Counting Deer

[toto]

SO let me get this straight, the DNR can figure out how many deer there are in a certain area by counting the amount of deer poop in a given area. Based on this wonderful knowledge, they should be able to go to a dairy farm, count the amount of poop from a cow, and tell the farmer how many head of cattle they have, right? Incredible,

[boehr]

Toto...you are half reading, read the whole thing, it's not based on just one thing. Wildlife Division doesn't just go out and count deer pellets. But I can promise you one thing for sure, if there are no pellets there are no deer!

[This message has been edited by boehr (edited 05-22-2000).]

[toto]

Oh I know that, I was just making a joke. Counting deer accurately is got to be one tough job, and in fact can't be done 100% accurately. But you have to admit that counting deer based on the amount of pellets sounds sorta funny.

[Steve]

Well there's more than just pellets too. After reading the article I do think that the DNR has a better idea of deer populations than I thought. Still would like to see mandatory hunter reports though so we would know more about the quality of deer in the area.

[bwiltse]

I believe the DNR's harvest estimates are very accurate. They're surveying about 45,000 hunters for 1999 harvest data, which represents about 5% of the total hunters. This is more than sufficient to get a very accurate statistical number. And if you were to attempt to get a 100% actual count through inspection or other reporting, it would be far less accurate, unless you were to modify the final number for the unreported, such as deer being legally shot and then butchered on the farm, etc.

I think the real reason so many question the legitimacy of the harvest data is because they don't believe we have many more deer today than we had in the 60s, 70s, etc. In certain areas we well may have fewer deer today, while in others we may have many more. The single biggest change in deer numbers is in the area of private versus state land (estimates now have private land accounting for 80% or more of the total deer population). And the southern part of the State obviously accounts for a significant portion of this population change.

On the other hand, deer population estimates are far more difficult. I personally believe that the DNR accurately evaluates deer population trends, increases, decreases, shifts, etc. through review and interpretation of various data. However, this certainly doesn't mean that the total deer population estimate approaches the accuracy of a valid statistical evaluation, as is the case with the deer harvest number.

Notwithstanding the above, there could be some added deer management value in obtaining additional biological data through visual inspection of harvested deer by biologists.



------------------
Boyd

[Stinger]

I'm in total agreement with you Boyd. But just one question. Would the benefit of gathering more biological and statistical data be worth the extra cost?

[bwiltse]

Stinger, I don't believe that obtaining additional statistical data or trying to further refine the deer harvest and deer population numbers could be justified from a cost/benefit or reasonableness standpoint. Whether we have 1.9 million or 2.3 million or whatever number of deer doesn't mean much. Bottom line, there's got to be a lot of deer, when the annual harvest starts exceeding 500,000.

And with respect to obtaining additional biological data from harvested deer, etc, I believe that for the most part DNR biologists are comfortable with the amount of data and inspections currently being made, although like most anything else, some may want to do more.

You're right on target when questioning potential benefit versus increased cost. And for what it's worth, I would like to see the DNR spending additional monies on the education process rather than trying to further fine tune deer numbers. For example, I've been told that there will be a section in the this years hunting regs addressing the fawn/button buck harvest issue (currently over 20% of the total antlerless harvest) and will include identification tips. This is a start.

------------------
Boyd

[RemFire]

I agree with some of what's been said. But would like to put in my feelings. With the buck/doe ratio approaching 25-1 in mnay cases (based on conversations with local biologists who should have a pretty good idea) and by letting everyone shoot 2 or more bucks a year, we are setting ourselves up for lots of disappointment in the future. We need to restrict the killing of spikes/fawns, harvest more does, and put up with not seeing as many deer. What we will see should be bigger, healthier, and with bigger racks.

I also believe if my tax dollars are going to a farmer for "crop damage", then I should be allowed access to hunt. Yes, I'll pay a parking fee, but why give out thousands of kill tags so the deer can be shot by one person. Either the state owns the wildlife, or private individuals do,,,what is it?

If we sportsman truely want QDM, now is the time to start making lots of loud noise about it. It may take a couple of years, but do it now.

[Steve]

There is definitely some need of some education of hunters on button bucks etc.

[Seldom]

Maybe it's time to go back to the "1 buck a year"! I completely understand why we have the "2 buck per year" now because being a long-time bow hunter as well as a gun hunter and will continue to be. But it may be coming time for us deerhunters to suck it up and make some tough choices!!