There will be only 10 EAB units in 2005, they will be : Units 51A, 51B, 54C, 63A, 63B, 64M, 66, 67A, 67B and 68A.
Yes, that just was released. What you might want to add is WHY only 10 units are now going to be in EAB.
And I'll give you a hint...it ain't because the DNR achieved all of their 2004 "goals" with regard to the hunt
Earn-a-buck down to 10 units in 2005
By Dean Bortz
Editor
Madison — DNR wildlife managers and biologists may not agree with hunters’ negative assessments of the 2004 deer season, but they heard the grumbling and are proposing just 10 units for earn-a-buck (EAB) seasons this fall.
"Heard the grumbling"?? Hmmmm, sounds like they finally are realizing they are supposed to be public servants, and not simply bureaucrats who are married to one view. But we'll see...
Same article...
Deer hunters were concerned more units would have been on that list. Using last year’s criteria, there would have been. DNR deer ecologist Keith Warnke said there would have been 34 units, including some repeats from 2004, on the EAB list had the DNR not stiffened its criteria a bit for 2005.
“We’re looking at a very conservative application of earn-a-buck,” Warnke said. “And that list (including the Zone T list) is subject to change. The Natural Resources Board makes final decisions on this.”
Warnke acknowledged that there was a bit of an internal struggle among deer managers and biologists to trim the EAB candidates to the 10 that made the final list.
“It’s a difficult sell from a deer population management perspective in some cases, yes, but we’ve also been listening to hunters and hearing from hunters about earn-a-buck,” Warnke said. “We looked at earn-a-buck from an effectiveness point of view. There were some trade-offs. We looked at whether earn-a-buck will kill more deer. In the 10 proposed units, the answer is an emphatic yes. Would a Zone T season have a similar impact? The answer in those 10 units is no.”
WOW!!! You mean they are actually starting to LISTEN to hunters for a change??
This article did not discuss the unit I hunt, unit 61 and why we are no longer facing EAB. In that case it was because the DNR finally wised up and raised the overwinter target to 20 deer PSM from 15 PSM. And WOOLAH!!!...we're no longer considered "dangerously overpopulated"!
...but...but...but... the DNR was involved!
Even blind squirrels find acorns once in awhile!
The plan is working, and would work better if hunter participation/cooperation would increase.
The landowners are the ones with the biggest stake in this, so it strikes me as somewhat odd to imply that THEY should be doing more on behalf of the DNR. "Eradication" was and is a dumb idea.
Yeah, ..... and what if the audit shows that SAK is "Underestimating" Wisconsin Deer population??? What would you be complaining about then?
Okay, I'm game! Care to bet your deert hunting privledges for LIFE that the audit won't find that????
And here's my prediction as to what we will find: The audit will come back with typically watered down language, saying something like "SAK can be an effective tool in measuring the population of Whitetailed Deer", and then we will hear how it need to be "fine tuned to take into account the unique nature of the herd", or some such pablum. But I doubt it will EVER say anything about it underestimating population...but it will say that it needs to be significantly modified to be accurate.
Or should we trot out the numbers from 2002 that showed the population down by 20%, all because the prior years' buck harvest (the "CWD Year") was way down due to fewer hunters???
Kinda hard to set a new harvest record when you're down by about 50,000 licensed hunters from the record year.
Somehow I doubt you could count on each of the 50,000 hunters to shoot two deer apiece anyway.
BUT IT'S EVEN HARDER TO SET A NEW HARVEST RECORD WHEN THERE AREN'T AS MANY DEER AS THE DNR ESTIMATED!!!!