Wisconsin doe numbers
06-27-2003, 12:18 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North East Illinois
Posts: 140
Wisconsin doe numbers
Maybe this issue has been covered, but I didnt see anything recently on here. I have been away for awhile.
I just saw that my DMZ is offering almost 1,000 less doe tags this year than was applied for last year. Yet, both registration places we went to said the kill # was down and they had a light winter. I would think that the numbers would only be up!
I thought that the possibility of our area becoming a Zone T would be near, but now they are only giving about 2,000 tags.
Has anyone else thought this is goofy?
I just saw that my DMZ is offering almost 1,000 less doe tags this year than was applied for last year. Yet, both registration places we went to said the kill # was down and they had a light winter. I would think that the numbers would only be up!
I thought that the possibility of our area becoming a Zone T would be near, but now they are only giving about 2,000 tags.
Has anyone else thought this is goofy?
06-28-2003, 08:37 AM
#2
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CWD Central, WI.
Posts: 2,062
RE: Wisconsin doe numbers
Not too long ago the DNR admitted they " may" have over estimated the pre hunt herd size last year. That of course would throw numbers off for this year as well as previous years. With this P.O.S. SAK formula they use to guess the herd size, the previous years guess and kill numbers help dertermine thier guess for the next year. They also have to have something like 13 or 18 (can' t recall the #) different modifiers(?) available to them to tweek( or justify) their final numbers. They probably missed the count in your Deer Management Unit (DMU) and are compensating with lower tag numbers. Problem is, when they see the lower antlerless kill this winter, SAK most likely will bump you back into a T zone.
SAK; The never ending cluster fu**![:' (]
If you think you have low doe numbers! I' m in 70a. [:' (]
SAK; The never ending cluster fu**![:' (]
If you think you have low doe numbers! I' m in 70a. [:' (]
06-30-2003, 12:44 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North East Illinois
Posts: 140
RE: Wisconsin doe numbers
Thanks, I see what you mean.
This has me a tad frustrated, as it is hard for me to get a doe tag as is. The last two years have been nice cause we could get them right over the counter, but its not gonna happen that way this year.
We (my group) have not noticed a change in the numbers we have seen over the years, so I am not really sure what they are talking about. Actually, I probably saw more does last year than in the couple years before, now they are saying that there is only 1/2 of that?
Ugh. [:' (][:' (][:@]
This has me a tad frustrated, as it is hard for me to get a doe tag as is. The last two years have been nice cause we could get them right over the counter, but its not gonna happen that way this year.
We (my group) have not noticed a change in the numbers we have seen over the years, so I am not really sure what they are talking about. Actually, I probably saw more does last year than in the couple years before, now they are saying that there is only 1/2 of that?
Ugh. [:' (][:' (][:@]
07-01-2003, 07:14 PM
#4
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sussex WI
Posts: 381
RE: Wisconsin doe numbers
Wow, the WI DNR unable to count deer? Gosh, that' s new! 
Same old story...they always seem to be off by about 4 years. I hunt in unit 61, and about 7 or so years ago, does were almost as thick as sparrows. But it practically took an act of God to get a bonus tag. Then a few years later, after all of the crop damage tags had guys shooting does until their gun barrels drooped over, we were in a t-zone.
Nub summed it up pretty well; SAK screws up everything because it is a statistically invalid model. Look at the past year: buck harvest was down across the state. One of the main variables used in SAK to calculate deer population is?...you guessed it!...buck harvest! Therefore, SAK told the DNR that the deer population was down. Of course, the DNR chose to believe that SAK was accurate when it showed a higher population, but now that it is lower, they are selectively choosing when to believe it and when to ignore it. Apparently Woody, in your unit, they have decided to take a flier on it and assume that the population really is down. Here is an example of the selective spindoctoring they do, from the Wisconsin Outdoor News this past February:
Yes our SAK model tells us the population is down, but we' ll choose to believe that the reality is that the population is really higher due to any of the following: weather, no baiting (thought that didn' t matter?!), lower license sales, Packer football, bowhunters watching " American Idol" ...you name it they' ll throw it out there as a reason for the harvest being off. Anything but blame the beloved SAK model!
Woody, as revolutionary as it may sound, I believe you and your biddies have a better guage on the population in the area than does the WI DNR. Too many governmental bureaucrats trying to play CYA by selectively hiding behind " models" that have a margin of error of +/- 20%.
Same old story...they always seem to be off by about 4 years. I hunt in unit 61, and about 7 or so years ago, does were almost as thick as sparrows. But it practically took an act of God to get a bonus tag. Then a few years later, after all of the crop damage tags had guys shooting does until their gun barrels drooped over, we were in a t-zone.
Nub summed it up pretty well; SAK screws up everything because it is a statistically invalid model. Look at the past year: buck harvest was down across the state. One of the main variables used in SAK to calculate deer population is?...you guessed it!...buck harvest! Therefore, SAK told the DNR that the deer population was down. Of course, the DNR chose to believe that SAK was accurate when it showed a higher population, but now that it is lower, they are selectively choosing when to believe it and when to ignore it. Apparently Woody, in your unit, they have decided to take a flier on it and assume that the population really is down. Here is an example of the selective spindoctoring they do, from the Wisconsin Outdoor News this past February:
The DNR has apparently concluded that the main reason the harvest was down in most areas was because of a lack of hunters.
" We think the deer are still there, so we' ve adjusted our buck recovery rate to reflect that," Nagus said. " That' s why we' ll end up with population numbers that have us looking at Zone T seasons in a lot of units."
Brockman-Mederas says poor hunting conditions played a key role in last Fall' s reduced deer harvest, primarily during the archery season.
" We had windy weather and a wet early fall, which limited bow hunting success," she said. " During the gun season there wasn' t much snow. We didin' t have baiting, which also impacted the antlerless harvest by bowhunters."
" We think the deer are still there, so we' ve adjusted our buck recovery rate to reflect that," Nagus said. " That' s why we' ll end up with population numbers that have us looking at Zone T seasons in a lot of units."
Brockman-Mederas says poor hunting conditions played a key role in last Fall' s reduced deer harvest, primarily during the archery season.
" We had windy weather and a wet early fall, which limited bow hunting success," she said. " During the gun season there wasn' t much snow. We didin' t have baiting, which also impacted the antlerless harvest by bowhunters."
Woody, as revolutionary as it may sound, I believe you and your biddies have a better guage on the population in the area than does the WI DNR. Too many governmental bureaucrats trying to play CYA by selectively hiding behind " models" that have a margin of error of +/- 20%.
07-02-2003, 08:42 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North East Illinois
Posts: 140
RE: Wisconsin doe numbers
Thanks for your thoughts, I was really confused by these numbers. I just couldnt believe that the DNR could be that far off. [:' (]
Well, hopfully there wont be alot of people trying to get their hunters choice permits early, and I will be able to get mine this year.
Good luck this season..............
They dont really do that, do they?
[:' (]Well, hopfully there wont be alot of people trying to get their hunters choice permits early, and I will be able to get mine this year.
Good luck this season..............
bowhunters watching " American Idol"
