Buck harvest as herd indicator

[Freeborn]

Take a look at how SAK is calculated. There is an assumption that when deer are born there will be a 50/50 buck to doe ratio. If that is the case and with that over time the exact same number of bucks are being harvest it would imply the same number of does are present to have those bucks. If that wasn’t the case eventually the decline in does would cause a decline in the number of bucks born and harvested. Of course this relationship will hold true over the long run but in the short run (2-4 years) I think it enables more manipulation of the numbers if the managers want to screw with the numbers.

I still like the SAK allot better as it uses several data points therefore will have less variability (swings in population and more accurate counts) then just counting the number of bucks harvested.

 

[bat man]

If that wasn’t the case eventually the decline in does would cause a decline in the number of bucks born and harvested. Of course this relationship will hold true over the long run but in the short run (2-4 years) I think it enables more manipulation of the numbers if the managers want to screw with the numbers.

.

If they change the goal to bucks harvested per hunters in the zone, would it be a decent system?

 

[Freeborn]

If they change the goal to bucks harvested per hunters in the zone, would it be a decent system?

I like the idea of limiting the number of total licenses but it could be interesting if you required a buck lottery for particular zones. In Minnesota we have always got a buck license if you purchased a license.

It would make sense that you would control hunting pressure by limiting the ratio of tags available for harvest to the number of hunters. There would be zones then that not everyone would get a license.

 

[Greta&Gus]

If they made the buck license only available via a draw system, what would they need to charge to make the same amount as now? Would anyone be willing to only get a chance to shoot a deer once every 2 or 3 years?

 

[wiscwhip]

Wisc earn-a buck doesnt screw up SAK in the year that it happens it screws it up in the years following. Also it was the outside Audit that told DNR that earn-a-buck messed up SAK or otherwise our DNR still would be still using it the same as before earn-a-buck. There is a very simple method to do the survey before they set quotas, it is called Trail cameras. The Wisconsin DNR needs to get with technology. If they would raise license fee 1 dollar to be designated to buy Trail cameras they could buy $800,000 dollars worth of trailcamera equipment to verify that their SAK estimates are accurate.

I understand it takes a few years for the discrepancies to show up in the model, which is why it took till 2006 to see the results of the widespread use of EAB in 2004. I love the trailcam idea, see I wasn't thinking far enough outside the box. Great plan, but even with the use of trailcams, the DNR will need some kind of metric to evaluate how many fawns we start with in June and how many we have when the season starts in Sept. I think it will also show the true amount of predation during the first 3 months after fawning and help pinpoint areas with high predator issues. The DNR must also like your idea, starting this fall, folks can get involved with the Snapshot Wisconsin Program. Anyone interested in hosting a trailcamera on their property should apply. I am going to check into whether they need volunteers to help with cameras on public lands. http://dnr.wi.gov/news/releases/article/?id=3115

For the MN guys, keep in mind that SAK uses many different data sets, but it does weigh heavily on the 1.5 year old buck harvest metric. So one of the primary data sets used even in SAK is buck harvest.

 

[wiscwhip]

Where do I find info supporting this?

Brooks, I haven't located any specific verbiage to point to this, but I did find a chart from The University of West Virginia Extension Service titled FUNDAMENTALS OF DEER HARVEST MANAGEMENT. I will post the chart below and a link to the whole document at the end.

If one were to use the chart to track theoretical kill, it is easy to see that just 2 or 3 antlerless tags per man can decimate a population in a few short years. If you notice, those numbers will put you in the "Decrease Rapidly" category. Say for instance that Ole owns a 640 square with his brother Sven and they hunt it with their 2 boys Olaf and Bjorn. Their sq mile holds 30 deer, 15 bucks and 15 does. All 4 of them get their buck. 11 bucks and 15 does. Using bonus tags they kill 6 does. 11 bucks and 9 does, 20 deer total. Next spring 9 does give birth to 9 fawns that make it to the following hunting season(that's being generous, .83-.88 is normal), 5 bucks and 4 does(assuming the natural lean towards buck fawns). 29 deer, 15 bucks and 13 does make it to the next season, assume the same kill. 4 bucks and 6 does killed leaves you with 11 bucks and now just 7 does. 18 total deer, but less than 50% of the reproductive capacity of the original 15 does just 2 years before. Let's do 1 more year. 18 deer, still 11 bucks, only 7 does. The does have 7 more fawns that make it till fall, 4 bucks and 3 does. You now have 15 bucks and 10 does. Given the same kill rate a 3rd year, you end up with 11 bucks again, but just 4 does left, not good. It is a rather simplistic example I know, but you can plainly see the result in a short time and the buck kill looks stable. After just 2 years you can see the trend that buck numbers remain stable, but the does are reduced along with their potential to increase the herd. Long term numbers may look more stable overall, but short term variations like this due to excessive issuance of antlerless permits are a huge factor in decreasing numbers and as many of us have seen, hard to overcome.

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/wildlife/deer.pdf

 

[sandbur]

If they made the buck license only available via a draw system, what would they need to charge to make the same amount as now? Would anyone be willing to only get a chance to shoot a deer once every 2 or 3 years?

I sure could not justify the expense of habitat management, taxes, and insurance to only hunt deer once every 2 or 3 years. Land values would drop in some cases. Youth involvement would drop. Outdoor related business would suffer.
Would anyone be able to hunt with family or a hunting party at a deer camp?

Remember many of us either can not or should not be shooting does at this time., We would have no tags for some years.

 

[bat man]

I was not talking about a buck lottery. I was talking about goal setting. We have 25% more guys gunning my zone in the past 10 years. If buck harvest is the bar, there must be a percent success or quantity per hunter factor (same thing) to adjust for pressure inside ecological guidelines (which we are so far from its crazy)

 

[biglakeba$$]

I dont see how a buck lottery is even in the realm of discussion at this time.
We need deer first, then we can talk about buck lottery, APR, or whatever else.

 

[Freeborn]

I was not talking about a buck lottery. I was talking about goal setting. We have 25% more guys gunning my zone in the past 10 years. If buck harvest is the bar, there must be a percent success or quantity per hunter factor (same thing) to adjust for pressure inside ecological guidelines (which we are so far from its crazy)

Makes sense and I Like the idea. The offset would be to manage the doe harvest via how the zone is categorized and the number of doe permits.

 

[bat man]

Makes sense and I Like the idea. The offset would be to manage the doe harvest via how the zone is categorized and the number of doe permits.

Doe tag allocation needs to be tied to a legitimate data set to actually manage the herd size.

 

[biglakeba$$]

You mean to say that when the 2007 stakeholder decision to stabilize the deer population in permit area 240, and they kept intensive harvest tag allocations for 2 additional years; that was not a wise management decision by our trusted DNR???

 

[sandbur]

Brooks-have the teams been provided with any information on how the $5 youth doe tags are affecting harvest and population? Are the adult doe tags reduced to compensate?

I am not in favor of denying youth the tags, but fear many are filled by adults in lottery areas, legal or not.