61 as one example:

2003
Total Harvest, including bow, 9-day gun, and t-zone hunts: 14,454
Total antlerless harvest, all seasons : 9,029
Percentage of harvest composed of antlerless deer : 62.47%

So what is the problem here, in terms of deer population? Not enough does being shot, or not enough DEER being shot? Somehow, EAB does not strike me as a plan to get more hunters into the woods.

Also, in terms of comparison, the average doe kill in the so called CWD zones?? 67.48%. Seems like things are working pretty well in Unit 61, and probably most other units that have supposedly "not done a good enough job harvesting deer".

So much for EAB "ratcheting up the deer kill"! Instead, we'll have another year of many hunters getting PO'ed by a poorly conceived rule. Some will stay home. Wanna bet the total kill in our unit, and many others in the EAB will be lower this year (assuming weather is about the same)?