bandgod

So we now are going to have a deer czar in Wisconsin. Dr. Deer (Dr. James Kroll) will be studying our deer herd and making recommendations to the DNR on how to manage the deer herd more successfully. Anybody have any idea what this may mean for those of us in Wisconsin? Baiting restrictions or lack there of, antler restrictions, over zealous doe harvest etc...? Want to know what people may think may be heading our way. Also didn't he help Pennsylvania manage their herd for a while?

sconnyhunter

I have a few suggestions.

Cut back the doe permits. Without them we don't have any deer.

End baiting permanently. It encourages the over harvest of younger deer and does.

Increase the length of the rifle season to allow hunters a chance to harvest deer under the more restrictive rules.

End the ability to harvest multiple deer per season (one with bow and one with firearm), including the ability to harvest more than one per weapon season.

UncleNorby

There's no great secret to manipulating deer numbers. To grow the herd reduce the doe harvest. To reduce the herd increase doe harvest. If there is a desire to increase the average age (rack size) of bucks, then implement some sort of antler restriction. The trick is implementing rules that are accepted by hunters. The best plan for the herd may not be acceptable to a majority of hunters because it may reduce their chances of taking a buck, or reduce the numbers of deer they see per hunt.

I've never understood why a guy wants to see 20 deer per hunt, but not a deer they want to shoot. Most rule changes affecting buck harvest are met with opposition until a few years go by and hunters begin to see better bucks.

I'm in Indiana, and the DNR says the herd is increasing. We are allowed one buck per season (no matter what you shoot it with), and varying numbers of additional antlerless tags are available based on the DNR's estimate of the herd size in each county.

I generally see a few more does than bucks per year, but I do hunt in spots that are intended to catch bucks moving between doe groups as opposed to feeding areas where more does would be seen.

MZS

Whether you like baiting or not, not allowing it will greatly reduce the harvest in the northern part of the state, where lower numbers of deer are spread out in large forested areas. The harvest was about half of normal in the year we had the ban up here and the bow harvest was even less. The deer have large areas to hide in up here.

What has wrecked hunting more than anything has been the issuing of unlimited $2 harvest tags. I have known some to shoot 6 or more deer with these - and this is the type of hunter that dumps huge piles of bait out in the woods, wrecking it for everyone. Thankfully, none of the $2 tags are available in our unit this year.

warbirdlover

I like the one buck idea but the guys in Wisconsin that hunt with both bow and rifle would never let it pass. The bow hunters get early September to January to hunt. These seasons came about when bowhunters were using recurves. Then came the compound bow. They also get the rut. I know they argue you have to get closer but the bowhunters on our land have been passing up shots on some really big deer hoping for one of the biggies. And I shot competitive archery for 20+ years (two state championships) and I KNOW if you shoot enough to get really proficient you can easily take a deer with a bow out to 60 yards. This is the new compound bows, not recurve btw. Us gun hunters only get one week. What a rip.

I'm also amazed the Wisconsin DNR would even "listen" to another source on how to manage the herd. They've always felt they were the world's experts on deer herd management. Don't believe me? Just ask one of them. I have a BIL that retired from the DNR (field technician) and whatever you do don't criticize the DNR.

Sfury

Baiting does two things. Makes hunters lazy, and helps deer become nocturnal.

You don't need to bait deer to kill them. My Father and I each took an 8 pointer last year in the gun season on paper mill land in Douglas County. We don't bait. We scout, figure the deer movement out, and then wait for them to move between feeding and bedding locations.

We don't think overly hard about what the deer think. We pattern them, and if we are patient enough, we take venison home. Deer hunting isn't rocket science.

Something that would help northern Wisconsin and central Wisconsin more, would be to reduce the wolf population. It's getting out of hand. A few wolves, fine, but we passed from few animals to a population explosion amazingly fast.

ek_buckmaster

X2!!!
I completely agree with that suggestion.

Boogeyman24

wolves are way out of hand in the northern part of the state. the dnr has tried several times to take them off the endangered list (last time i head (5 years ago) the population was over double what they said they wanted for the maximum number of wolves), but lobbyists & environmentalists/whoever have fought it and not allowed it. now we have a wolf population that's way out of control, and are stuck.

also, they've tried to extend the gun season and people don't want it. people like the traditional 9-day season, and i can't say i disagree.

from most people i hear from the problem is not enough deer - so expanding the gun season/moving it to the run will increase kill numbers, further hurting the population. not sure how that would help anything - many bucks survive rut through bow season when they wouldn't make it if the hunter had a gun in their hands versus the best compound bow/crossbow.

UPHunter08

Eh? Doubt it. I can hit a stationary target that doesn't flinch at long range, but I don't find it ethical to shoot a moving, reacting animal with a bow (even a modern compound) at that range under most circumstances, so don't overstate a bow's effectiveness. I think most here would agree that 30-40 yards tops for most hunters is in order.

For what it's worth, most bucks that I see during bow season are out of bow range, but would have been easy chip shots during gun season. So the point still stands that it's definitely more challenging to shoot them with a bow. So this entire bow-gun hunter argument is largely BS in my opinion. You want to hunt the rut? It's quite easy...pick up a bow or crossbow and join the rest of us. Can't have it both ways...

Anway, back to the topic...as has been said, there are few secrets to deer management that Dr. Kroll will be able to provide that the DNR biologists are not already aware of. What is up for debate is what the management goals are for the herd. And that debate is never fully decided by biologists, but rather by politicians.

That's why this appointment is largely irrelevant IMO. If he's an honest biologist, Dr. Kroll will likely agree with all of the biological conclusions reached by the DNR. Policy questions are beyond his expertise...those are the realm of elected officials, even if done under the table. They typically blame their policy decisions on the experts (e.g. biologists) to give them cover.

bandgod

"That's why this appointment is largely irrelevant IMO. If he's an honest biologist, Dr. Kroll will likely agree with all of the biological conclusions reached by the DNR. Policy questions are beyond his expertise...those are the realm of elected officials, even if done under the table. They typically blame their policy decisions on the experts (e.g. biologists) to give them cover."

I hadn't really thought of the politics of this decision, but knowing our governor, this was probably a very political appointment to cover his behind when he decides to do something that will be unpopular with the hunting crowd.