DNR investing in whitetails

[Cooter]

Just got wind of this - do we really need to spend a couple million to figure out what most hunters already know?

Investing in Wisconsin’s Whitetails;

Natural Resources Board hears update on deer research

News Release Published: February 24, 2010 by the Central Office

Contact(s): Robert Manwell (608) 264-9248

MADISON – Department of Natural Resources Secretary Matt Frank announced a major new initiative to improve the DNR’s population estimates for white-tailed deer. The information was presented today by wildlife management staff at a meeting of the Natural Resources Board.

“We have heard from hunters who are frustrated and skeptical about the DNR’s deer population estimates. In response to hunter and legislative concerns, we are taking action to improve the model for the deer population estimate, perform additional research, involve hunters more extensively in our efforts, and improve communication with the public on survey results and research findings. Many of these actions have been advocated by hunting organizations,” Frank said.

Frank announced actions, both short-term and long-term, that will include:

Fully implementing the recommendations of the 2006 Sex-Age-Kill model audit, including initiating a buck recovery rate study this year.

Partnering with the University of Wisconsin to do research and data analysis on buck mortality as well research on fawn mortality, including the roles of predators, habitat and weather, beginning with a study in 2011 in northwest Wisconsin.

Beginning this month, the DNR has begun an evaluation of an alternative deer population estimation technique called “distance sampling method” using aircraft. This study is being conducted in areas not previously surveyed with aircraft in both western and eastern Wisconsin. Helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft population surveys will continue in the Chronic Wasting Disease Management Zone in southern Wisconsin.

Working with the Minnesota and Michigan Department of Natural Resources to share insights from data and research projects in all three states regarding deer population trends and dynamics.

Hiring a researcher to review deer-vehicle collision data from salvage operators, Department of Transportation summaries of officer-investigated accidents, and insurance company data to assess usefulness and make recommendations as part of the population estimating process.

Invite hunting organizations to provide input and participate in DNR deer research and studies, and expand efforts to build a data base from hunters’ field observations from deer registration and observations reported on the DNR Web site.

Frank said that “the department will continue to work with the legislature regarding other suggestions, including bringing in an outside, independent third party to verify the accuracy of the data and math used in the preparation of deer population estimates.”

Frank added that the initiative to improve the DNR’s deer population estimate would not have been possible without a significant new investment of federal funds, over $2 million, through additional federal Pittman-Robertson funds allocated to the Wisconsin this year.

“While this is a significant sum, we believe that this is a worthwhile investment to improve the long-term management of a sustainable and healthy deer herd for generations to come,” Frank said.

The presentation to the NRB was made at the board’s Feb. 24 meeting in Madison. The presentation was video recorded and is available online, along with a document received by the board, “Investing in Wisconsin’s Whitetails,” detailing past, present and future deer research and outreach efforts.

The department will be putting out a steady stream of information and updates for hunters and observers of deer and has a new Internet-based delivery system that allows citizens to receive the latest information at home in their email in the form of an alert that something of interest has been posted. Called GovDelivery, users can subscribe and unsubscribe as they wish at anytime and select from a list of subjects that they wish to monitor.

Hunters and others interested in deer can also attend a series of deer management unit information meetings scheduled around the state March 10-25. Meeting locations and times are also available on the DNR Web site.

[GatorBait]

I've rewritten my post 3 times already and pretty much decided that my words weren't worth sharing over this endless attempt to possibly make sense of our wonderful political leaders. Once the state can take responsibility for their errors, maybe this issue will be fixed within the next 10 years.

[DonBo]

Obviously something needs to be done because the DNR (IMHO) has no clue as to the actual numbers of deer in the state. It's too bad the cost is so high because hunters have been telling them of their overestimations for several years now. I doubt our input would give them an accurate count but it would help them to realize how few there are compared to what they claim.

[klecker]

Heard there is something going on, on how the DNR head is appointed. Some change to the process. I'll dig around and find out more.

[GatorBait]

Doyle vetoed that bill yesterday Klecker, and the override failed. I have an article at work that I will post that gives the pros and cons to this issue.

[Cooter]

Doyle had proclaimed a veto would happen quite a while back - I beleive the general idea was to have the board appoint the head rather than the governor. Thats all I have to say about that and probably the above junk or else I'll end up with a timeout in the corner.

[goblueM]

Just got wind of this - do we really need to spend a couple million to figure out what most hunters already know?

Yes. To properly manage a biological population, you have to use science. Would you want your doctor prescribing various drugs based on the observations of folks he prescribed them to? Heck NO! You'd want him to be prescribing drugs based on careful scientific research on their effects on the body and the effectiveness of treating your medical issue.

Anecdotal observations and reports by hunters are NOT and SHOULD NOT BE a factor in ANY population assesment of a game species.

The DNR's job is to take their scientific data, and come up with a management decision that balances maintaining an ecologically sound population of that game species with the public's desire to utilize that resource.

[GatorBait]

Wildlife biologists in Wisconsin have developed population models for deer. The model depends on information gathered primarily from the hunters themselves. Such information includes the actual number of deer harvested annually, and the sex and age of each animal. When applied to a specific geographical "unit," it is possible for biologists to accurately estimate the number of deer living in that unit. They can then estimate the numbers that may be harvested to keep populations at healthy levels that are socially acceptable to both hunters and nonhunters alike.

It's a guessing game, not science. Plain and simple. And it's something they are not good at from behind the desk.

[Cooter]

I see your point but I'd have to argue their scientific data and ecological balancing hasn't been worth 2 dead flies lately. Yeah its not that bad, or is it - do we need to highlight last years harvest again? Maybe another 2 mil to get their scientific data more accurate will help, I sure hope so. I realize they can't make decisions because John Doe didn't get his deer this year by sitting on the logging road for 2 hours but they sure could benefit from listening to sportsmans groups, which if they had in the past wouldn't be needing another couple mil to 'figure' it out.

[goblueM]

Wildlife biologists in Wisconsin have developed population models for deer. The model depends on information gathered primarily from the hunters themselves. Such information includes the actual number of deer harvested annually, and the sex and age of each animal. When applied to a specific geographical "unit," it is possible for biologists to accurately estimate the number of deer living in that unit. They can then estimate the numbers that may be harvested to keep populations at healthy levels that are socially acceptable to both hunters and nonhunters alike.

It's a guessing game, not science. Plain and simple. And it's something they are not good at from behind the desk.

I guess that answers the question of why they are mis-managing the state's deer population then doesn't it?

It needs to be based on population surveys and science, not surveys of hunters. In my opinion, coming from a background of research science

[Cooter]

goblue - do you think its a case of bad data or applying the wrong regs to good data or a combination of the two or something else such as political [PoorWordUsage] or all three or....?

[goblueM]

well living and deer hunting in minnesota, i'm probably not quite as well versed in the management decisions and all of that as you guys...

BUT it seems like its a matter of potentially bad data - I think population surveys need to come from actually surveying the population in the field, not by using hunters as a proxy. Too much room for errors in estimation - hunting techniques, weather conditions, hunter skill level, etc all really drastically affect harvest numbers.

I can't speak to applying the regs to the data... all I know is that Wisconsin has a heck of a lot of deer and that practically anywhere (including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the 3 states I have lived in and recreated in) folks use the "I used to see deer but now I don't... I blame the DNR" arguement, which I think is almost always fundementally flawed

I'm sure there is a large interplay between what the DNR might want to manage for ecological reasons and pressure from the public and/or politicians to manage the herd

Such is the case in practically every DNR in the country, for any game species

[klecker]

Cooter,

All three and I will throw in hunters. How many people took as many deer as possible? Hope we learned a lesson. We may have been givin the wrong data, but as humans as a whole we just like to pillage if the getins good.

[nolte]

This sounds like a great idea to employ more DNR staff and still not have a clue.

I don't have a "game maanagmene" degree, but I think I've got a pretty good handle on the deer population behind my house. When I can go from seeing 5-10 deer a sit in rifle season to 0, me thinks it's probably cause there is less deer. It's the same area, same scouting, similiar conditions, similiar hunting pressue but much different results. I'm not talking about one day, but numerous observations over 10 years.

It's not rocket surgery fellas. The DNR gave out fistfulls of bonus tags when they shouldn't have. More deer were shot and thus less fawns were produced. Add in a slighlty tougher winter with a few predators and bingo, crappy deer population.

[GatorBait]

a few predators and bingo, crappy deer population.

Amen to that and to a very well put post. My 400 acres of swamp, oaks, pines and open field is some of the best land in my zone and has produced many great deer through out the years. Even while practicing QDM and conservative doe kills, the population isn't even a smidge close to what it used to be. One can only control so much, hard to help the process when the neighbors think they should kill whatever moves with all their bonus tags.

Coot, I have to believe it was poor management of regulations. They were handing tags out like candy for really cheap. People went awol when the chance presented itself. The blame has to be shared during that time, sadly.

[Cooter]

Not only handing out tags like cheap candy on Halloween but with EAB basically mandating antlerless harvest. Klecker I'll agree to a point on hunters but I passed on does the few opportunities I had at them because I knew the area I hunted in was hurting. Several of the neighbors did likewise and I'm glad that with at least a temporary end of EAB we'll get things back to a reasonable level.

The 'I blame the DNR' can indeed be a scapegoat but the last few years in many parts of the state it is legit. They never came out and said we don't have the funding or resources for accurate estimates or that they have their hands tied politically and can't do anything about it. Its frustrating when you have the masses crying out there aren't that many deer for a couple years and the DNR saying yes there are and we're gonna make it easy and even necessary to harvest them and then go ooops, know what you guys were right.

At least that has happened and hopefully we'll get things back on track. Again not saying forget science and let hunters have all the say but IMO their input should be part of the equation. Probably can't afford to fly a plane over every inch of the state so why not put the free observations of 600,000+ hunters in the state to use.

[goblueM]

This sounds like a great idea to employ more DNR staff and still not have a clue.

I don't have a "game maanagmene" degree, but I think I've got a pretty good handle on the deer population behind my house. When I can go from seeing 5-10 deer a sit in rifle season to 0, me thinks it's probably cause there is less deer. It's the same area, same scouting, similiar conditions, similiar hunting pressue but much different results. I'm not talking about one day, but numerous observations over 10 years.

attitudes like this are exactly the problem. "behind my house" is such a tiny tiny sample size. Patterns change. Weather changes. Forage changes. Predator and hunter pressure changes. That's simple life facts.

The problem is when hunter's only are on a small piece of land or do the exact thing year in and year out, they fail to understand these changing patterns. Just because you saw less deer this season doesn't mean SQUAT compared to the state as a whole.

The DNR isn't managing in 40 acre parcels, it manages the entire state.

IF you want to see deer without fail when you go hunting, go hunt at a game farm.

I'm sorry if I am sounding harsh but it just ticks me off when folks use anecdotal observations and such small and biased data to make sweeping generalizations about a statewide population and a statewide agency

[GatorBait]

Ya, that may sound all good and dandy goblue, but when you are hearing the same "Little" info from thousands of people through out the state, and large parcel (1,000+ acreage) farmers threatening to close down their lands to deer hunting, you have to be ignorant to ignore their claims. There's no one just making this up. We've been doing the same thing on my 400 acres for 50years with only an increase in QDM and never had a problem until CWD became the DNR's priority. For those that understand what has happened with our deer management through out the years, it's easy to see what has happened. You can't shoot a massive amount of does (EAB) year after year and expect to have a healthy population. Simple rules of math show that. Now after the hunters shut that mismanaged rule down, we are hopefully on the road to recovery.

[klecker]

"CWD became the DNR's priority." That there is were it all started. The way that has been addressed or handled, what ever you want to call it was a flippin joke.

[nolte]

attitudes like this are exactly the problem. "behind my house" is such a tiny tiny sample size. Patterns change. Weather changes. Forage changes. Predator and hunter pressure changes. That's simple life facts.

The problem is when hunter's only are on a small piece of land or do the exact thing year in and year out, they fail to understand these changing patterns. Just because you saw less deer this season doesn't mean SQUAT compared to the state as a whole.

The DNR isn't managing in 40 acre parcels, it manages the entire state.

IF you want to see deer without fail when you go hunting, go hunt at a game farm.

I'm sorry if I am sounding harsh but it just ticks me off when folks use anecdotal observations and such small and biased data to make sweeping generalizations about a statewide population and a statewide agency

I'm glad that you have such a low opinion of my opinons or observations. I'm not one bit worried that the DNR has a "handle" on the deer populations in the entire state. I'm more concerned that they get a good estimate in MY deer unit #, which they haven't done. I don't just hunt on the "back 40", but different areas throughout a couple thousand acres along with my neighbors in bow, gun, muzzleloader and late bow season. In addition we all make a few treks throughout the area in the winter scouting trails and looking for sheds. This doesn't even factor in the countless hours spent doing daily driving throughout different parts of our deer management unit.

My observations don't come from sitting 3 days, not seeing much and then saying there are no deer. It's a combined opinion, generated from numerous days in the field throughout the entire year over a 10 year period. It's not possible for a biologist/DNR employee to spend even a sliver of the same amount of field time in the area. So why would it not be prudent to at LEAST listen to hunter's observations before telling us we don't know what's going on.

BTW, our neighbors and us passed up all does this year with our bonus archery tags and did not fill any of the bonus tags we purchased after we saw the poor status of the deer population.

[DonBo]

Originally Posted By: goblueM

attitudes like this are exactly the problem. "behind my house" is such a tiny tiny sample size. Patterns change. Weather changes. Forage changes. Predator and hunter pressure changes. That's simple life facts.

The problem is when hunter's only are on a small piece of land or do the exact thing year in and year out, they fail to understand these changing patterns. Just because you saw less deer this season doesn't mean SQUAT compared to the state as a whole.

The DNR isn't managing in 40 acre parcels, it manages the entire state.

IF you want to see deer without fail when you go hunting, go hunt at a game farm.

I'm sorry if I am sounding harsh but it just ticks me off when folks use anecdotal observations and such small and biased data to make sweeping generalizations about a statewide population and a statewide agency

I'm glad that you have such a low opinion of my opinons or observations. I'm not one bit worried that the DNR has a "handle" on the deer populations in the entire state. I'm more concerned that they get a good estimate in MY deer unit #, which they haven't done. I don't just hunt on the "back 40", but different areas throughout a couple thousand acres along with my neighbors in bow, gun, muzzleloader and late bow season. In addition we all make a few treks throughout the area in the winter scouting trails and looking for sheds. This doesn't even factor in the countless hours spent doing daily driving throughout different parts of our deer management unit.

My observations don't come from sitting 3 days, not seeing much and then saying there are no deer. It's a combined opinion, generated from numerous days in the field throughout the entire year over a 10 year period. It's not possible for a biologist/DNR employee to spend even a sliver of the same amount of field time in the area. So why would it not be prudent to at LEAST listen to hunter's observations before telling us we don't know what's going on.

BTW, our neighbors and us passed up all does this year with our bonus archery tags and did not fill any of the bonus tags we purchased after we saw the poor status of the deer population.

Have to agree with nolte here. No, the DNR is not managing 40 acres chunks of land, but when thousands of people hunt their own 40 acre pieces and most come up with the same conclusion, then maybe someone should be listening.