Brian & TJD, You both make some great points. I do believe if we broke down the antlerless kill by sex, we would have a better handle on the size and structure of our herd.

[Deleted by Admins]

For anyone outside unit 61, below is the link to the DNR' s map of deer per sq. mile vs the overwinter goal:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...DEER/SAK02.pdf



The problem I have with SAK is illustrated pretty well in your overview of the stats for unit 61. There is no way there are as many deer per sq.mile now (24) as there were in 1994. Not a chance! Especially given the number of deer taken in the various t-zone hunts, ag tags, etc.
I tried to find the per unit total harvest going back to 1992, but was unable to locate on the vast DNR website. The total statewide numbers for gun season from 1992 until now are as follows(rounded to the nearest thousand) : 289k, 217k, 308k, 398k, 388k, 292k, 332k, 402k, 528k, 361k. I' ll bet for the most part unit 61 saw similar trends.

Here' s what is interesting. Note that comparing the harvest in 1992 to 2000 there was a net increase of roughly 240,000 deer, or an increase of about 80%. That is again, the total harvest. During 1992, of that total 111,000 were bucks. During 2001, bucks accounted for 171k of the total harvest; an increase of about 60%. During the same period, however, the antlerless harvest differential is staggering: 177k in 1992 up to 357k in 2000, an increase of 180,000 deer, or an increase of just over 100%! Given the number of t-zones, etc. not an unsuprising statistic.

But now back to SAK. The main variable in trying to calculate deer population is the prior years' buck kill. The buck kill here rose as at a percentage by 60%. Yet antlerless kill more than doubles during the same period. Unless mature whitetail bucks are now capable of giving birth, how does the population of deer stay the same with a doubling of the antlerless harvest? Now this year, the buck harvest falls to 114k, and what is SAK saying? There are fewer deer! Again, the flaw of the system is that it assumes hunter behavior. Lower buck harvest, before a subjective adjustment is thrown in, indicates fewer deer. Larger buck harvest- more deer. Based on the formula, the DNR cannot declare success in any unit until most hunters are so PO' ed about not seeing deer that they give up. Apparently then the DNR can say they have hit their magical overwinter target in each unit.

What a system!

Did anyone read the WON article where they were talking about the population and the 15 factors involved with figuring the Buck Recovery Rate ? The one main factor, not even mentioned, is the buck fawn harvest. We all know it' s gone way up with tzone and EAB. The other pile came from Hauge- Now, we KNOW that bucks die twice as fast as does. We' ve heard this from Mytton and others. It' s a crock. They should look at their own numbers over the last 10 years. We' ve been killing closer to 1:1 than 2:1. When the SAK came about, we were killing about 4 bucks per doe, and registering each deer for what it was. It' s time for an oil change, and a new filter.

Kind of going along with WDHC' s point, I thought continuing this on a new thread might make it easier to read/edit, etc. See " Can the WI DNR count deer?, Pt II"