B
bat man
Guest
our dnr is flirting with using buck harvest as the gauge for 'goal'
Will it work over time? Does number of hunters factor in?
Will it work over time? Does number of hunters factor in?
biglakeba$$
5 year old buck +
I would like to know what buck harvest means
Is it adult bucks? or is it all bucks?
My manager sent me data several months ago claiming our populations are stable based on a fairly stable buck harvest.
I dont recall the exact numbers, but he claimed our buck harvest was down 12% or something like that.
I had to correct his numbers because he used only the ADULT buck harvest numbers for firearms ONLY from 2006, and compared it to ADULT buck harvest numbers for all weapons in 2013.
So for starters he used wrong numbers, and the actual buck harvest decline was more like 20%.
I also inquired if buck harvest is measured with only adult bucks, or if the buck harvest they use is all bucks(fawn bucks and adult bucks).
When calculating overall buck harvest(fawns and adults) decline using 2006 data with all weapons and compared to 2013, our overall buck harvest was down 26% if I recall correctly.
So the guy managing my deer sits at a desk and tells me populations are stable because he has a 12% decline in buck harvest, but when you use correct numbers its actually a 26% decline in harvest..
Pretty frustrating stuff.
Is it adult bucks? or is it all bucks?
My manager sent me data several months ago claiming our populations are stable based on a fairly stable buck harvest.
I dont recall the exact numbers, but he claimed our buck harvest was down 12% or something like that.
I had to correct his numbers because he used only the ADULT buck harvest numbers for firearms ONLY from 2006, and compared it to ADULT buck harvest numbers for all weapons in 2013.
So for starters he used wrong numbers, and the actual buck harvest decline was more like 20%.
I also inquired if buck harvest is measured with only adult bucks, or if the buck harvest they use is all bucks(fawn bucks and adult bucks).
When calculating overall buck harvest(fawns and adults) decline using 2006 data with all weapons and compared to 2013, our overall buck harvest was down 26% if I recall correctly.
So the guy managing my deer sits at a desk and tells me populations are stable because he has a 12% decline in buck harvest, but when you use correct numbers its actually a 26% decline in harvest..
Pretty frustrating stuff.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
S-A-K is the method that was used in WI for many years, and it is still the preeminent metric used today(but not the only one). It is not perfect, but it is still looked upon as one of the most accurate ways to measure deer population. It has a few naysayers, but most deer managers see it as one of the best things available to monitor populations. I will post a link for you at the bottom. Here is a snip from that link.
"SAK is a time-tested model that has been independently reviewed for reliability and precision several times. According to outside experts, the amount of data collected and the way SAK is used make Wisconsin's deer population estimate one of the best in the nation."
http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2009/10/deer.htm
"SAK is a time-tested model that has been independently reviewed for reliability and precision several times. According to outside experts, the amount of data collected and the way SAK is used make Wisconsin's deer population estimate one of the best in the nation."
http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2009/10/deer.htm
The way I look at it if you have more hunters the harvest should increase relative to increased hunters if the population is not being over harvested. If you add 25 percent more hunters and the harvest is consistent or going down the herd is being over harvested.
biglakeba$$
5 year old buck +
We have 9% more firearms hunters today than we had 7 years ago, and our harvest is down 34%.
My wildlife manager cant seem to put it together that there is a problem.
My wildlife manager cant seem to put it together that there is a problem.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Pretty sure he knew exactly what numbers he was giving you and didn't think you would catch it, after being called out he just played stupid. Your manager doesn't think there is a problem. He likes things just like they are.
I heard the same thing from my manager. When asked if the hunter numbers went up does that still mean if the harvest is the same, you still have the same numbers of deer. I thought maybe he hung up the phone, because there was a 5 second pause in the conversation with him! Who would have thunk? We had antlerless tags up to 5. So some hunters that would want to harvest a buck, would pass on does until a buck was harvested. If you shot a doe first, LEAGALLY you could not shoot a buck.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
It works just fine in WI to gauge the herd on a DMU/County wide level. After all, it is based on data on a county by county basis. On a smaller scale I would agree, the smaller the section the less accurate the data set. That said, the only real way to get those numbers over small areas is to count them by aerial survey, which can be time and cost prohibitive. It also does not work well where harvest manipulation rules like Earn-A-Buck and APR's are in place. The data set is skewed by the fact that hunters are required to shoot a given sex or age of animal by rule, so the model receives data that does not reflect the actual mix of the herd. The issue is when the DNR has an agenda to lower the herd, they know how many deer they need to kill every year to keep the population stable, via the model and historic hunter success rates. When they want to reduce, they issue tags beyond that number, most of the time, well beyond.
The thing with S-A-K is, it has to be in place for a while and have accurate numbers to start with, because it relies on kill data from the previous season to give you next years estimate and long term historic data is used to adjust the model.
The thing with S-A-K is, it has to be in place for a while and have accurate numbers to start with, because it relies on kill data from the previous season to give you next years estimate and long term historic data is used to adjust the model.
sandbur
5 year old buck +
I have a 2 page spread sheet on buck and fawn buck harvest for my area.
I also heard an unofficial comment from a state forestry employee in north central Minnesota. He feels the area manager sits in the office and does not really know what is going on with the deer. This forestry technician is a many generational deer hunter and he knows what the population really is.-- Toooo low.
SmallChunk
5 year old buck +
Wouldn't/shouldn't the buck # be higher last year due to people only getting to shoot one deer or due to having buck only regions too?
B
bat man
Guest
I don't know. Looking to this group for the answers. Waiting for Dip and NOVEMBER to weigh in. And maybe Smith will take a stab.
Batman, I believe that no ONE factor can be used determine our population and/or goal. The DNR should have all the harvest data they need at this point. What they need now is better survey data and people who can do an honest analysis of all factors in an unbiased way beyond all special interests and financial pressures. Can this happen? I have my doubts if they are determined to continue to hide past failures with skewed numbers.
On another note: In my opinion....The food shelf program so successfully implemented in the area I hunt in WI, only hastened the decine of populations in areas that should have never had unlimited doe tags for as long as they did. That program was not put in place so people could mow down everything brown and drop them off at the processors by the pickup load. I witnessed it multiple times. Very sad.
Freeborn
5 year old buck +
I read through the SAK overview provided and with its use of several calculations to estimate the deer population looks like a very good methodology. I would support the use of SAK.
Would using only buck harvest numbers work as an estimator of the deer herd; only if it was applied over a long time period and even with that would not provide other beneficial information like age structure and buck to doe ratio. Basically if buck numbers are consistent over the long term (more years is better) there should be a correlation between the number of deer and the number of bucks harvested. In the short term (5 years?) the model could be inaccurate because of changes in the number of hunters and # of license sold. In the long run buck harvest numbers should decline if the deer population declines (statistical correlation) unless there would be a change in the doe to buck ratio which probably is stable on a sample as large as a state wide deer population.
As a tax payer and a hunter I would like a model that actually told us more information about the herd and only measuring buck harvest is bare minimum.
Would using only buck harvest numbers work as an estimator of the deer herd; only if it was applied over a long time period and even with that would not provide other beneficial information like age structure and buck to doe ratio. Basically if buck numbers are consistent over the long term (more years is better) there should be a correlation between the number of deer and the number of bucks harvested. In the short term (5 years?) the model could be inaccurate because of changes in the number of hunters and # of license sold. In the long run buck harvest numbers should decline if the deer population declines (statistical correlation) unless there would be a change in the doe to buck ratio which probably is stable on a sample as large as a state wide deer population.
As a tax payer and a hunter I would like a model that actually told us more information about the herd and only measuring buck harvest is bare minimum.
B
bat man
Guest
FREEBORN
Can you make a statement that if hunter numbers have increased 25% at a steady pace over the past 10 years, and the buck harvest has declined 25% at a steady pace that the herd is down 50% or is that not accurate.
The reports the DNR have handed out claim since buck harvest is fairly steady, the herd is about the same size. The numbers above would not indicate that to me, but they don't talk hunter numbers (effort) in the packets
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I would not say that 25% more hunters and a 25% decrease in buck kill would necessarily point to a 50% overall decrease in the deer herd. That might be a stretch. I think even a statistician that new anything about population dynamics would say the same thing. It absolutely points to a significant decline, but may not correlate to or equal a full 50%. Just because the math looks like it works, there are other factors at play in this situation. IF you are talking statewide, the APR's in the SE would surely skew the statewide figure, because they are forced to shoot does in some instances if they do not see a legal buck, so the buck harvest in the SE may be down, but the herd is still in good shape overall in those areas. What about the few years that you had CWD related rules in some areas? I don't know what that rule package entailed, but whatever it was it could also skew the numbers. The WI DNR fully admits that the S-A-K model is not accurate in special rule circumstances like Earn-A-Buck areas. Another factor the DNR does not want you to consider is that with excessive doe tags being issued over large areas for many years, buck kill means very little. When you kill 1 buck or doe and you are done, those numbers would make for a somewhat accurate gauge, when you can kill 3 or 4 does on top of that buck, in just a few short years, the herd can be decimated due to the overkill of the antlerless, even though the buck population/kill would seem fairly stable over that short time. And with books that have been cooked so many times that they resemble a piece of charcoal, I don't know how any numbers in MN could be deemed as remotely accurate at this point.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
S-A-K has a proven track record since the 1960's, WI also uses many other metrics to generate their numbers besides S-A-K. It is the factoring and adjustments(checks and balances, as it were) that these other metrics provide that keep the S-A-K model performing as it should and keep it's accuracy at a high level. For all the b!tch!ng WI hunters do about the deer herd and the DNR, when they were considering throwing out the S-A-K model and going to strictly social management, there was a HUGE uproar throughout the state to keep it in play, even the Fudd's came out of the woodwork to support keeping S-A-K as a primary metric for monitoring deer numbers. Please don't agree to let them use just one metric to gauge your deer herd, it would be a disservice to all those that put in so much hard work to get you to this point. The ball is slowly rolling into your guys court, once it does, keep the momentum going and get changes that follow the science using many metrics. Don't forget that hunter input and field surveys are a big part of making these decisions as well. Get them to use as many science based metrics as you can and use the "social observations" to adjust those metrics. I feel that is where you need to be.
B
bat man
Guest
Where do I find info supporting this?
