Deer Overpopulation

Interesting story I saw on Fox 6 on Friday 2/10/17.

http://fox6now.com/2017/02/10/wisconsins-deer-overpopulation-harms-soil-plant-growth/

The study was about the impact of deer. To determine the impact of deer you need an area with no deer. You need a control (no deer) to determine the impact of the variable (deer). It's basic science. The study was not dishonest and I truly doubt there was any ill intent or hidden agenda on the PhD candidate's part.

Of course an area wholly without deer in WI is not realistic but that doesn't matter. The study wasn't about the absence of deer but the secondary impact of the presence of deer on the underlayer of the forest. It is not about overbrowsing, etc.

That story originally posted is much more sensational than what was written by science oriented sites. They go much further into what the study entails and that is regarding the impact of deer on more than just the direct impact on what they eat. Just based off the link below it seems like an interesting study. It's sad that most news sites grabbed it and ran with the OMG! Deer are bad! headline.

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-deer-landscape-indirectly.html

Of course they studied fenced off portions. With any experiment you need a control and a variable. If you want to study the impact of deer on an area, you need to have an area isolated from deer to use for comparison.

I never said the research is "rigged".  Doctoral students don't rig their research. It puts you on the fast track to NOT earning your degree...

What I did allude to is that some research has little practicality with regard to fish or game management and policy. Always been that way, always will be. By the same token, some "off the wall" projects lead to breakthrough discoveries in science and medicine which lead to further study, experimentation and verification. I guarantee you that the DNR will not base any policy decision on the merits of one unsubstantiated thesis. But, if this feeds into your DNR conspiracy theory which now includes poor UW graduate students, please continue on...

Farnorth,

Once again it appears you're needing an adjustment to your meds. Read madforlabs post again stating this was NOT DNR research. Also using DNR and science in the same sentence is sadly not possible with the virtual elimination of that area within the department. 

Tim

I'd love to see a state forest in WI that is over populated,  Such BS.

The research was conducted by a University of Wisconsin PhD candidate and had absolutely nothing to do with the DNR. The research is likely part of a doctoral thesis, the subject of which is agreed upon by the student and his/her faculty supervisor.

There is a huge amount of research work done for graduate level thesis work. Some is significant, some...not so much. This just happens to be a project that was publicized and the media ran with. It does absolutely zip to influence deer management so take a deep breath guys.

On the other hand, you conspiracy theorists and DNR haters, please carry on....

You know what would really make the WDNR stand up and take note and stop wasting away money on stupid research. If as a group of hunters we just give them the middle finger for one year and not buy a gun deer license. If there are 600,000 at $24 a license I think a $14,400,000 hole in the budget would really make them take note. Throw in the bonus tags of 159,650 at $12 a piece comes out to another $1,915,800. I know some of those numbers would be more for out of state license.

But unfortunately that won't happen.

i'll take the educated ones over the uneducated politicians and lobbyists any day.  

Wow you paint with a broad brush, Madison resident here. I hunt fish and own a boatload of firearms, take some meds. 

Fyre

I have no issue with your statements and agree that the CDAC format provides better opportunity for local involvement and decision-making than regulations originating directly from Madison with input from the counties.

That's like saying the deer herd has CWD which the insurance company paid millions of dollars to downsize The Herd which is car wrecking disease! My $0.02

The UW student paper has nothing to do with the CDAC's, unless a stakeholder brings it forward at a meeting. Someone was quick to include it as propaganga given to the CDAC's. It wasn't distributed to anyone, just a news story.

The Forestry paper was, as it was sent to all CDAC chairs for distribution to the committees and as a point of consideration.

They do tie together a bit, as both are seeming to ring the bell on deer populations. Or at least one could support the argument for the other.

For this last round of CDAC meetings, I dont see much change. Everyone has set their goals and are somewhat limited by those parameters. I do still stand by my 1st blush thought in wondering if this isn't the first piece of groundwork laid to push out the CDAC's next year when the 3 year cycle is up. I hope not, because despite the drawbacks I think this is still far better than going back to harvest decisions coming out of Madison.

Fyreman:

I couldn't open your link earlier but got it this time. Obviously, a position statement by the Forestry council will carry more clout with CDAC than a graduate student study... My earlier comments were directed towards the specific U of W study mentioned by the OP.

That being said, I have to acknowledge their legitimate special interest in deer densities just as we  acknowledge agricultural and sportsmen interests. What troubles me is their potentially disproportionate representation on the CDAC committee's, particularly in central and southern Wisconsin where timber harvest is typically a very secondary interest to many ( most ?) private landowners.

I'd also like to see a better breakdown on the financial impact forestry touts in their position statement. I find the numbers suspect. Unless these numbers can be justified and further broken down into figures for each county, they are really meaningless from a management standpoint. Lots of questions arise... How much forestry is the result of plantings vs. natural regeneration?  How many forestry dollars are the result of timber imports from out of state/country for lumber, pulp, etc? Can the forestry council document a decrease in sustained harvest in area's of the state ( central WI for example) where the deer population has highly exceeded "desirable" forestry deer numbers for 40+ years?

Not a simple issue to solve given competing objectives by many stakeholders...

There was pretty good research and science available until nobody wanted to shoot any bucks less than 16 inches wide and screwed up the SAK formula, but that's an old story.

So mad, then what's your opinion on the statement I linked earlier from the Governors Council on Forestry?  

EDIT*  FNB, where should we get our research and science from to make management decisions?