Ron's outdoor blog. - Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing

Ron's outdoor blog.
« Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 1, 2012, 6:42pm

Ron's outdoor blog. :: Hunting and oudoor interests :: Deer population and Herd issues :: Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing

Author

Topic: Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing (Read 681 times)

Ron Kulas
Administrator

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 413
Location: SE WI

Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing
« Thread Started on Dec 17, 2009, 9:53pm »

You can view the testimony at the following link. Look for

"12.17.09 | Joint Committee on Natural Resources"

http://www.wiseye.org/wisEye_programming/ARCHIVES-jointcommittees.html

My testimony begins at the 57:55 minute mark.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Ron Kulas
Administrator

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 413
Location: SE WI

Re: Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing
« Reply #1 on Dec 22, 2009, 8:06am »

Below are my testimony notes for today's Joint legislative hearing on deer goals. this legislatie portion is the final step in the goals setting process that I was a part of during the summer. Following the goals setting portion, the hearing will turn to the 2009 deer season.

Population Goals and Good Hunting

WI State Statute 29

29.014 Rule−making for this chapter. (1) The department shall establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish and game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions governing the taking of fish and game that will conserve the fish and game supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued opportunities for good fishing, hunting and trapping.

The DNR is mandated to manage the deer population to goal. All season structures, quotas and management prescriptions are based on how far the calculated population is from the goal.

Goals are a fixed number. Regardless of what the population goal is, the state cannot manage the population, Set season structure, Set quotas or enact proper management prescriptions unless they are able to determine how far the deer population is from the goal. You cannot balance your checkbook without knowing your starting or current balance. Goal setting is pointless and frustrating if you don't know how far you are from reaching the goal.

Did this year's deer harvest bring us to goal? The calculated post hunt population tells the Department where the herd is in regards to reaching the goal. Without proper and calibrated tools to gauge the herd in relationship to the goal, managers can neither diagnose the condition nor prescribe seasons to reach that goal next year. While goal setting is important, the ability to verify management practices are getting us there are key. Regardless of what the goal is, if we don't know if we have reached it or passed it, we will be back here again discussing deer herd management.

1. Determine deer goals for total square miles of area and not square miles of habitat/range.

Most of the Deer Management units that are habitually over goal are units that have significant areas that are not currently defined as deer habitat. The biological carrying capacity of farmland areas is 80 to 100 deer per sq. mile. The goals are set at 20 to 25 deer per sq. mile or range. This may equate to 10 to 12 deer per square mile of total land area. These goals are set at social carrying capacity yet most farmers and landowners will never reduce the deer down to these low goals. Land owners paying recreational rate property taxes do not consider this good hunting. A simple solution to this would be to establish goals per sq. mi. of total land area like virtually every other state and increase the goals to a level hunters support.

2. Establish deer population goals at a level capable of sustaining an annual total hunter harvest (all seasons, gun, bow, tribal, crop damage etc.) of 400,000 deer plus the 15% wounding loss and the non-harvest mortality.

It has been stated by the DNR that at currently established goal, hunters can expect to harvest roughly 270,000 to 290,000 deer. Since 1990 hunters have harvested over 400,000 deer annually except for 4 years including this yea,r which may end up at roughly 300,000 to 320,000. It is clear that this year’s level falls short of what hunters consider good deer hunting. To sustain a harvest of 400,000 deer and account for non-harvest mortalities the over winter goal needs to be at least between 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 deer over winter or just under 25 deer per sq. mi. of total land area, well within the biological carrying capacity of most of the state. For the last 10 years, DNR’s population estimates have been within that range while car deer collisions and crop damage complaints and harvests have declined.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Ron Kulas
Administrator

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 413
Location: SE WI

Re: Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing
« Reply #2 on Dec 22, 2009, 8:07am »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Ron Kulas
Administrator

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 413
Location: SE WI

Re: Dec. 17th 2009 Madison deer hearing
« Reply #3 on Dec 22, 2009, 8:07am »

With the Department indicating winters classified as mild in 07 and 08, how can the lowest expansion rate in decades be explained?

Year ...................................................................................Calculated pre-hunt pop.

1994 (preceded the highest gun buck and car/deer crash year) ...................... 1,383,001

1999 (preceded the 2nd Highest gun buck and car/deer crash year) .................1,662,987

2003 (preceded the expanded use of EAB in 2004) ........................................ 1,663,485

2008 (preceded this year's hunting season)...................................................1,523,800

Population modeling tools calculated the 08 pre-hunt population was larger than 94's and within 8% of 1999 and 2003 while gun buck and car/deer numbers show a 40% decline.

Excerpt of letter from Rep. Hraychuck and Sen. Holperin to DNR Sec. (April 21, 2009)

" Therefore, it is our recommendation that EAB be suspended indefinitely, except in chronic wasting disease deer management units (DMU). Second, there is widespread skepticism (especially recently) over the Department’s estimates of the statewide deer herd population and, by extension, the deer count in specific DMUs. Consequently, we further recommend that the Sex Age Kill (SAK) census model currently used by the Department be modified in the following ways:

• Implement some, and eventually all, of the modifications to the SAK model recommended by a 2006 audit of the program.

• Incorporate, or give greater weight, to the following factors: predation; car kills; fawn mortality; winter severity; tracks.

• Authorize one or more outside organizations to use a methodology of their choosing to conduct independent deer herd counts in up to 5 DMUs in order to compare the accuracy of SAK to alternate methods.

Finally, we recommend additional Department communication with deer hunters throughout the year, particularly regarding developments which are anticipated to affect deer mortality, movements, herd health or other factors that might impact herd numbers or harvest success."

By failing to communicate a pre-hunt estimate (for the first time) The Dept. took a step backward in communicating with hunters.

Recommendations to improve goal reaching and a return to good hunting.

1. Bring in outside experts to recalculate current population estimates along with hunter and hunting group involvement to determine if we are properly managing the herd to get to goal.

To gain credibility with hunters this must be done in a similar fashion to the recently completed bear study. It must be conducted by experts from outside the state and include involvement from the hunting community. It must be ongoing for a period of several years until. With the recent windfall in Pittman Robertson funds available to the state we would hope this project would take precedence over other proposed studies.

2.Eliminate all additional Herd Control seasons and EAB and return to a 9 day gun season statewide for a period of sufficient duration to allow the SAK formula the needed time to stabilize. This calibration will let managers know what the true population is.

Two consecutive years of dramatically falling buck harvest indicate populations are far below DNR estimates. The last year the gun season recorded a buck harvest of less than 90,000 deer was in 1980. The statewide post hunt population in 1980 was 565,255 deer. This is 25% below current statewide population goals. SAK calculations require 5 year averages of consistent buck harvest. With inconsistent seasons and Earn-a-Buck accurate population estimates are impossible. The dramatic decline in antlerless harvest in ’09 indicates the deer aren’t there and hunters are electing to forgo venison in the freezer and not shoot the few they see. This also led to the dismal Oct. harvest of 11,000 deer total including the CWD zones where hunters still had to qualify for a buck tag. This year’s Oct. gun harvest was little more than archers harvested during the same 4-day period in ’06 and ’07. CWD units are also managed to goals and the dramatic decline in those units indicates the aerial survey model is also flawed and populations may already be at or below current goals. It is also demonstrated in historical harvest data that hunters can and will shoot adequate numbers of antlerless deer in a 9-day season if the deer are there and adequate tags are issued.

3. During this period of re-establishing population modeling tool accuracy and precision, the suggested tool to reduce populations in units still determined to be more than 20% over goal, the Department should Issue free and/or $2 Herd Control tags, including the Public/Private land tag proposal from EAB Alternative rule to minimize the risk of overharvest on public land.

This provides hunters the tools to harvest antlerless deer where local populations may be abundant without forcing hunters to harvest antlerless deer in areas where local populations may be depleted. It will also limit tags on public land where hunters are less vested and less likely to make the assessment that populations are low. It is continually stated by the DNR that deer are not dispersed equally over the landscape so a one size fits all approach to address a few hot spot areas within a management unit also risks over harvest in many local areas where deer are less abundant. The key component of the record harvests of the last decade was the availability of free antlerless tags. The most successful harvest season was in 2000 when hunters were provided 2 free tags with the purchase of a license. Of the 528,494 deer harvested in the gun seasons just under 90% of them were harvested during the regular 9-day gun season.

4. Enact the recommended population modeling tool improvements from the 2006 SAK audit

A study of the buck recovery rate as well as a fawn mortality study should be conducted as a way of improving the robustness and precision of population modeling tools. A study of the effects of hunter attitudes in regards to harvest selection should also be conducted to better understand their effects on the SAK tool.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report Abuse | Mobile