WI DRN deer projection off

http://www.channel3000.com/news/18208355/detail.html

used the wrong “multiplier” figure to estimate the population.? That sounds like a significant piece of data that was messed up. More excuses…

I wondered if something wasnt right after hearing the WI DNR numbers from the rifle hunt?

Now what about the MN deer population? With the low harvest numbers reported by the MN DNR, and the fact that most all of the hunters I know saw far less deer this year. Makes me wonder??

Absolutely unacceptable!

They used the wrong reproduction or mulitiplier figure against last year’s total harvest??? Can you please expand on that MR Hauge and tell us how big an error that made in estimating the total deer population?

“We’re certainly going to look hard at the data this year and sort of redouble our efforts to make sure were providing the most accurate information possible,” Hauge said. So let me understand this – it’s going to cost us more $ to help you estimate the deer population due to the fact you didn’t get it right this year.

“The DNR says they won’t make the same mistake next year.” Let’s just get it right the first time and not make any more promises.

The end result is the total deer harvest is down 20% compared to last year even though there more deer licenses were sold (I heard 5% which would be over 32,000) this year.

I’m not here to bash the WI DNR but this mistake is unacceptable and it’s up to us to ask questions.

I encourage everyone – if you would like to file a deer-related comment for the DNR’s consideration, call or write to Chairman Edgar Harvey, Jr. at:

Chairman, Wisconsin Conservation Congress
N3635 Timberview Rd
Waldo , Wisconsin 53093
920-528-7071

or send an email to:

Rob Bohmann
Wisconsinn Conservation Congress Vice-Chair
CWD Committee Chair
Big Game Committee Member
[email protected]

The first thing they need to change is to get rid of Earn-a-buck in all but the most grossly overpopulated units. I think it’s pretty clear after this year, landowners have as good or better idea of their local herd population as the state DNR, let them manage it as they see fit to an extent.

I think the deer management program as a whole needs to be looked at and updated, from the goals right through the means to meet the goals.

I’ll admit I didn’t read the link yet but my first thought is “Hey I’ve made mistakes at work before as has everyone else.” This isn’t a life and death situation and if the herd is grossly down it only takes but a year or two of lower quotas and it’s all back up to snuff. Maybe my opinion will change after reading the article but maybe not. If we call for the heads of everyone who makes a mistake in their job how long until it is one of us looking for work? Again, it isn’t life or death.

Quote:

---

I’ll admit I didn’t read the link yet but my first thought is “Hey I’ve made mistakes at work before as has everyone else.” This isn’t a life and death situation and if the herd is grossly down it only takes but a year or two of lower quotas and it’s all back up to snuff. Maybe my opinion will change after reading the article but maybe not. If we call for the heads of everyone who makes a mistake in their job how long until it is one of us looking for work? Again, it isn’t life or death.

---

I don’t think it is one person’s job, I would think it is a model that is run and checked and checked again by multiple people.

Also, I’m not calling for anyone’s head, just a re-look and possible re-tooling of the methodology of the whiole deer managment program.

PS, the weatherman is wrong 50% of the time and still keeps his job.

Maybe its time for the bean counters to get off their @sses and get in the field to see the actual population.

Its drives me crazy when people try to use statistics to justify anything. The DNR is the worst offender IMHO. They are absolutely convinced that their “data” is 100% correct and if you didn’t see a deer or kill a deer its because you hunted wrong or didn’t work hard enough or the standing corn cut down your deer sitings or blah, blah, blah.

I know that there are going to be down years, especially after a winter like we had in 2007-2008. What gets me is I’ve been in an EAB Unit for three years now and we see less and less does every year, but we still are required to shoot one if we want a buck sticker.

Maybe the DNR should give us all a discount on next years tag. They f’ed up this year’s hunt, so I think a discount is in order. Any good guide or outfitter would give a discount for the next hunt if they promised a hunter something and couldn’t deliver it.

Quote:

---

Maybe its time for the bean counters to get off their @sses and get in the field to see the actual population.

Its drives me crazy when people try to use statistics to justify anything. The DNR is the worst offender IMHO.

---

I’m not saying you are right or wrong but until I could review a better method I’d likely agree. I’m not sure hiring several people to monitor fields and game cameras would be any better but if they are hiring for it I’ll apply. Besides the DNR I believe most all insurance policy pricing is determined by statistics. How else would they do it?

W.D.N.R. We Do Nothing Right

Have you ever made a mistake that effects thousands of people? This is a big deal.

I heard Family Dollar was recalling those calculators. Seems they sold a bunch to the banking industry and the Wisconsin DNR. Told people they had more than they really did. Huh.

Sorry, this is NOT a big deal. Dying of cancer is a big deal. Getting killed in a car accident is a big deal. Having a child kidnapped is a big deal. Miscalculating the deer herd? Sorry, not a big deal I don’t care how many people it affects. I don’t recall anyone P&Ming when the herd was so over exploded you could almost kill a deer in Walmart. I don’t recall anyone whining when deer kill numbers were through the roof the last ten years setting several new harvest records.

I think “hunters” have become people and people are lazy. They want to climb a stand and sit while deer parade below them all day long to keep their minds occupied. The actual ability to “hunt” has, by and far, been lost. Now we are more than happy to simply wait and choose. I admit I have also fallen victim to that. I also feel I’ve started to recognize it and have tried to get back to still hunting and simply lurking around more often. I try to hunt when my only deadline that day is darkness.

Think people are whimpering now? Wait until the additional bonus tags are cut and it’s back to 2-3 year wait to get an antlerless tag while the herd recoups. Between those simply wanting to tag a doe to eat and all those crying the young bucks are being shot this current clamoring will be completely forgotten about.

OK!

Riveratt,

You make valid points – but let’s not compare apples to oranges. Nobody is saying a deer herd is comparable to cancer – but to the well being of the hunting industry to this state, it’s a viable term to use.

Our paper today has a similar article about the deer herd issue: http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/12/09/newsupdate/16deer.txt

There are multiple reasons for getting upset about this – I don’t care so much about the fact I didn’t see a lot a deer – what I do care about is that we have another example of failure in something the WDNR is involved with. They are inept in several facets of their “business”. The only problem is that they never have to answer to anybody

Quote:

---

Think people are whimpering now? Wait until the additional bonus tags are cut and it’s back to 2-3 year wait to get an antlerless tag while the herd recoups. Between those simply wanting to tag a doe to eat and all those crying the young bucks are being shot this current clamoring will be completely forgotten about.

---

That wouldn’t happen if overharvest wasn’t encouraged in the first place!

BTW, I don’t forsee that happening. Just take off the ridiculous EAB regulation and let people manage their herd like they see fit.

Quote:

---

Sorry, this is NOT a big deal. Miscalculating the deer herd? Sorry, not a big deal I don’t care how many people it affects.”

---

Given the fact that deer hunting is a multi-million dollar business in Wisconsin, it DOES affect a lot of people.

I don’t know what the average hunter spends, but it adds up when you take into account gas, food, lodging and other “supplies”.

If hunters don’t have a good time hunting or they decide the cost is too great, they will quit. Where does the money that they spend come from now? Any small town in Wisconsin will tell you how important the week of gun season is to their bottom line.

Given this lastest debacle and the Snafu with the over the counter Spring Turkey tags last year, I’d say that the DNR needs new leadership. It’s painfully obvious that they are not responsive to their customers. We as sportsmen deserve to be treated better.

Of course, if they decide that they don’t need to change, maybe we can spend our hunting dollars in Iowa, Minnesota or Missouri. Luckily, I know people in al three States and I’m sure all three States would welcome my out of state money.

When did you guys in wisconsin get mule deer. The 2 deer towards the end of the video are Mulies!

Quote:

---

When did you guys in wisconsin get mule deer. The 2 deer towards the end of the video are Mulies!

---

You’re correct – those are mulies – and I noticed that too! Since there are so few deer now, maybe the news crew couldn’t find any live whitetails!

Quote:

---

Just take off the ridiculous EAB regulation and let people manage their herd like they see fit.

---

Let people manage the herd as they see fit? You mean that in jest right? In no way shape or form would that work. Remember no one forced this years hunters to shoot any deer what so ever. If the public could manage the herd as they saw fit I wonder why no one did it this year, last year, or any other previous record harvest years?

I have a question. If next year the DNR says “folks the herd is less than half what we thought it was last year.” How many of you will decide not to buy a tag in order to help the herd? I bet none. A simple look to the bear hunting tags is proof enough of that. (Speaking of that anyone notice the DNR was wrong with that too? Where are the protesters?)

And when did deer hunting become about money to the sportsman? I fully understand how numbers can impact the hunting related income a state may get but to use that as an excuse for herd management? Sorry, I ain’t buying it. Never have I heard a group of deer hunters tell stories of how they all get together and buy tags to help the economy. If anyone here is buying tags or licenses because of concern the states economy maybe it’s time to rethink why you hunt in the first place. Bottom line, again, is this it not a big deal. No one died because of the alleged low numbers and the herd is not extinct. Numbers can easily be brought back up so the “hunters” can sit in their stands and watch the parade waiting until they see the one they want.

Why wouldn’t that work? That’s how it was for many years.

Why wouldn’t it work? Isn’t the proof in the pudding? Everyone is crying “no deer” this year when just a few years back records were set for harvest. Where was the public management? Where was the public management from 1900 to the years when no deer licenses were available because of over harvest? Why wouldn’t it work? My question is why would it work. Man has proven over and over again he will use up a resource until it is completely and utterly GONE unless a managing agency steps in and regulates it.

Just a couple things I have to respectfully disagree on RR. You say hunters have gotten lazy and that’s why they’re not seeing deer. I was with a group of 8 for 2 days driving the Black river state forest and never saw a deer. Driving dawn till dusk and standing every other drive – not lazy and no deer. These areas won’t rebound any time soon. Yes the DNR did kind of “force” us to shoot does with the EAB if we wanted to shoot a buck. With the population already low they made us shoot the limiting factor in reproduction success – instead of shooting a buck a hunter had to shoot a doe – 3 deer next year. You say if hunters had control of management that the deer would be gone. Hunters have managed their lands for many years before the DNR told us we had to shoot more does to meet their “goals”. The reason the deer #’s are lower is because of new regulations to take more deer – the deer are gone because of the DNR’s regulations NOT from “man using up the resource”. The “managing agency” is the problem here.

Witte

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just take off the ridiculous EAB regulation and let people manage their herd like they see fit.

---

Let people manage the herd as they see fit? You mean that in jest right? In no way shape or form would that work. Remember no one forced this years hunters to shoot any deer what so ever. If the public could manage the herd as they saw fit I wonder why no one did it this year, last year, or any other previous record harvest years?

I have a question. If next year the DNR says “folks the herd is less than half what we thought it was last year.” How many of you will decide not to buy a tag in order to help the herd? I bet none. A simple look to the bear hunting tags is proof enough of that. (Speaking of that anyone notice the DNR was wrong with that too? Where are the protesters?)

---

What is your point on people being allowed to manage their own land? That there would be too many deer? That I might actually agree with, over a course of years and depending on your definition of “too many”, but the rest of your post makes it sound like the problem would be too few? If the DNR said next year the herd is half of what we thought it was and there is too few deer, I bet most people wouldn’t shoot DOES, but they may still go out to harvest a buck. Why would we need to not hunt, we would just need to stop shooting so damn many does.

My statement was actually just against EAB and not deer management in totality, though I agree it was worded poorly. My problem with the EAB is basically if you want venison, the DNR is forcing you to shoot a doe first, so you have two choices if you feel the herd is hurting in your area: Don’t shoot anything, or shoot a doe and hurt it worse.

Quote:

---

Just a couple things I have to respectfully disagree on RR. You say hunters have gotten lazy and that’s why they’re not seeing deer. I was with a group of 8 for 2 days driving the Black river state forest and never saw a deer. Driving dawn till dusk and standing every other drive – not lazy and no deer. These areas won’t rebound any time soon. Yes the DNR did kind of “force” us to shoot does with the EAB if we wanted to shoot a buck. With the population already low they made us shoot the limiting factor in reproduction success – instead of shooting a buck a hunter had to shoot a doe – 3 deer next year. You say if hunters had control of management that the deer would be gone. Hunters have managed their lands for many years before the DNR told us we had to shoot more does to meet their “goals”. The reason the deer #’s are lower is because of new regulations to take more deer – the deer are gone because of the DNR’s regulations NOT from “man using up the resource”. The “managing agency” is the problem here.

Witte

---

Guess I should have kept reading farther, you basically said what I was trying to say, and probably better!

Hi witte. We’re close to seeing the same thing, I believe, but there is still a little disagreement, which is certainly not a bad thing. Not all hunters have gotten lazier. I have and realized it and I am trying to make the change. Part of the problem this year, it appears, is hunter turn out was lower and people spent fewer hours in the woods. I also personally believe a certain amount of people harvested less deer on purpose because of the good harvest the last couple years. They may have had meat left. Maybe not, just a thought.

About hunters managing deer. I do not believe hunters can or will do it. Again I point to where we are now if the herd is low. True management wouldn’t have allowed for over harvest. The DNR implemented the EAB but not once did they force anyone to harvest one. If hunters are going to claim to know more about the herd than the DNR then they have to also back it with facts. Facts are the hunters still chose to take part in the EAB by harvesting a doe first. Many also chose to bow hunt and harvest a deer that way as well. If they knew then that numbers were so low why did they continue to harvest? I also have to disagree that managing agency is the problem if hunters are truly able to manage the herd. The managing agency simply set the harvest goal. The managers are the ones who pulled the triggers. I see it like speed limits. Because the sign says 65MPH doesn’t mean it is always safe or prudent to go that fast (or slow). I hope that makes more sense?

I still don’t believe there is a huge problem. The herd was almost decimated 40-50 years ago (About the same time “we” managed the herd) and through the DNR management we got to having HUGE harvests in the last decade. It came back before and can easily do so again if need be.

Quote:

---

Hi witte. We’re close to seeing the same thing, I believe, but there is still a little disagreement, which is certainly not a bad thing. Not all hunters have gotten lazier. I have and realized it and I am trying to make the change. Part of the problem this year, it appears, is hunter turn out was lower and people spent fewer hours in the woods. I also personally believe a certain amount of people harvested less deer on purpose because of the good harvest the last couple years. They may have had meat left. Maybe not, just a thought.

About hunters managing deer. I do not believe hunters can or will do it. Again I point to where we are now if the herd is low. True management wouldn’t have allowed for over harvest. The DNR implemented the EAB but not once did they force anyone to harvest one. If hunters are going to claim to know more about the herd than the DNR then they have to also back it with facts. Facts are the hunters still chose to take part in the EAB by harvesting a doe first. Many also chose to bow hunt and harvest a deer that way as well. If they knew then that numbers were so low why did they continue to harvest? I also have to disagree that managing agency is the problem if hunters are truly able to manage the herd. The managing agency simply set the harvest goal. The managers are the ones who pulled the triggers. I see it like speed limits. Because the sign says 65MPH doesn’t mean it is always safe or prudent to go that fast (or slow). I hope that makes more sense?

I still don’t believe there is a huge problem. The herd was almost decimated 40-50 years ago (About the same time “we” managed the herd) and through the DNR management we got to having HUGE harvests in the last decade. It came back before and can easily do so again if need be.

---

Again, why should “we” have to refuse to havest a deer and not get venison when simply removing the EAB regulation could help the heard AND allow harvest. I guess I don’t get why you keep saying hunters should have to choose to not harvest a deer. If the DNR didn’t implement their herd reduction rules in the first place, there would not be a need for it. Seems you just want to call hunters lazy and think they should have to prove they are willing to make some kind of sacrifice or something? Why should someone have to sacrifice and not shoot a deer at all when they could simply harvest a buck and still help the population AND get some venison at the same time? I’m talking strictly the EAB regualtion here.

Fact of the matter is the DNR set their management goals, they implemented tools to get there, they got there, and hunters don’t like it. If hunters should feel “lazy” about anything, they should feel lazy about not fighting the DNR sooner on how they set their management goals and harvest tools.

BTW, I agree with your last paragraph, but it isn’t going to change unless the DNR changes their management goals. IMO, their overwintering goals in many units are wayyy too low. Maybe you disagree, I don’t know.

Quote:

---

Again, why should “we” have to refuse to havest a deer and not get venison when simply removing the EAB regulation could help the heard AND allow harvest. I guess I don’t get why you keep saying hunters should have to choose to not harvest a deer. If the DNR didn’t implement their herd reduction rules in the first place, there would not be a need for it. Seems you just want to call hunters lazy and think they should have to prove they are willing to make some kind of sacrifice or something? Why should someone have to sacrifice and not shoot a deer at all when they could simply harvest a buck and still help the population AND get some venison at the same time? I’m talking strictly the EAB regualtion here.

Fact of the matter is the DNR set their management goals, they implemented tools to get there, they got there, and hunters don’t like it. If hunters should feel “lazy” about anything, they should feel lazy about not fighting the DNR sooner on how they set their management goals and harvest tools.

BTW, I agree with your last paragraph, but it isn’t going to change unless the DNR changes their management goals. IMO, their overwintering goals in many units are wayyy too low. Maybe you disagree, I don’t know.

---

Somehow we are just not understanding each other. You propose allowing hunters to regulate the deer herd. Who’s stopping that from happening now? If these hunters know the herd so well then why did they shoot it down so bad (allegedly) this last season? Understand what I mean? Harvest quota’s are the maximum not the minimum. If the hunters who know more than the DNR (seemingly the majority?) then why didn’t they regulate themselves? I don’t know how to make my point any clearer than that. The inability to understand that only emphasis my point about why hunters cannot manage the herd. Yet there is no sense in getting all bowed up over hypotheticals because as you mentioned. Hunters refused to come together and educate the DNR on the herd size so don’t hold your breath on them getting together and making change to manage their herd.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Again, why should “we” have to refuse to havest a deer and not get venison when simply removing the EAB regulation could help the heard AND allow harvest. I guess I don’t get why you keep saying hunters should have to choose to not harvest a deer. If the DNR didn’t implement their herd reduction rules in the first place, there would not be a need for it. Seems you just want to call hunters lazy and think they should have to prove they are willing to make some kind of sacrifice or something? Why should someone have to sacrifice and not shoot a deer at all when they could simply harvest a buck and still help the population AND get some venison at the same time? I’m talking strictly the EAB regualtion here.

Fact of the matter is the DNR set their management goals, they implemented tools to get there, they got there, and hunters don’t like it. If hunters should feel “lazy” about anything, they should feel lazy about not fighting the DNR sooner on how they set their management goals and harvest tools.

BTW, I agree with your last paragraph, but it isn’t going to change unless the DNR changes their management goals. IMO, their overwintering goals in many units are wayyy too low. Maybe you disagree, I don’t know.

---

Somehow we are just not understanding each other. You propose allowing hunters to regulate the deer herd. Who’s stopping that from happening now? If these hunters know the herd so well then why did they shoot it down so bad (allegedly) this last season? Understand what I mean? Harvest quota’s are the maximum not the minimum. If the hunters who know more than the DNR (seemingly the majority?) then why didn’t they regulate themselves? I don’t know how to make my point any clearer than that. The inability to understand that only emphasis my point about why hunters cannot manage the herd. Yet there is no sense in getting all bowed up over hypotheticals because as you mentioned. Hunters refused to come together and educate the DNR on the herd size so don’t hold your breath on them getting together and making change to manage their herd.

---

This is from my response:

“My statement was actually just against EAB and not deer management in totality, though I agree it was worded poorly. My problem with the EAB is basically if you want venison, the DNR is forcing you to shoot a doe first, so you have two choices if you feel the herd is hurting in your area: Don’t shoot anything, or shoot a doe and hurt it worse.”

I do not think that the deer hunters could manage the herd throughout the state completely on their own without oversight. Re-read my first sentence above, focus on the tools a hunter can use to manage their own land in an EAB unit, and don’t think along the lines of setting the entire state free to manage the entire herd. I just think the EAB regulation completely eliminates the ability of the landowner or hunter to manage their land and herd at all, except for two choices: Shoot does or don’t hunt. And that sucks and takes away TOO much control from the hunter IMO, unless the herd is way out of control.