CDAC's have limited options. Deer populations, such as in Adams County, continue to grow. The only control feature is a hunt.
For us, our hunter harvest is quite low and access to the deer is limited. No matter what we do the deer population will continue to grow.
We base permit levels on sales. So we determine permits on how many sold last year.
General Hunting Discussion
CDACs Up North Not Using Metrics or Science To Justify Increase of Antlerless Tags
Displaying 1 to 15 of 41 posts
Tag numbers were released today. Preston Cole did not follow through with his threat to ignore the NRB's order to reduce does tags in 7 northern counties. A rare victory for hunters.
As much as the CDAC sucks, and caves to forester's and DNR's desire to decimate the deer heard, I think the system would be worse without it. Hunter's would have absolutely no voice without CDAC. It's clear that today's WI DNR doesn't give a rat's *** about hunter's.
Thank you Fred Prehn and Kaz. It's good to know at least someone still cares about Wisconsin's hunters and sportsmen.
I agree SAK has many flaws but it is still useful to an extent. I’m all for finding a better population model that works better on a local level. But no matter what it is replaced with, there still will be wide confidence intervals. Reading CDAC minutes, it seems most are using buck kill as one of their primary metric and this can work. I think things would work a lot better if we scrapped counties as management units. The highways 29, 64, 8 and 70 counties that transition from ag to forest are where most of the problems lie, along with counties with large swaths of public forest surrounded by mostly ag and a little suburban (Eau Claire, Jackson). It’d be easy if deer distributed equally on the landscape. Realigning management units based on habitat offers a much better opportunity to effectively and responsively manage deer populations.
Just pointing out the uselessness of using car deer kills as a metric. And yes, forestry interests need to be at the table. The timber products industry is a multi billion dollar industry in this state, dwarfing the economic impact provided by the deer hunting industry.
Statewide there were more reported car collisions in 2019 than there were in 2007, there must be more deer now, right?
Are you assuming that policy makers assume the deer population is up. You cant assume people believe that.
which really pisses people off when it’s a industrial forest receiving them (Florence County).
food and lumber are both crops that require good management, expensive land and expensive equipment to process. No reason to assume one has less value than the other. Young white pine and young cedar predation is a real economic issue that affects more than just the landowner.
Buck kills are real numbers.
Agreed. Basis of SAK
Fawn doe ratio is a real number based on actual counts,
Based on summer deer observations by department employees, grouped in nine county groups and averaged out over three years, extrapolated to fawns/100 does. An estimate, not a count. Critical component of SAK. Highly variable thus the three year average.
crop damage complaints or applications are real numbers.
Highly variable from year to year, not very useful when trying to set quotas at a county level. If anything, crop damage complaints/payments should include depredation permits, which they do, which really pisses people off when it’s a industrial forest receiving them (Florence County).
Car deer collisions are real numbers.
Utterly useless. Iron county 1 reported car kill in 2010. There’s no way to know how many deer are being hit since an unknown fraction are actually reported. All kinds of factors play in like the current economic conditions, road construction, pandemics. It’s not a reliable statistic that can be compared from year to year. Statewide there were more reported car collisions in 2019 than there were in 2007, there must be more deer now, right?
Winter severity index is a real number based on real measurements.
It’s actually a model based on a couple assumptions. One point for below a certain temp one point for above a certain snow depth. But no one really knows what they mean. The timing of spring is much more important than winter severity. Late springs are probably the most detrimental factor when it comes to deer production.
So don't know what you're saying when you say these are guestimates
That was your wordor estimates. They are counts real numbers.
Nothing is count, they’re all estimates, even buck kill has error. Counts are finite, estimates are not. Any replacement model would have the same problems, unless we’re going to just throw it all out and proceed by gut feeling, which seems to be the answer.
Aside from the buck kill, which is a major input in the SAK and can be relatively accurately measured through registration numbers, all the metrics you mention are guesstimates. Even comparing buck kill from year to year has its flaws, weather, where opening day falls, hunter effort all play a role. Car kills are useless. I agree SAK is not real useful on a local level and can certainly be improved. What you are advocating is setting quotas based on gut feeling, populist deer management, not real numbers. The biggest mistake they made was going to counties as management units (buck tags should be public/private as well and end party tagging while we’re at it). They should’ve consolidated or delineated previous units into about 12 zones based on habitat, land type, etc (think snow belt, drift less, lakeshore, northern forest east/west) and assign DAC’s to manage units within each zone. Some counties have such different habitats and land types. You wouldn’t need 72 CDACs requiring 6-10 volunteers, it’d be much easier to find good people to fill posts.
“All estimate numbers from top to bottom are considered within a 95% confidence level.”
But not all numbers are equally likely. The most likely number lies somewhere between the the upper and lower confidence interval. Think of the bell shaped curve, the peak is the most likely number and the bottom of each slope represents the 95% upper and lower interval. You’d probably be very disappointed with the outcome provided by any replacement population model.
JC, well said. I agree with you 100%.
An example is Eau Claire County central Forest. Their population estimate has declined by 25% from the 2017 season thru the 2019 season, Buck harvest was flat, but they continued to ask for and finally got a large increase in Antlerless permits.
The 95% confidence level means they are 95% confident the population is some wheres between the bottom number of the estimate and the top number, bottom number of 2019 estimate was around 3800 and top number of 2020 estimate was just under 7000. Am I using the extremes, yes, but that is the problem with how the SAK works. the bottom number of the population estimate is no more accurate than the top number of the estimate. All estimate numbers from top to bottom are considered within a 95% confidence level.
"I'm not finding any literature touting any method for estimating populations of deer as being better than SAK. Not that there aren't issues, but what do we replace it with?"
Wolf management - numbers historically were based on MINIMUM count, then safe harvest determined off of that...or so claimed.
Deer management - Not the same. If a MINIMUM count was used, aka...the bottom of the population model at 95% confidence interval were used, things would be much different. Why are wolves managed on a minimum count when deer are managed by no such method? Makes you wonder....
I haven't looked at the SAK audit for years, but if indeed the estimate is not precise it could cause major issues. Perhaps numbers should be based on the lowest confidence interval to start.
If you read all of Milspaugh's 2007 report, he dismisses many other population predictive measures as impractical due to cost, time required, etc. He does NOT pan SAK as impractical and goes on to praise WI as having one of the better data sets on deer population dynamics nationwide.
I'm not finding any literature touting any method for estimating populations of deer as being better than SAK. Not that there aren't issues, but what do we replace it with?
Seems to me the biggest issues with CDAC's and stakeholders is that nowhere are targets (in deer per sq. mile) identified by any of the groups identified, including the DNR in terms of what deer density is "acceptable ". For example, if a forestry representative feels any more than 10 deer/sq mi. is excessive, the sportsmen/tourism groups will ALWAYS be at odds with no hope for negotiation or compromise. Big issues with no easy solutions. However, until the public reaches a point where they have some level of trust and confidence in DNR science relative to deer population dynamics, these arguments are never going away.
Several area's of comment.
CDAC process as mentioned before: CDA's make recommendation to Local Biologist. They accept or make a modified recommendation to DNR Head Big Game Biologist who reviews and forwards their supported Recommendation to the NRB. NRB votes to endorse or modify recommendations. NRB is the final authority, they are the oversight, policy deciding panel on all things under the DNR's umbrella. DNR Secretary Preston Cole implements Policy set by the NRB.
IMO, Pat Durkins piece in the Outdoor News should have been identified as an opinion piece. Very little of it contained any actual reporting. Several statements made about individuals without any facts to support statements.
CDAC's are supposed to used the metrics contained in the CDAC Governance. Public comment is also contained in the Governance as a factor in the decision making process.
72 Counties in Wisconsin, all but six recommendations were accepted by the NRB, I wouldd say, overall good work by the CDAC's.
IMO, it is not an acceptable excuse that a CDAC's recommendation can't be changed because it hurts their feelings.I understand the CDAC members volunteer their time, so does the NRB, so do all those take time to attend the meetings, submit comments, emails, make phone calls, and do the surveys.
Durkin is often unprofessional in his writing which is another reason I dropped that publication. Some of his articles start off very well and educational but then he meanders into sentences which seem to be sarchastic so its hard to figure out what he is trying to accomplish in his writing. Assuming he went to some kind of college to gain discipline and credential? Its hard to tell.
Displaying 1 to 15 of 41 posts
