Preliminary WI Harvest Numbers Announced
 

Have you seen the preliminary gun harvest numbers? Sounds about like most expected--the harvest is down, way down.

Detailed Analysis:
Statewide: down 29%.
My area: down 31%

And I'm in a Herd Control area so we have "excess" deer!

Last year, my area was down 20%. That means that this year was down 45% from two years ago. That's crazy!

I'm not a horn hunter by any stretch of the imagination but I'm not planning to hunt anything but bucks for a while.

How do the numbers compare with your experience and expected figures?

This can't be right! There are more deer out there...the DNR says so and they are always right! (Sarcasm intended!)

Thats what we did on our land, bucks only this year. No more does till they rebound!!!

Im in MN and our area was down about 26% and that was down 20% from the year before ....so thats about 46%...man, they better get this figured out...I hope they go bucks only next year or at the very least draw for doe permits....there just isn't the deer out there that the MNDNR says there is.....sounds like wisconsin.

Actually, that means that you're down 41% from two years ago. You can't add percentages. Still a bad number, in my opinion.

Irony
 

In the midst of announcing a much smaller harvest than recent years, they emphasize the opportunity to go kill more:

I also liked the safety article which noted:

I wonder if hunters not having nearly as much opportunity to take the gun off safety contributed!

Quote"I wonder if hunters not having nearly as much opportunity to take the gun off safety contributed" End quote,

This is an accomplishment not be made light of! Hunter Education works - so don't belittle the DNR here at all!

JW

I'm not saying that Hunter Education isn't valuable, including helping to train safe hunters. I am saying that with close to half the number of deer shot this year compared to two years ago, that the opportunity for accidents seems greatly reduced.

To claim the latter is not to address the former in any way. Sounds like you've got a soapbox, JW.

Isn't less deer shot what many of you were hoping for after last season? Many people were on here saying that they won't hunt or won't shoot does until the population increases. It looks like that has happend. So rather than complain, you should be happy right? Fewer deer shot this year = more deer next year.

It's not that simple. If the doe harvest is restricted, then the herd will grow. To the extent that people can continue to shoot does at will, the population will continue to decline. In my area, despite a 45% drop from just two years ago, the DNR is still saying there are too many deer and want to see more does harvested!

Hunters that complain that the herd is too small want to see fewer does harvested because they're let go, not because they can't be found.

And for the record, going into this season, I was on the fence on the DNRs evaluation of the herd size. I've not been a vocal anti-DNR voice.

To say that the low Hunter accident reprot was due to people not taking the safety off their gun is ludicrist! Calling all us Wiscosninites unsafe hunters no more no less with that statement is what I took offense too!

No soap box here at all - you are blaming all the wrong people.

You had better look for at your Insurance Lobby at Doyle's end!
And the fact the Wisconsin mentality is Brown it is down!


And let me add - Next year's Deer Rifle Kill count will be down at least another 20%!
JW

I was one of the guys who said; no more does till they rebound. It has happened on our land, with one exception,young hunters can kill anything. Your calculation is correct,Handles,however we are upset that even though the herd is down, the DNR is promoting a longer season. I have talked to alot of guys who feel the DNR is ramming this (longer season) deal down their throat weather we agree or not.

I do think the lack of hunter participation is directly related to the lack of deer. The DNR pushes through the mentorship program, I might add, only for the money. I am not against this, its their out-right greed that will ruine deer hunting, i'm afraid. I know from what we saw, that the deer herd in our area is very low and a longer season may totally destroy it all together.

It's really easy to combat a longer season, don't hunt more days. That's what our party did the last two years other than a couple doe shot after the first 9 days. JW is right, the brown/down ideal is a huge part of the problem. If you feel in your area there aren't enough deer, then don't shoot any. Save 5 adult doe and you should have an additional 10 deer by fall. Hunters must use self control and restraint if they expect changes.
Also hunters must realize that what they are or are not seeing does not always represent the population. In our area of the state we had extremely heavy fog several mornings. That put a limit on deer sightings and harvest, otherwise we would have been nearly identical to 2008 and 2007 numbers. Also remember that where YOU are makes a difference. I saw 6 doe all season from my stand. Several hunters on the SAME PROPERT saw between 10-50 on opening morning alone (yes, some of these could be repeat sightings).
Hunters control the harvest, the DNR does not.

EAB = DNR CONTROLING DOE HERD HARVEST.You pay taxes and make payments on your land in EAB UNITS.So if you want to shot a buck which is what most people bought the land in the first place for HELLO YOU HAVE TO SHOOT A DOE.No matter how much you dont want to shoot that doe you are FORCED to.How the DNR thinks they should decide how each landowners herd should be regulated is complete B.S.If you were still seeing large amounts of deer landowners would shoot them but they are just not there.

Don't shoot'em on your land and make the DNR squirm. In the CWD units they want every living deer dead, not a good situation for a deer hunter.

What I've heard and what outdoor news reporters who have been present at the WDNR public input meetings have reported is that there was overwhelming support from the public at these meetings for a longer season.

In advance of the meetings, the WDNR was on record with their position that they were NOT strongly in favor of a longer season because of concerns over a shrinking heard size and the possibility that CWD could worsen.

While you might not be in favor of a longer season many of your fellow Cheesehunters (sorry, couldn't resist) are certainly throwing their support behind it for various reasons. Bottom line is that it doesn't sound to me like it's an idea that is only supported by the DNR over there.

And least we all forget, hunting has been proven to have very little impact on deer populations when compared to other factors like winter kill, predator kills, and road deaths. The area I hunt in Minnesota has sustained large scale harvests every year since the 1980s, but the only thing that seemed to significantly reduce the overall heard were the years when there were very harsh winters with deep snow and cold. Every mild winter sees an uptick in the deer numbers the next year even if the previous season had a record deer harvest.

Grouse

Handles: I am looking at the big picture here. The deer on our property will come back. I do feel sad for the guys that don't have a place to hunt on private land. The brown is down thing started when the DNR gave unlimited tags away. I also feel most sportsmen hate the DNR because they have been misled too many times. All the mis-trueths from the DNR as well as the EAB and cheap tags gave many hunters a reason to hang it up. To me thats too bad.

Well the numbers in my area dropped dramatically. I talked to one friend of mine today who's girlfriend works at a registration station. She said they were 38% down from last year. Add that to the year before, and its kind of scary. I asked him how many deer he saw in the gun season. He only had a buck tag. None was his reply, not even a doe. And he hunted all day every day. He also took his kid with him this year. The sorry part is the young man does not want to hunt next year. I guess too many days of squirrels and wood peckers is not too exciting. He said he's not going to hunt anymore until the numbers come back up. He's (like many of us) is a meat hunter not a horn hunter.

I think you might see even more hunters hang up their rifles until the herd comes back. So the DNR's solution is to extend the season.

both bow and gun seasons should be buck only and the buck with at least a fork or bigger for a few years - but that will never happen.....

JW

The 16 day season structure will "typically" add only 2 days to a hunters time in the woods. This will in most likely not dramatically increase the deer harvest for the next few seasons, as the EAB seasons have seen to that.

The most opposition I have seen is from BOWHUNTERS. Mostly due to the other factors that go along with the 16 day season. Such as the 1wk (in OCT.) Youth hunt as well as the earlier muzzel loader season, supposedly to be held during the same week as the Youth hunt.
Now for a group who has a roughly 120 day season, currently broken up only by the 4 day oct. t-zone, 2 day youth hunt, 9 day regular firearm, 4 day dec. t-zone, and dec. muzzel loader seasons, they sound awful selfish to me.

The over-all population goals are what (IMO) is driving the decision by the DNR to continue to offer and expect the increased harvest of doe's. What this does is lower the number of hunters in the woods, because they aren't seeing anything, as they had in the past.

The brown/down theory did not start when the DNR began EAB or having free doe tags. That philosophy has been in the minds of too many hunters for too long. And it isn't just in wisconsin, and it isn't just for deer. Don't blame the DNR for anyone who pulls the trigger, that is each hunter's decision.
Now I'm not in with the rest of you who think there are no deer left. I personally think there are plenty of deer in the state, but maybe not in all areas. However if I were to believe that there were no deer left, I could easily take a look at the numbers of hunters in this state (more than MN and IA combined) and realize that might be part of the problem, therefore hunters not buying a license, or choosing not to shoot as the #1 way to increase the deer population. However that won't be a cure all for areas, such as big timber areas in the north, where because of overpopulation for many years, and shading from the tree canopy, there just isn't the browse needed to sustain, or re-grow a large population. Too many hunters want to have a deer behind every tree They get too caught up in the # of big bucks that we see on a 1/2 hr. tv show that might have taken 20 days afield to film.

I never said it was only due to that. I'm saying that I think it was a factor. Facts: a portion of hunter safety accidents involve bullets. Almost all shots are fired with the gun off safety. Guns in the hands of safe hunters are only off safety when they see a legitimate target (e.g. deer). Fewer deer sightings = reduced opportunities for accidents. That's all I'm saying or implying.

I never said or implied that Wisconsinites are unsafe hunters. In fact, the logic is the opposite. See my above paragraph. I'm assuming that most hunters are being safe. Accidental shootings (which I know are only a portion of the hunting accidents) are reduced with less gun fire.

I'm not blaming anyone! All I was saying was that less shooting = less opportunity for accidents. You're interpreting my comments in a way that is totally out of line with what I said. For you to get riled up about something that was neither said or implied is the reason for my statement that you seem to have a soapbox.

I'm not sure what the first part means other than that you think the DNR is motivated to reduce the herd to please the Insurance industry. Probably at least partly true. Also irrelevant to my safety observation.

This latter part, stated by you, is blaming the hunters, the very thing you accuse me of! LOL Brown is down is a mentality that can only exist when the DNR allows "open season" on everything. Limited doe tags and some sort of point restriction on bucks would eliminate the "brown is down" mentality. It would also contribute to safety as it would require people to think more before shooting.

That would not surprise me at all.

As I mentioned before, brown is down does not pertain to doe shooting. It's the mentality of many many hunters. Wisconsin has seen more trophy bucks since the induction of EAB than any other time in history, including back when it was either choice. Hunters chose buck tags and chose to shoot small bucks. It would still be that way for at least 1/2 of our hunting population.
I'm not advocating that people must only trophy hunt. I'm saying that sometimes when the DNR took control of the harvest, some very positive things, like a respectible buck:doe ratio and an overall improvement in age class representation took place almost immediately.

Here we go again with people saying that you need to shoot lots of does to get trophy bucks. Bucks get to be trophys by not being shot when young. Cut and dried black and white. Handles you can push your buck to doe ratios all you want but in the farmland where I live and hunt when the deer herd was at it's peak (which was probably about 10 years ago I don't care what the dnr says) deer weren't starving and guys shot trophy bucks every year. You had to work for that trophy buck but they have ALWAYS been around. No matter what the ratio is they can't get big hanging on the meat pole!!

So jessie, you are absolutely agreeing with me then aren't you? Thanks. For a moment there I thought you were saying that there used to be more big bucks than there are now. I'm glad that I re-read your email that explained how hard you had to work for that trophy buck. Great point. Yes, the've always been around, but not nearly in the numbers they are now. i'm glad you are backing me up on that. And anyone could easily look at P&Y or B&C records and see a huge increase in the past few years compared to oh, 10-15 years ago, so yes, you make a valid point.
I also note how you mentioned the farmland where you hunt kept the population well fed. That is great as some people don't hunt in quality farming areas, they seem to think that there aren't many deer in the state. It's obvious by your argument that overpopulation in your area didn't seem to have an effect on deer numbers, then it couldnt' anywere else either.
Finally, you are so correct about bucks not getting big by hanging on the meat pole. It's good that so many hunters began shooting doe for their meat and letting the bucks go voluntarily. It's great that some areas of the state were so well managed by the hunters that there was almost a 20:1 doe/buck ratio. I mean, if the hunters hadn't been so pro-active for years, the DNR would have had to step in and tell hunters to shoot some doe to help balance the herd. And that would be crazy, because if anyone knows how many deer there are in the state, and what he can do as a hunter to help the situation, it is the thousands and thousands of hunters who buy their license and ammo (and sometimes even a new gun)the day before season. Those guys are in total control of their lives. What possibly could the DNR know about the statewide deer herd that they don't?
Right? Right.

overall age improvement are you kidding me.EAB has totally destroyed the doe fawns and nubbies for how many years now.Why do you think hunters harvest and hunters sightings have declined since EAB.EAB has messed up alot of prime deer hunting areas and will take years to reverse its affect on the deer herd.

Sorry to bust your bubble handles but those trophy deer have been the result of hunters on private land practiceing QDM.You know landowners who actually know how many deer are on their land and adjust their harvest accordingly.Not by the number guessing DNR who want everything dead.Only problem is these landowners have seen to much of a decline sinse EAB and no longer feel that the doe population is at an acceptable level.The same landowners who did their part when there was a overpopulation 10 years ago are saying numbers are to low now.The only response the DNR gives is a 16 day gun season.Im afraid they wont listen to hunters until its to late......

A larger population of deer means you should have a larger population of big bucks too. The percentage of the herd with big racks gets multiplied by a much larger population. Even if the percentage of big bucks drops some, a large enough population means more big bucks in the woods to get harvested. Meat hunters can be more selective, because they know they should get a shot at something else if they pass on the spike horn at 7 AM opening day. With a smaller herd, meat hunters will pull the trigger on the first legal target they see (and who could blame them). If you remember the 80's, there were not a lot of places where a spike horn could walk safely on opening day. As does get harder to find, and probably doe permits fewer, it will be the same way again.

Handles if you don't think that the practice of QDM and the massive amount of land that is now leased for hunting rights is the biggest contributing factor to bigger bucks being shot then you are nieve. I shot the largest buck in my time before we had EAB. Thank god we only had it for 1 year. I am a meat hunter and take the first adult deer to come by me. Since 2000 I have only shot 3 does. I've shot 4 bucks in that time as well. Only 1 buck would've been a 2 or 3 year old. I'd rather shoot a small buck than a doe because I don't see the deer numbers I did back in the mid to late 80's and early 90's contrary to what the DNR says. I would rather see more deer period. I can use 1 to 2 deer per year and that's all I'll take. Actually I've only gotten 2 deer in the same year once (2001).

The DNR is the main problem with the decline of the deer herd, but as hunters I'm sure you know a group or individual that will shoot several deer in a year just because they can. They're the type to walk into a store and plop ten bucks on the counter for five extra antlerless tags and hunt until they're filled and maybe go back for more. Of course the DNR is ramming it down everyones throat that we have too many deer and the above are dumb enough to believe it.

I did harvest a doe this year (the last doe I shot was in 2005) and yes I'm not happy with the amount of deer I see in a years time. I saw 7 deer in 6 days of hunting, that's not impressive at all. I do hunt mostly private ground during gun season and only was on public land twice so only seeing 7 in 6 days isn't good. I also passed on a doe standing 60 yards away broadside after I'd already taken my doe. I didn't want to shoot another doe on that land. That logic cost me a buck later on as well when I let what I thought was a doe go and decided to just look at it through the scope after it ran. It turned out to be a small buck (6pt). I got one shot and that was it. I may hunt the antlerless season but I won't hunt on the private ground and will travel a little ways to go hunt if I do go.

I talked with 2 guys (IL hunters) who hunt on the adjoining private ground, they've been coming up for years and are increasingly upset that they don't see deer anymore. They also are the same guys that will shoot 3 to 6 does every year and will pass on small bucks. Neither have ever shot a bigger buck on that property which is worth noting. Why they pass the small bucks is beyond me. They're meat hunters they say. I talked to them on Tuesday morning and on Monday night at dusk one of them shot a small buck he thought was a doe. I could tell he wasn't happy and asked him why. "Well I'd rather shoot does and let the little bucks go". I told him I was opposite and that yes I shot a doe this year and won't shoot another one down there this year. I then asked if they realized that by shooting a doe you typically take 3 deer out of the herd for next year. If you shoot a small buck you take one out of the herd. One of them kinda understood it the other one still seemed confused. If they aren't happy with the deer numbers they're seeing quit shooting 3 to 6 does every damn year. One really is enough in a low deer density area.

One of the other factors in me shooting a doe this year is the possibility of EAB coming back next year. I like to be able to shoot what I can to put one in the freezer and I damn sure don't want to be standing there if a buck comes by and wave at it especially with a bow in my hand. I actually eat what I shoot and I know there are some that don't so I use the meat as well.


I'd like to see it go back to sending in a hunters choice application and one deer of either sex with a bow. They can get rid of all the bonus tags and HRZ/CWD tags.

Handles I don't agree with you. You spun my post like a cnn reporter spins the news. What I was saying is their is no reason for all of these stupid antlerless seasons the dnr imposes to erradicate the deer. Brainwashed people like you just believe everything the dnr tells you and will keep shooting does until their aren't any left. Shooting a doe is ok if your area has enough to shoot A doe. The people that have shot multiple does for years because of fear of eab, and glutiny (the dnr says record numbers and we need to shoot more). The bottom line is that the dnr has no clue what is going on in this state. Deer harvest is way down for the second year in a row. Last year was too cold and this year was too warm. The dnr can't decide which excuse to use next. Oh yeah I'm sure they'll throw in the hunters don't hunt hard enough anymore too. The deer herd is in grave danger of being erradicated, and at this point we as hunters have to do something.

And I have a friend that is an insurance salesman and in 2001 there were 49,000 deer car collisions, this year (year runs from last june through this july) there were 19,000. That is statewide. So who is the genius running the dnr that can't see that statistic and know we are running out of deer!!!

i have no idea who you are talking to, but i have heard from higher-ups in the wi dnr who say they have been pushing for a 16 day season for years but were skeptical they'd ever get it through because the public detests the idea every time they bring it up. i'm really not sure what makes you think that the hunting public supports a 16 day season, if you went out and polled hunters i think you'd find otherwise

Its the government stupid. Call you pols and they will handle the dnr. Fact

This I believe,We will never see EAB (exceptcwd area,s)in the next 10 years it just ain,t gonna happen,no way, Whether right or wrong EAB is done, The deer managers know there jobs are on the line.
Now with the idea that less doe,s equals more bucks can be true IF you manage for a given number of deer in an area. Say 20 deer per square mile, if 12 are does 8 can be bucks ,if 16 are does only 4 can be bucks that is DNR thinking but that only works in theory and through very strick harvest principles with no predator involved and knowledge of every deer around. In the real world that will not work,however I am seeing more large bucks on our land here in Waupaca Co. not near as many deer tho.
Trouble is people think because they own 40 acres they can shoot several deer, well that cannot be (long term). There are 16 forties in a sq. mile now if there are 32 deer per sq.mile (thats a lot)thats only 2 deer per 40. A person with 40 acres should shoot a doe every 3 or 4 years on that property and a buck every other year that would be a large kill. Of course deer don't stay on that 40 and move so folks see more deer.
If the DNR is managing for 750,000 deer and the deer kill is about 350,000 (all kills) thats half the deer, Thats why we are in the position we are in. Deer are way down you can't shoot half the deer and expect to have a large herd. Folks we are in a world of hurt, have to go out now and ML hunt, nothing smaller than 8 points tho.
Redclub

this isnt about not killing bucks it about letting bucks grow and having doe hunts like a one weekend thing. i know 19 people who shot a spike or a nub. that is crazy