Where's the Results? Harvest Data from the core of the Eradication Zone tell the true story.

(See new data from 2004-5 at end of this article)

Deer Management Unit 70A is in the heart of the original Eradication Zone. Prior to 2002, the DNR believed it contained among the highest concentrations of whitetail deer in the State. Estimates ranged from 50 to 100 deer per square mile. Reducing this density has long been an ongoing goal of the department. In 2002, this goal took on additional importance with the discovery of CWD in this DMU.

Besides being essentially the core of the EZ, Unit 70A also happens to be the only deer management unit located entirely within the EZ and thus 100% governed by the special CWD Management Plan - which among other actions included up to 6 months of "hunting" and the employment of sharpshooters and shooting over bait piles. All other DMUs in the Eradication Zone have large portions outside of the zone making historical comparisons impossible.

Thus it will be particularly constructive to analyze the Unit 70A harvest data under the CWD Management Plan and compare it to previous years when no special harvest program existed. The diagram and table below provides the overall harvest data from the last 15 years.

Take a moment to look at the graphic. Does it appear as if anything unusual was undertaken in 2002 and 2003? Would you at all suspect a multi-million dollar program was employed to dramatically boost the harvest in 2002 and 2003?

Take a moment to crunch and analyze some harvest data numbers. Note the 2002 Deer Kill was 4951 - a nice increase over the 2001 results. However, 2001 was also the worst harvest in the last 15 years - thus the low water mark. If you set the 2002 results against the average harvest since 1989, the 2002 results - under the ambitious CWD Management Program - were almost 200 below the average deer kill (5142) from the previous 13 years under normal hunting regulations.

Now look at the data from the second year under the CWD Managed Hunt - the 2003 season. The total harvest of 4134 was the second worst Deer Kill in the last 15 years. In 2003 20% fewer deer were killed than the average yearly deer kill from 1989 - 2001 (under normal hunting regulations).

What conclusions can be drawn from this data? At best these facts indicate the special CWD Managed Hunts are ineffective; at worst they argue that the treatment has been curiously counterproductive. Adding fuel to the latter conclusion is the anecdotal evidence of individual hunters bagging 50 - 100 deer. Thus a small cadre of shooters could be accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of the kill statistics. This element plus the overall below average results suggest significantly fewer deer hunters are participating in the CWD Managed Hunts.

Impact on the Hunting Culture. Fewer deer hunters raises a new set of problems. It is broadly accepted that CWD management cannot be accomplished without the active support of the hunting community. Yet if the current CWD Management strategy is alienating more hunters than it is attracting, continuing the strategy will materially harm the long term management of both CWD and deer overpopulation.

In the mental health field an operational definition of insanity is “following the same practices repeatedly, but expecting different results.” Unfortunately the evidence suggests mental un-wellness at DNR headquarters. The changes scripted in the CWD Managed Hunt for 2004-5 are minor and are essentially propelling the department down the same path that has produced below par results. Since the size of the Eradication Zone is increasing, the stage is now set for exporting a counterproductive solution across a larger area.

This maladaptive, unwell response by DNR leadership portends poorly for the future of the sport of hunting and for the prospect of bringing the deer population under control.

The discouraging results from two years of experimenting with a radical response to CWD argue strongly for a fresh approach.

It is time to bury the hybrid hunting-deer shoot experiment. It looked great on paper, but did not work in practice. The DNR needs to return to a hunting model. Honoring and preserving deer hunting traditions and the consumption of venison must be at the core of this model. This can be supported by five important actions:

1. Restore the traditional gun hunting season beginning the Saturday before Thanksgiving and restore the exclusive bow hunting season prior to that time;

2. Restore the rule and ethic that harvest must be for consumption - only kill what you plan to eat;

3. Pledge to provide inexpensive & reliable CWD tests to all hunters who request them, provide results within two weeks, and fully disclose the results of ALL tests performed on their deer.

4. Promote the health and culinary benefits of venison; educate the public on the relatively low degree of risk involved in venison consumption and how to minimize that risk even further.

5. Set an ambitious - yet achievable - harvest goal that does not threaten the survival of the local deer population. A 50% reduction to a density of 18 deer per acre would be an extremely lofty goal - with a low probability of success. Given the terrain and the rural residential geography of the area, accomplishing such a dramatic reduction would be unprecedented. Yet ambitious as 18 deer per acre is, it would not be near the object of ridicule as the previous goal of zero and the proposed pie-in-the-sky goal of 5 deer per acre.

Once the core of the traditional hunting model has been restored, certain embellishments can be added to encourage an improved harvest. Additional tags can be offered with the license. A “modest” amount of extra days could be added to either the early or the regular season. Offer bonus tags for CWD zone areas to hunters who apply for northern permits - thus allowing them to hunt in both areas. Offer “free cwd tests” within known CWD DMUs. Basically experiment with tweaks and twists to better “manage” the deer population while preserving hunting and hunting traditions.

The Ace in the Hole. Once the department abandons “Deer Shoots” and returns to the hunting model, they will also be able to capitalize on a new source for help: the non-hunting landowner who has closed his/her lands to the CWD managed hunts. Practically every non-hunting landowner recognizes there are far too many deer. And very few of them like the idea of having CWD in our midst. All the department has to present is a sensitive and sensible program - one that respects the rights and interests of non-hunting landowners - and the resistance will begin to melt away. Common sense will replace paranoia.

My hunting buddies who live in the EZ say this plan makes good sense. However they also say offering it to the DNR is a waste of time. They say the department is so infected with an incurable paranoia over CWD that its managers cannot see facts that are literally right in front of their noses. They say they can't adapt. I’m hoping they are wrong because I know there are important natural resources priorities that are being sacrificed because the department is mired in the muck of this CWD mess.

--Ross Reinhold
roscoe@mhtc.net

2004-5 Update. Here's > > > a word document with a table and graph updating DNR published harvest data and population estimates. It is interesting that the deer population in 70A literally plummets during the cwd seige yet the actual statistics of harvest (including sharpshooting over bait piles) are far below the average of the last fifteen years. How do they do that? Wave a magic statistical wand and make 4000 deer disappear! Amazing - who ever thought a pencil would be the most powerful weapon in the war against CWD and deer overpopulation.

The CWD Testing Controversy: Are the new IDEXX rapid tests reliable?

The Science of CWD & Chronic Wasting Disease

"Where's the Beef II?" The political management of Data and Statistics continues

Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer & Elk: a critique of current models and their application.

Articles and Papers on Wisconsin Chronic Wasting Disease and DNR proposals

Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium at the University of Wisconsin

New Study finds CWD in Muscle Tissue

Chronic Wasting Disease - CWD Links and Other Resources