As a result of a discussion on another board, I thought I would look for input here. Since I don't hunt that part of the State and many here do, I can expect a sort of peer review to help point out any errors.
Unit 49A is part of the Northeastern forest region and is split with halves in both Oconto and Marinette Counties. 49A is made up of 95% deer range (down from 97% in the last reporting) it falls in an ag catagory of between 0% to 11%.
Car kill data for 49A show a steady decline over the past few years and that is based on County data. I looked at both Oconto and Marinette and found this info.
Oconto car kills
2004..... 779
2005..... 558
2006......479
2007......336
That is a 57% decline in that time span but more importantly, a trend.
Marinette car kills
2004......1979
2005......1704
2006.......820
2007.......536
That is a 73% decline and again a trend.
Unit 49A does not have a problem with crop damage. I had to go back to 2004 to find the one and only report that was made for damage.
The reports I have show unit 49A has been at or below goal in recent years. The over winter goal is 25 deer per square mile of range. The 2007 fall density estimate was 27 deer s/m/r. The abundance of deer "At Goal" is 5,875
SAK over winter population estimates for unit 49A have been:
2004........ 32 d/s/m
2005........18 d/s/m
2006........20 d/s/m
2007.........22 d/s/m
Unit 49A has been a "regular unit" for some time meaning that it has not been part of herd control or EAB. Last year had 25 days of gun hunting (4 of which were antlerless only days) and 3 1/2 months of bow hunting.
The total deer harvests for this unit has also been in decline (just like the car kills)
2005......2,283
2006......1,125
2007......1079
2008.......750** While I don't have the data for the unit, I do have the County totals and Oconto and Marinette were both down from 2007 to the tune of 34% and 33% receptively and were the biggest and 2nd biggest decline in the Northeastern region so I estimated the total deer harvest for 08. That means that since 2005 unit 49A saw a 67% decline in total harvest.
The opening weekend hunter pressure per square mile was 30. The average buck harvest success rate from 2005 to 2007 was 9.2%. Compare that to a state wide average of 30%. The DNR states that if "At goal" the projected buck harvest rate would be 12.5%.
After looking at the data using such factors as car kills, SAK estimate, actual harvest data, ag damage, etc, I think I can make a pretty good case that unit 49A has a herd that is in decline as a result of regular hunting practices. An increase in bear numbers and wolf numbers as well as winter severity lead me to believe that the herd is being further reduced as a result of natural reduction.
Despite this, I see the DNR has labeled unit 49A as "on watch" for having "increasing" issues with reforestation due to deer damage.
I will be using this info. to make a case for adjusting Unit 49A's goal upward and since units are adjusted in 5 deer per square mile increments, It is my intent to recommend that unit 49A increase it's over winter population goal from 25 to 30 deer per square mile of range. I suspect I will meet resistance from a segment of the board members in spite of what I just posted.
Going from 25 to 30 would mean far fewer antlerless tags available and buck hunting would remain unchanged. A reduction in doe tags it would mean essentially no Dec. T-zone hunt because by the time the 9 day and ML hunts conclude, there would likely be very few doe tags to fill. Lowering the goal to 15 would result in an increased push for further herd reduction, More T-zone and more antlerless tags available. It would also serve to put this region one severe winter away from an unhuntable population and a revolt by hunters who would no doubt stop hunting until the region reached population levels that they agreed with meaning public land hunting would be the only option for herd reduction.
For those that hunt unit 49A, (and every other unit) you will have a chance to make your case for an increase in goal numbers sometime in March. I suggest (once we discuss it here and correct any errors I might have made) that you print this out and take it to the public meeting. The same holds true for anybody looking to raise their goal. This sort of info will be of value when you fill out the paper work that will ask you why you want the goal raised. If you put down an answer of "I want to see more deer or I want to shoot more deer" without making your case, you won't get very far.
While it is speculation based on the data I have observed from the Northern forest region (which border this unit on the North and West), I am of the opinion that much of the Northern Forest unit is now at or below goal just as unit 49A has been. Prior to the 2008 season, Robert Rolley stated that 8 of the units there were between "at goal" and 20% below goal and 13 units were between 20% above and 20% below goal. Unit 49A is really part of the Northern region in local but is actually labeled as part of the Northeastern region. I invite your comments.
