cheese-head

I heard that the Dnr plans to Place Radio tracking colars on around 100 deer in the eradication zone. It seems they want to study just how far the deer will roam. Really does make alot of sence to spend all the money colaring the deer when in fact the DNR wants them dead. Hmmmm sounds really smart to me. I guess it is easyer to dart these deer rather then shoot them. ( dont get me wrong i dont think we need to kill the herd off) And just one other thing with the state budget the way it is does this make sence. I guess I will just gladly an' ty up my licence money when they increase them because I" m shure it will be spent wisely. [:@] Cheese-head

nub

The study you refering to is by the University WI. They came around my neighborhood asking to set live traps at bait piles. I believe it was done with the approval of the WDNR tho. It would have to be for them start baiting while there was still a ban. We had a thread somewhere in this forum a while back on the subject although I don' t think it had a lot of hits.

Speaking of DUMB tho, have you heard? The DNR themselves have now said they missed the estimated herd size going into the 02 season by around 500,000 deer! []

TJD

Nub, here' s the article from the Wisconsin Outdoor News:

Deer estimates 2003: Lower than expected?

By Dean Bortz
Editor
Madison — Just after the Natural Resources Board (NRB) chairman asked DNR wildlife officials for options on a longer gun deer season under emergency rule for 2003, there came early rumblings within the agency that the first cut at a 2003 deer population estimate came in lower than expected.
On Jan. 22, the date of the last NRB meeting in Madison, board chairman Trig Solberg said that, based on a lower-than-expected deer harvest in 2002, a drop in gun and archery hunter numbers, and a mild winter, it seemed reasonable to expect the 2003 deer population estimate to run beyond the estimate of 1.6 million deer heading into the 2002 deer seasons. With that in mind, Solberg said it might be necessary to adopt a longer gun season for the 2003 season under emergency rule. He asked DNR wildlife officials to bring any and all options for a longer season to the next NRB meeting, which will be Feb. 26 in Madison.
At that time, Tom Hauge, DNR Bureau of Wildlife Management director, said it might be a bit early to start thinking that way; DNR biologists and wildlife managers had just started running 2002 deer harvest statistics through the state’s sex-age-kill (SAK) formula.
About one week later, the DNR’s deer committee, which includes two wildlife managers from each of the DNR’s five regions, plus Central Office staff, took a look at the raw data. Numbers tossed around within the committee that week weren’t supposed to leak out, but word reached Solberg that the first cut came up with a population estimate of 1.2 to 1.4 million deer for 2003, after spring fawn production.
If those numbers are accurate, that would mean there would have to be about 1.1 million deer, or perhaps less, on the ground right now. That also would mean the 1.6 million estimate for 2002 was high.
“If that ends up being the number, that’s crazy,” Solberg said.
But, a number of DNR managers and biologists said deer hunters who follow the annual SAK millings and antlerless quota-setting process should temper any reactions to early numbers.
Robert Rolley of Madison is the DNR’s population ecologist. Rolley grinds out that final number after receiving all kinds of input from managers and biologists around the state. The final 2003 population estimate, antlerless quota, and list of Zone T units will not be determined until Feb. 13 or Feb. 14. That list is due for release on Feb. 14 or Feb. 15.
“So far, we haven’t talked about spring numbers,” said Rolley, in an interview on Jan. 31. “We’re still working through numbers. I haven’t estimated it (statewide deer numbers) yet, and until I do, there is no number. I’m not sure who is coming up with 1.4 million,” he said.
DNR wildlife managers Tom Bahti of Green Bay and Mike Zeckmeister of Antigo said hunters should know that the SAK formula isn’t like a state or federal income tax form, where the bean counters put numbers in the blanks, push a button and come up with a number. While the SAK relies on the previous year’s buck kill to help biologists reach a population estimate for the following year, the rules aren’t hard and fast.
DNR deer researcher Tim Van Deelen and retired researcher Keith McCaffery, both of Rhinelander, said there are at least 15 outside factors that must be rolled into the creation of this year’s population estimate, with some of the factors being the “prion fear,” reduced hunter numbers, the latest possible gun opener, the baiting ban, and weather during archery season and, to a lesser extent, the gun season.
“When the gun deer season opener changes from Nov. 17 to Nov. 23, you can usually count on a 10 to 15 percent decrease in buck kill; history shows us that,” Zeckmeister said.
Because the SAK relies heavily on the buck kill to reach its conclusion for a population estimate, a decreased buck kill caused for any reason, such as a late opener, would incorrectly tell wildlifers that the overall population is lower than it really is.
That’s where human evaluation comes into play in the SAK.
“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.
“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.
“If you’re hearing 1.4 million, that’s premature and I’m not sure who is generating it,” McCaffery said. “Every year, there is a discussion on how to interpret harvest numbers and the population estimate of the prior season. This year there may be more discussion than normal because of unusual nature of the season, license sales, the fair bit of CWD paranoia, which was especially strong during the archery season, the restriction on baiting, you name it. The managers and biologists are trying their best to sort out various factors that may have influenced harvest.”
Rolley and Zeckmeister said the DNR’s best estimates will be resolved in a meeting on Feb. 14.
Those estimates will be available to hunters who attend the more than 40 deer unit review meetings that will begin Monday, Feb. 17 and run through Feb. 27 (for a list of those meetings, please see the Outdoor Calendar on page 42 of this issue).
When it comes to evaluating the 15 or so factors that could have played a role in setting up the 2002 deer harvest, Zeckmeister noted that a wet fall probably played a role in suppressing the archery harvest. So far, all of the talk around the drop in the bow kill has blamed the baiting ban. Zeckmeister said that from Sept. 13 through the October Zone T opener, there were 39 days of rain at two times the volume and three times the duration of an average year.
“If you’re a conscientious bow hunter, do you shoot at a deer in a steady rain? I think that contributed to the depressed archery kill,” he said.

TJD

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:

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. 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... 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" ?

nub

[:@]Can you say " Spin Doctors" ?[:' (] Kind of like saying SAK don' t work, so we' ll just adjust it to where we feel it should be. Maybe they should have been counting all those nubbins shot in the T Zone seasons instead of just tossing in a percentage they dreamed up in the 60' s.

wdhc

The collaring project is the pet (no pun meant) project of Van Deelen. At a time of money shortage, they should not be dumping 2.5 million on some dumb pet project.
As for Keith, he has retired, supposedly. But since he' s talking, I would like to know the 15 factors. I bet they all start with s and have 4 letters.

Here is some more good news:

Group Bagging rears it' s ugly head again. BEWARE BOWHUNTERS

Get the word out!!!!

Here' s the actual link:http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-b...rowse_Frame_Pg



Introduced Feb 5th. Section 1. 29.324 (1) (b) of the statutes is amended to
read:

" Group deer hunting party" means 2 or more hunters hunting in a group ALL
USING FIREARMS, each of whom holds an individual license to hunt deer.

ALL USING FIREARMS would be stricken from the current definition of a group
deer hunting party.

Sponsors are Represetatives: Gunderson, Suder, J. Wood, Ainsworth, Albers,
Balow, Bies, Friske, Gronemus, Grothman, Hahn, Hines, Olsen, Ott, Owens,
Petrowski, Plouff, Serati, Shilling, Stone, and Van Roy. Co-sponsored by
Senators, Lazich, and Robson. Reffered to Committee on Natural Resources.

I was notified of this bill and here are comments from the person posting
this information:
" AB 26 expands the group bagging authority. Under AB 26, members of a hunting
party that tag deer for others will no longer have to be" in posesion of a
firearm" That not only legalizes group bagging for bowhunting, but encourages
convicted felons, non-hunting spouses, kids, neighbors, etc to buy a license
to tag others deer. This is clearly designed to sell more licenses. With the
drop in license sales and a short DNR budget this will get a lot of support.
There are no restrictions to antlerless only either. The result will be an
increased harvest of bucks, filling the freezers with venison that grew
horns. We must keep some integrity in our hunting community and not whore out
licenses just to raise revenue. If they want to increase license sales they
should add value to the license by increasing the bag limit.