Tom, I believe the quotas are set when they are through necessity and general timing. What alternative would you propose? Doing the count earlier is not feasible. Sure, they could possibly wait a month or so longer to include those count numbers in the quota, but the archery season starts before the field survey is even over and bonus antlerless permits go on sale a month before that in mid-August, just as the field survey is getting started. The problem lies with the fact that field counts any earlier than what we do them now are extremely hard to do and therefore highly inaccurate. The woods are to thick and the fawns are to reclusive to get an accurate count, the fawn count would be highly suspect. Many does will not expose their fawns to roadsides and open fields where they can be easily counted until after they are a few months old. It would be next to impossible to get an accurate count in June and July with the heavy foliage. It is a very slippery slope no matter what one does. I totally understand what you are explaining about the 2013 season, and having the DNR adjust on the fly when numbers are shown to be lower than expected through in-field counts and surveys. But again, that is also not really a feasible alternative, the problem lies in that the field counts are most accurate in August and Sept but the seasons are about to start and all the permits have already been sold. It would be a huge undertaking for the state to have to refund all those permit fees and for the hunters to have to return all the extra, then non-valid permits. The only possible alternative I see to allow for the most up to date and accurate counts to have a direct impact on quotas for the year they are affecting would be to end the counts on Sept 15th to start compiling the data and then start the bow season a month later(around Oct 15th instead of Sept 15th) and not sell any bonus permits until after that time as well, so the numbers from the count could be complied and included in the quota setting process. All of that will be considered too late in the game by not only the DNR but the general public as well. Maybe I am not thinking far enough outside the box, but right or wrong, the timeframe is what it is and there isn't much that can be done about that situation that the hunters would not scream about. More flexibility by the DNR would be nice, but the feasibility of that walks a fine line? I don't think there is a good answer without hard choices by the DNR and hunters as well. The public Deer Watch program has been in affect in some form since 2009 and the mailed-in hunter surveys have been around far longer than that, since the mid-80's at least, all of which have been/are used to adjust the SAK model. EAB was first used in 1996 and was not used again until until 2002 and then only in CWD affected areas. It wasn't until 2004 that it was expanded into "other" areas of the state, so it does not surprise me at all that it was pointed out in 2006 that SAK didn't work with EAB rules, I would say they figured it out pretty quickly really. Figuring out it didn't work just 2 years after it was put into large scale use is not bad. As far as SAK not being used in EAB areas, the SAK data was compiled as it has been since the 60's, but it was not used to set quotas. Think about it, why would it have been, EAB zones need no data to set quotas, the quota is set by the number of bucks harvested and subsequently a doe for every buck kill. It was kill 'em all. For every buck registered, they already knew that a doe would be shot, no need to look any further than that. If historical data said 2,000 bucks were killed overall in that zone, they automatically assumed that 2,000+ does would also be killed. I agree that SAK is only good if used properly, and keep in mind the metrics they use to adjust it are constantly changing, similar to when EAB was put into affect, they had no idea how EAB would affect the overall model, and they adjusted when they did figure it out. The problem with EAB is it was grossly overused and I feel it was done purposely to meet the Forestry industry agenda of reducing the population. Again, I think the problem lies in the way they issue bonus antlerless permits when the model shows that a decrease in population is in order. Something must be done about the over-issuance of bonus antlerless permits when populations become high and warrant a decrease in the herd. I don't have a clue on an answer for that, but it is one area where the DNR has overstepped on many occasions.
