ORIGINAL: TJD
1) So what?? With that being the case, shouldn't the number of EAB units and t-zones DROP next year?? Yet the preliminary talk from the DNR is to INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS AFFECTED.
There will be only 10 EAB units in 2005, they will be : Units 51A, 51B, 54C, 63A, 63B, 64M, 66, 67A, 67B and 68A.
The number of T-zone units will increase by 2 or 3 in 2005. Proposed T-Zone units include: 1, 1M, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22A, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29A, 30, 46, 47, 54B, 57, 57B, 59B, 59C, 59D, 59M, 60A, 60M, 61, 62A, 62B, 64, 65A, 65B, 68B, 69, 73B, 73D, 74A, 76A, 77C, 77M, 78, 80A, 80B and 81.
ORIGINAL: TJD
2) And what is that in PERCENTAGE terms?
About 0.71%, but considering CWD and a national decrease in hunter numbers, any increase is a very positive sign.
ORIGINAL: TJD
3) I agree that the venison donation programs were finally organized efficiently. So that indeed was a successful aspect of the 2004 season.
...but...but...but... the DNR was involved!
ORIGINAL: TJD
4) So I guess since the DNR wasn't even able to come close to their goal of ERADICATION in the CWD zones, it is proving that was an unnecessary, unrealistic goal for the "zone", isn't it?
The plan is working, and would work better if hunter participation/cooperation would increase.
ORIGINAL: TJD
And it appears that since the DNR has some egg on their faces this year...and some well deserved political pressure...they are finally implementing an audit of the SAK method of estimating deer population, after years of insisting that they just didn't have the money or resources. This of course, even though they had AGREED to do it as part of the Deer 2000 program.
Yeah, ..... and what if the audit shows that
SAK is "Underestimating" Wisconsin Deer population???
What would you be complaining about then?