DNR blames low deer harvest on not have EAB

Check out this article:

The Associated Press | Posted: Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:00 pm | No Comments Posted

MADISON – Hunters in Wisconsin killed about 29 percent fewer deer during this year’s traditional gun hunt than last year.

The Department of Natural Resources estimated hunters killed about 195,650 deer during the nine-day season that ended Sunday. They took 276,895 deer in the 2008 hunt.

The DNR sold about 638,000 licenses, down slightly from the roughly 642,000 it sold last year.

DNR officials had predicted a smaller harvest this year after suspending earn-a-buck requirements, a herd control method that required hunters to kill an antlerless deer before they could take a buck

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_bbd5037a-decd-11de-ad34-001cc4c002e0.html

Hard to EAB when you dont see any does….idiots

Quote:

---

Hard to EAB when you dont see any does….idiots

---

x2!

Here are the numbers right from the Wi.dnr website total deer kill from 2001-2008 which inc.gun,muzzleloader,bow. 2001-444,384
2002-335,957
2003-426,257
2004-517,169
2005-465,760
2006-506,947
2007-518,573
2008-460,407

Now with just the numbers in for the 2009 (9)day gun season in at 195,650 i think in my opinion that the dnr might be off on the herd count

Quote:

---

Here are the numbers right from the Wi.dnr website total deer kill from 2001-2008 which inc.gun,muzzleloader,bow. 2001-444,384
2002-335,957
2003-426,257
2004-517,169
2005-465,760
2006-506,947
2007-518,573
2008-460,407

Now with just the numbers in for the 2009 (9)day gun season in at 195,650 i think in my opinion that the dnr might be off on the herd count

---

Not even sure they are off on the herd count. Their management goals are low, and they implemented strategies to get a lower herd and they have achieved their goal! I would bet this goal is in direct opposition to the goal of the deer hunter, which is where the friction comes in.

My opinions (as expressed in some previous posts) regarding deer numbers, DNR policies, etc., have been/are in the process of changing…. Thanks to some great discussions on this site and other places….

All I know is a ton of people saw very few deer… Was it fog and high temps, or just way fewer deer/improperly set goals/population estimates??? I know I had multiple tags to burn and came away with seeing 5 deer all season. No deer harvested. Ouch.

When there are a lot of deer, you see deer. The fact the DNR issued you multiple tags in an area your not even seeing deer sums it up nicely. In the old days there were lots of deer but hunters were only allowed to take does occasionally. This left the standing herd strong/large. Now the herd is hunted down and hunters are still issued does tags or multiple tags. Hunters success is about the same (get a doe every other year or 3) but the standing herd is weak/small. I say the herd is devastated.

I would rather pick the deer I want to shoot occasionally than occasionally shoot the only deer I see…

Is this a question of who came first, the chicken or the egg?

Deer harvest numbers are down in 2009 because there is no EAB this year and hunters weren’t motivated to harvest does, but there is no EAB because deer numbers are down due to previous 3-4 years of EAB and everybody shooting does to qualify?

It will be interesting to see what the DNR does this year. My take would be to keep EAB out again for another year. I would expect deer numbers to rise next year because more does were left alone this year and there were less than ideal hunting conditions.

If they put EAB back in next year, we won’t know what actually was the cause since we’ll have higher deer harvest again due to hunters harvesting more does to be EAB qualified. Would be interesting to see how much the deer harvest improves in a year just by the relative expansion of the herd.

I’m talking in circles now……….

If my opinion counts for anything…

Bow: One unisex tag statewide
Gun: One unisex tag statewide

No T-zone hunts.

Extended gun season? No way. Go buy a muzzleloader if you want to hunt with a gun longer.

Now that I’m an out-of state hunter in WI, I may actaully pass on a tag if they re-enact EAB.

The harvest number from the youth hunt also needs to be added.

Quote:

---

If my opinion counts for anything…

Bow: One unisex tag statewide
Gun: One unisex tag statewide

No T-zone hunts.

Extended gun season? No way. Go buy a muzzleloader if you want to hunt with a gun longer.

---

X 2 I think this would work also

Multiple years of shooting many antlerless deer–not called a buck pole anymore when in the last 10 years it has been dominated with does and fawns. EAB the last years or 3 has just been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Essentially, 5 deer had 30 hiding spots.
The DNR’s back is against the wall with allowing non biological issues enter into deer management. Shooting does is not the evil culprit–actually, good herd management–shooting multiple per year per person was the problem–slobbery and decay, now we want to blame the poor DNR–well, they promoted it, but we pulled the trigger. Warm weather, corn up, fog, end of rut all played into the perfect storm for a small deer herd to magnify into something smaller.
The DNR will spin this record round, round right round.
With 15 deer or less per square mile of habitat, and taking approx. 2 square miles to make one square mile of habitiat—7.5 deer or less per mile, and all those might be on 5 acres.
If people actually knew how few deer were out there and NONE were even close to their property….thank God for ignorant bliss.
Who would fish in a pond with no fish?????
Until the DNR correctly manages the herd, landowners should take the initative and do it themselves by limiting harvest on their properties.
Check the DNR’s own studies on deer management. The carrying capacity of the land is usually between 50 and 100 deer per square mile of habitat in most of WI—it is the sociological issues that drop that number into the toilet, look it up on line and read it for yourself.
Poor, poor DNR.

blaming the low harvest on not having eab is a copout by the dnr because the harvest was down as well in the cwd zone where it was still eab, in richland county where we hunt I believe the count was down by roughly a 1000 deer. the page on the dnrs website with numbers of the southern units has been missing the past 2 days as I have been trying to compare the whole cwd zone. with several back to back years of eab in some units there just are not the deer out there as ther used to be, some people are even having a hard time qualifying for a buck tag the last year or 2. enough is enough

Quote:

---

Is this a question of who came first, the chicken or the egg?

Deer harvest numbers are down in 2009 because there is no EAB this year and hunters weren’t motivated to harvest does, but there is no EAB because deer numbers are down due to previous 3-4 years of EAB and everybody shooting does to qualify?

It will be interesting to see what the DNR does this year. My take would be to keep EAB out again for another year. I would expect deer numbers to rise next year because more does were left alone this year and there were less than ideal hunting conditions.

If they put EAB back in next year, we won’t know what actually was the cause since we’ll have higher deer harvest again due to hunters harvesting more does to be EAB qualified. Would be interesting to see how much the deer harvest improves in a year just by the relative expansion of the herd.

I’m talking in circles now……….

---

Eric-I think things are drastically different between the area you hunt and the norther public zone.

Also-the general public cannot police themselves. Asking the avg hunter to manage the herd by not pulling the trigger is ridiculous. The DNR is soley to blame for the deer herd massacre. I’m sure there is a hidden agenda. The insurance company answer seems to fit but I dont know. I do know the DNR makes the rules and they just keep slaughtering the deer. Mn and Wi. You watch. If the sporting community keeps pushing this issue they will find out the real reason, then the debate begins. If it is the insurance issue they will pit human injuries vs. deer population. Who do you think will win that contest……. They will also lie and cheat to convince the

(non-hunting) general public the deer herd is just fine when you and I KNOW different.

Insurance companies don’t have anything to do with the deer herd. They treat it the same as any other natural occuring incident. Live in a county with higher deer car accidents you pay higher rates, live in an area with hurricanes you pay higher rates for that. It is much more cost effective for them to look at the data and adjust rates than to have lawyers working with each state to try and reduce the animal causing the problem. They would have to reduce the deer, turkeys, pheasants in SD, something in every state across the country. It wouldn’t make sense and would cost everyone more in the long run.

I hope you are right but honestly dont know. What other reasons? Deer/human conflicts- Agricultural damage? Human/car injuries? What else is there beside these factors? Are they doing it just to satisfy our trigger happy blood lust? What???????????

I’m not sure who has the answer. I know they are trying to exterminate them in the southern zones because of CWD. That will happen soon enough though, there are finally wolves down there and my sister saw them take a fawn during the rifle season. We had OK deer numbers but now we’ll have to wait and see what happens with the wolves down there now. Hopefully it will be open season on them soon.

Quote:

---

Eric-I think things are drastically different between the area you hunt and the norther public zone.

---

I know deer harvest numbers are down where I hunt, BUT, we’ve had the best two years in 2008 and 2009 than we ever have had before.

So I don’t know what the answer is, but I think each area has it’s own characteristics and hunting pressure, and attitude toward QDM, not to mention fog and corn.

I don’t think one management technique implemented statewide will work. My guess is that high profile areas will get more study and attention than others. Not unlike MN DNR studying and stocking the high profile lakes more than others.

I was amazed when I first started hunting WI 6 years ago that so many doe tags were available. In fact, if my memory serves, that first year I could have bought extra tags for $2 a piece. Not everyone was a meat hunter or took more than they should have, but those that are/were, could really make hay.

That’s got to stop. I like the two tags per person deal we have now, one buck, one antlerless.

ET