Lanse couche couche

Guys,

Keep in mind that the "ideal" deer population is relative. If you are seeing plenty of bucks and does every time you go out, it may be great for you, but not so great for the folks out in the country who are experiencing crop damage, wrecked gardens, and haveto constantly dodge deer every time they drive to town. On the other hand, if you are not seeing that many deer then it is bad for you, but much better for folks out in the country.

When i was growing up in southern Illinois in the 70s, a person could hunt all season before finally bagging a decent buck, and does weren't that much easier. And folks didnt have many complaints because it was accepted that one had to work their butt off to get a deer. I recall spending dya after day in a stand and not even seeing a deer. Nowdays the population has approached nuisance levels but the hunters love it because it is easy to get a good sized buck and does are just about guaranteed. But, once the herd gets reduced down some and it gets harder, the same folks will be talking about how there arent as many deer as in the "old days." Its all relative.

jessejmc1979

I understand that lanse. I actuallly live in the country. And the land I hunt is a farm (my dad's). I know that we will probably never have as many deer as the "glory days". But all of the hunters that I have been talking to just want a happy medium. But I also understand it's not that simple. I lived on a farm in one of the most heavily populated management unit in the state when I was a kid. You had to watch for deer all of the time when driving but you just get used to dealing with them on the roads. Kind of becomes a way of life, and that's why we have insurance. The only thing I want is for my son to have the opportunity to see deer like I did when I was starting to hunt 16 yrs ago.

spaniel

When I started hunting, bagging a deer usually took real work and time. Now, same area, I can go out and bag 3-4 opening morning and that's being really picky.

Crop damage in the area is unreal. Forget getting ANY crop within 50 yards of a wooded area. I know people who have clear-cut woods to save their yields even though in principle they liked having the woodlot.

Hunters there still complain there are not enough deer!! Crop damage to even a small family farm costs thousands in lost income.

Here in Indiana it's reasonably easy to get a deer, populations are not as high and neither is crop damage. Few people complain about having a tough time finding deer.

Yes, it really is relative.

Though I love hunting, I tend to lean towards thinking that if some people are not complaining about a lack of deer the population is too high.

I have wished for years that Michigan would adopt Wisconsin's earn-a-buck strategy, that is the ONLY thing that would get the population under control again.

That being said, I have not seen the conditions in Wisconsin so it really could be as bad as you say.

Handles

Sorry Jessie it's hard to tell what you meant to say vs. what you really wrote " (and I'm not one of them but the past two years have been eab so have to shoot one)".
I would say any reader on this forum would conclude that 1. you are possibly illiterate and 2. you shot at least 1 deer in the pasttwo yearsbased on what you wrote. Wouldn't you deduct the same if I had written those words?
Yes, I work for the DNR. I spendmany of hours afield, away from my family as a volunteer for them. I help conduct herd counts throughout the winter months at major feeding areas as well as pheasant and grouse counts in the spring. When I lived in MN I helped capture and band ducks and geese(when is the last time you volunteered for anything?).
It isn't exact work but if we count 50 deer in a 5 square mile radius, we can deduct that there are about 10 deer per square mile depending on available food and cover(proven to be almost optimum for the health of the deer, limiting crop damage, and limiting damage to browse plants). Since there are 640 acres per square mile, if you hunt on 100 acres and you see one or two deer, that should be about right.
When there were hunters choise permits (70's-80's) very few hunters chose to shoot doe, only wanting bucks.This caused an explosion in the herd and a complete imbalance of the buck to doe ratio. We tried offering over the counter doe tags, and free doe tags, but again the hunters only wanted to shoot bucks. EAB was our last option, other than going to a completely doe only season in some areas. That would never fly. So EAB has been effective because it forces hunters who would only shoot a buck, to shoot a doe too. In reality, many people shoot their doe, but don't have a chance at the buck, or quit hunting after shooting a doeso it is slowly getting the ratio back in check.
However in some areas people have taken this to an extreme and have completely over-harvested.
Back to our 5 mile radius: If there are 50 hunters in that 5 mile radius, and they each shoot a deer, how many deer are left? The answer; some deer will be left. Because deer travel, and because hunters travel, and because Wisconsin allows hunters to shoot deer in multiple zones, with multiple weapons the DNR absolutely can not determine exactly how many deer there are, and how many each hunter should take. We must estimate, and because of all of the variables it is a rough estimate at best. After our winter counts are in, and we estimate how many new fawns are born we estimate a harvest rate in a given area. However, once hunting season starts, there could be50 new gun hunters, and 50 more muzzleloader hunters, and 50 new youth huntersin that area that we could not possibly foresee. If each takes a doe, and 1/4 take a buck, that is a reduction in the herd. Fewer hunters or bad hunting conditions (weather) in other areas could cause a rise in the herd in that part of the state. Some places that were EAB will not be next year, but some new areas might be.And so it goes... However, since you seem to have all the answers, lets hear exactly how it should be done. If you don't have an answer, I suggest you do some research,do some volunteer work,get off your soapbox and start helping find the solution rather than being a know-nothing-smart-azz.

jessejmc1979

Ok handles, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you let hunters shoot as many does as they want (for two bucks a pop) that the numbers are going to go down (like you guys want). Thats obvious. But where my frustration lies is in the fact that how come even in lakes that are plum full of fish there is a limit of how many you can take? I have fished lakes that were just full of bluegills but all you can take home is your limit (Most people only what they eat in a meal). How come the dnr doesn't have a limit on deer people can shoot. I suppose your guys decided hey these hunters are stupid and if we tell them they can shoot as many does as they want for two bucks a piece they will shoot the hell out of them. A lot of people will always get the most they can legally get from the laws the dnr mandates. Going back to fishing what would happen if you took off the limits on all of the fish? The numbers would plummet right. Then why do that with deer. And I'm sorry for any confusion for the "have to shoot a doe" post I really don't care if you think I have been shooting does or not. And I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but you have been getting all defensive and won't admit that "your" people screwed up. Where we go from here I have no clue but I hope you guys figure something out.

fastetti

Wow, is this the kind of attitude volunteers have in Wisconsin for the DNR? You think with 90% of the WI public having a negative opinion on the DNR, you wouldn't want to talk to people like this and try to help their reputation. Ipersonally have hunteda fair amount ofstates in themidwest for deer and have notseen as much anger as the citizens for WI have for the DNR. Michigan came close with the baiting ban this year, butI think that will be smoothed over as the year goes on.

I personally believe that WIhas to do something to help the hunting publicbecause it seems like their opinions fall on deaf ears.I was a little amazed that their were so many EAB units this year after that brutal winter we had last year. I think everyone knew the deer population was going to be down but the DNR still enacted so many EAB units.

Ive always wondered when the DNR does these counts, do they factor in the amount of deer that get poached and hit by cars? Also, what about the neighbor that hears all this news that WI is overrun with deer so he shoots 7 does off his 40 acre parcel, then the other neighbors need to shoot a doe to get there buck tag so they have to shoot a doe. Its feasible that 12 does could be shot off of 100 acres and maybe 2 bucks. Ive heard of this happening more than once from guys I know in WI. To me, an out of stater looking in, It seems a little odd.

Good luck to all you late season hunters, I wish you all the best of luck! I hope we have a real mild winter and try to get these deer herd number back in line for you!

Handles

Volunteer, yes. So am I affiliated with the DNR in any legal or representative way? No. Does it pizz me off when people constantly blame the DNR for things that they personally can control? yes.
Jessie, you mentioned that some lakes are just full of bluegills, then in the same breath you say that most people will only take what they can eat in a meal. You just explained the problem and the solution. In a lake like that, people should be taking out more fish, if they don't it will stay overpopulated. Just like deer. If the lake right next door has a low bluegill poplulation, people should't take as many. Just like deer. If we take away limits, people some people will abuse it, some will complain. If we tighten limits, more will complain, and some will continue to abuse it.
Jesse you said you hunt on your dad's farm. Well, if you aren'thappywith the # of deeron his farm, then as a hunter on that piece of property you are the #1 controller of the deer population on that property. Don't kill any deer for a year or two and I'm sure the population will rebound. It is truely that simple. As you said, it doens't take a rocket scientist.
My appologies for my the rudeness of my last post. But this is like the argument from guys who never shoot a trophy buck because they always shoot a small buck. Hello??? Who is to blame for that?

npockat32

Ha! I tell people that all the time. They don't listen. If you need meet shoot a doe but let the bucks go and you will see bigger bucks the following year. It's just as simple as that! Some ppl just still don't understand.

Haus/WI

Ithink theDNR is mostly at fault. It is the responsiblilty of the DNR biologists to give accurate information to help set the framework for the seasons.They decide how many tags are given out and whether we have earn a buck or herd control in certain management units. They are the ones responsible for the management of the deer herd in Wisconsin. I agree there are a lot of yahoos that shoot up the woods, but they have been given the tags and doe seasons to do so. I have definately lost a lot of faith in the DNR, especially after the whole CWD eradication BS!

passthrough24

Handles,I agree with you 100% about people complaining about not having deer on their own property when it is almost totally in their own hands...I do not have the privelage of owning my own land and have allways hunted public land...I and hunters like myself rely on the DNR to set harvest laws in such a way that will promote a healthy deer herd on the land we are able to hunt...It is obvious that hunters on public land (especially rifle season) will shoot whatever is legal and the land also gets a lot more hunters, I really wish that the DNR would take this into consideration when making these public land units EAB...It is getting to the point that if you dont own land you cant hunt!

I know the DNR has a very difficult job to do, however I doNOT believe they as a whole have done a good job managing the deer herd...And I would love to volounteer and try to help out if i ever had the chance to do so...

Overall, there has to be a happy meduim between overpopulation and total extermination...