HuntingNet.com Forums - A little SAK for you.

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Midwest (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest-25/)

- - A little SAK for you. (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest/7361-little-sak-you.html)

A little SAK for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>SAK CALCULATIONS FOR YEAR 1999, UNIT 63A DEER RANGE 295 OVERWINTER GOAL 30

AVG. YRLNG. BUCK PERCENT (AYBP) 75 - AVG. YRLNG. DOE PERCENT (AYDP) 44

IF THIS UNIT IS IN THE NORTHERN OR CENTRAL FOREST F:D RATIOS ARE CALCULATED

FOR THE UNIT GROUPS AND ENTERED AS A CONSTANT FOR EACH UNIT.

IF THIS UNIT IS IN ONE OF THE AG. RANGES, THE F:D RATIO IS 120 FAWNS : 100 DOES

IF THE AYDP IS >= 40 OR 110 FAWNS : 100 DOES IF THE AYDP IS < 40.

FAWN:DOE RATIO (FD) = OBS. FAWNS : OBS. DOES = 120 FAWNS : 100 DOES

ADULT SEX RATIO (ASR) = (AYBP/110)/(AYDP/100) = 1.5

FAWN:BUCK (FB) = FD * ASR = 1.86

EXPANSION FACTOR (EF) = 1 + ASR + FB = 4.4

HARVEST MORTALITY = AYBP * BRR = 75.0 * 0.86 = 0.65

BUCK POPULATION = BUCK KILL / HARVEST MORTALITY = 3050 / 0.65 = 4729

TOTAL POPULATION = BUCK POPULATION * EF = 20849

PRE BOW SEASON DENSITY 71

HARVEST + UNRECOVERED LOSS IN BOW SEASON 2313

PRE GUN SEASON POPULATION 18537

PRE GUN SEASON DENSITY 63

HARVEST + UNRECOVERED LOSS IN GUN SEASON 7292

POST GUN SEASON POPULATION 11244

POST GUN SEASON DENSITY 38
**** OUTPUT FROM PROGRAM SAKCALC **** 02/19/01

SAK CALCULATIONS FOR YEAR 2000, UNIT 63A DEER RANGE 295 OVERWINTER GOAL 30

AVG. YRLNG. BUCK PERCENT (AYBP) 73 - AVG. YRLNG. DOE PERCENT (AYDP) 45

IF THIS UNIT IS IN THE NORTHERN OR CENTRAL FOREST F:D RATIOS ARE CALCULATED

FOR THE UNIT GROUPS AND ENTERED AS A CONSTANT FOR EACH UNIT.

IF THIS UNIT IS IN ONE OF THE AG. RANGES, THE F:D RATIO IS 120 FAWNS : 100 DOES

IF THE AYDP IS >= 40 OR 110 FAWNS : 100 DOES IF THE AYDP IS < 40.

FAWN:DOE RATIO (FD) = OBS. FAWNS : OBS. DOES = 120 FAWNS : 100 DOES

ADULT SEX RATIO (ASR) = (AYBP/110)/(AYDP/100) = 1.5

FAWN:BUCK (FB) = FD * ASR = 1.77

EXPANSION FACTOR (EF) = 1 + ASR + FB = 4.2

HARVEST MORTALITY = AYBP * BRR = 73.0 * 0.85 = 0.62

BUCK POPULATION = BUCK KILL / HARVEST MORTALITY = 3893 / 0.62 = 6274

TOTAL POPULATION = BUCK POPULATION * EF = 26630

PRE BOW SEASON DENSITY 90

HARVEST + UNRECOVERED LOSS IN BOW SEASON 1968

PRE GUN SEASON POPULATION 24662

PRE GUN SEASON DENSITY 84

HARVEST + UNRECOVERED LOSS IN GUN SEASON 6475

POST GUN SEASON POPULATION 18187

POST GUN SEASON DENSITY 62
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Heres a little example of DNR math. Notice the population after the deer hunt in 99 is 38 deer per square mile of deer range. Now after the fawns are born and the prehunt numbers are calculated, it increases to 90 per sq. mile before the 2000 hunt. The deer expansion rate in the midwest is 70% but here we have 136%. Now either bucks can now give birth to fawns or this formula is off.

RE: A little SAK for you.

Where did you get this info?

RE: A little SAK for you.

SAK calcs. come from the DNR.

RE: A little SAK for you.

Nub, Must have been a MILD winter because it looks like all the does had 4 fawns apiece....Yeah...

RE: A little SAK for you.

wdhc: apparently you and I must be the only two who find this amazing. How long do you figure it would take to undo this massive brainwashing?

RE: A little SAK for you.

Hey, last year I saw 2 different sets of triplets, but never any quads.

Must be a mad scientist out there cloning deer to get that extra one!

BTW, where did all the defenders of what a great job the DNR does go to?

RE: A little SAK for you.

Leave it up to our dnr, they are currently working on solving world poverty???????????

RE: A little SAK for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
wdhc: apparently you and I must be the only two who find this amazing. How long do you figure it would take to undo this massive brainwashing?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Oh, I find it interesting, but what do you want everyone to do? Jump on your bandwagon? I'm also interested in what the WDHC has to say, but when I asked for an explanation of certain numbers provided on their stat sheet in this forum, my question went unnoticed. Why should I join an organization that can't take a minute to answer a question?

While some of the DNR's antics do raise eyebrows, the WDHC has yet to show me they are the "righter of wrongs". I had not heard of the WDHC until recently. Forgive me if I'd like to find out more about them before joining.

Simply because I don't gather around your soapbox doesn't mean I'm brainwashed! Sheesh!

RE: A little SAK for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm also interested in what the WDHC has to say, but when I asked for an explanation of certain numbers provided on their stat sheet in this forum, my question went unnoticed. Why should I join an organization that can't take a minute to answer a question?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>G&B: Have you tried sending them your question in an email? Click the email link above their post. I started this thread, not WDHC. Up until I made the post you quoted, no one voiced an opinion either way. Except for WDHC. "Soapbox", "bandwagon", "sheesh"? What part of, I want your opinion on the above calculation did you miss?

RE: A little SAK for you.

Actually, nub, I thought you posted the chart about the yearly kills during the brown years in a thread several weeks ago. WDHC also provided their link with the same chart in that thread. I figured one of you would respond to the question I presented. It doesn't matter anymore.

The soapbox remark refers to all the comments and threads you have made questioning the DNR within the past months. And unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be a staunch supporter of the WDHC and their ideals.

I respect your opinion, but the term "brainwashed" has appeared a lot recently in your reponses as well as others. Simply because I choose not to tell the DNR to kiss my ... and I choose not to give up my gun hunting privileges does not make me brainwashed.

Maybe your more vocal and emotional about the subject. That's cool! But this has turned into more than a discussion. Seems more like a witch hunt.