Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

106,000 Deer in Two Days

blake

blake

Life Member
Wisconsin Hunters Harvest 106,000 Deer in Two Days

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hunters killed slightly more deer during the first two days of Wisconsin's November gun season, an encouraging sign for hunters still upset with last year's weak harvest.

Hunters killed 106,404 deer on Saturday and Sunday, according to a preliminary Department of Natural Resources survey of registration stations. That's up about 6.3 percent from the 100,330 deer hunters killed over opening weekend last year and more than a third of the total number of deer hunters killed over the entire nine-day season in 2009.

The DNR went into the 2010 hunt under intense pressure from hunters and state lawmakers to deliver a better hunt than last year. Hunters in 2009 killed only 241,862 deer, down about 30 percent from the year before and down 54 percent from 2000.

Hunters complained loudly last winter that the DNR has grossly overestimated the size of the herd for years. The agency has imposed such harsh herd reduction strategies — including multiple seasons and requirements for hunters to kill antlerless deer before taking a buck — they've devastated the population.

Republican lawmakers who seized control of state government in this month's elections have said another weak harvest could mean drastic changes in the state's deer hunt structure. GOP Gov.-elect Scott Walker has called for ending multiple hunts and offering only the traditional nine-day November firearm season.

Tom Hauge, director of the DNR wildlife management program, said in a statement that Saturday offered very good hunting conditions, including snow in northwestern Wisconsin that improved tracking and visibility.

"The hunters I talked to opening day were upbeat with most saying they were seeing deer,'' Hauge said.

Ed Harvey, president of the Conservation Congress, a group of sportsmen who advise the DNR on policy, wasn't impressed with the opening weekend tally.

Statewide numbers mean nothing because hunting conditions and local herd density varies so widely, he said. He saw only a doe and two fawns over two days of hunting in Sheboygan County, he said.

"We've got to manage the herd by unit, not in statewide way,'' he said.
State Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford the likely next chairman of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, didn't immediately return messages after hours on Monday. Neal Kedzie, the next likely chairman of the Senate natural resources committee, also didn't immediately return messages.

DNR officials said the agency sold 607,926 gun deer licenses by dawn on Saturday, down 3 percent from the same time in 2009. License sales to 10- and 11-year-old hunters under the DNR's mentored hunter program climbed 15 percent from last year, however.

Other data the DNR released Monday included:

— About 565,000 hunters were state residents. About 32,000 were nonresidents.

— More than 86,000 hunters were younger than 18.

— Nearly 9 percent of hunters were females. About 20 percent of 10- and 11-year-old hunters were girls.

— Four hunters were shot on Saturday and a fifth was shot on Sunday, but all survived.
 
That reminds me of where I moved from. The DNR there told me when I started hunting, that 75 to 80% of all the bucks,,every size, were gone by the third day of rifle season. Yet every year they published that this coming season looked as good if not better than the last. They are still saying it. My friends there say they are hard pressed to find a deer. Years of unlimited doe tags have taken the desired toll.
 
Yeah, just wait til Iowa is like Wisconsin. I hope Iowa's deer quality doesn't continue to go down like it has the past 9 years. I've hunted in NE Iowa (or sat in my stands to observe in years when I didn't draw a tag) each year since 2001 and from what I have observed and from what I read in the "thoughts on deer numbers" thread, Iowa is headed the same way, only difference is Iowa is about 6-8 years behind Wisconsin in getting there. One big thing that helps Iowa though, as long as they don't change it, is that your gun season doesn't start til December when bucks are laying low for the most part. Bucks are still chasing/seeking does around here this week and with the gun season open, they don't have much of a chance at surviving compared to Iowa.

If I were an Iowa resident, I'd be fighting like crazy to try and keep Iowa a great whitetail state like it has been in the past. Even though I'm a nonresident, I sure hope they don't make it any easier to get a NR tag because that would be the worst thing for the quality of deer in Iowa, especially if they allow NR landowners to get a tag each year. If that happens, I won't even want to apply for Iowa anymore cause I'll probably have just as good of hunting here in WI if that happens. You Iowa residents can use that as an argument, even many NR don't want to see it any easier to get a NR tag for Iowa cause we know it will ruin the quality of the deer herd, which is the only reason we are willing to pay $500+ to come there to hunt in the first place.

I think BIG CHANGES are in store for WI deer season structure/rules in the near future. We have been on the DNR for at least 10-15 years in just the way Iowa hunters are now starting to get on their DNR for much the same reason.
 
whitetail fanatic said:
Yeah, just wait til Iowa is like Wisconsin. I hope Iowa's deer quality doesn't continue to go down like it has the past 9 years. I've hunted in NE Iowa (or sat in my stands to observe in years when I didn't draw a tag) each year since 2001 and from what I have observed and from what I read in the "thoughts on deer numbers" thread, Iowa is headed the same way, only difference is Iowa is about 6-8 years behind Wisconsin in getting there. One big thing that helps Iowa though, as long as they don't change it, is that your gun season doesn't start til December when bucks are laying low for the most part. Bucks are still chasing/seeking does around here this week and with the gun season open, they don't have much of a chance at surviving compared to Iowa.

If I were an Iowa resident, I'd be fighting like crazy to try and keep Iowa a great whitetail state like it has been in the past. Even though I'm a nonresident, I sure hope they don't make it any easier to get a NR tag because that would be the worst thing for the quality of deer in Iowa, especially if they allow NR landowners to get a tag each year. If that happens, I won't even want to apply for Iowa anymore cause I'll probably have just as good of hunting here in WI if that happens. You Iowa residents can use that as an argument, even many NR don't want to see it any easier to get a NR tag for Iowa cause we know it will ruin the quality of the deer herd, which is the only reason we are willing to pay $500+ to come there to hunt in the first place.

I think BIG CHANGES are in store for WI deer season structure/rules in the near future. We have been on the DNR for at least 10-15 years in just the way Iowa hunters are now starting to get on their DNR for much the same reason.
Click to expand...

Great post!! If you are not! Please join the IBA! I get on these guys on occasion:D But they are the ones that will keep Iowa .....Iowa!!
 
Crockett said:
Great post!! If you are not! Please join the IBA! I get on these guys on occasion:D But they are the ones that will keep Iowa .....Iowa!!
Click to expand...


Do all of you residents remember the 80's when a deer was hard to find in Iowa?? When the only resident tag available was Buck only?? For all of the fear of Iowa's deer herd, it seems to me that all it would take to over inflate the herd again would be 10 years of Buck only tags, just like the 80's........just need to convine the DNR of this......
 
I couldn't imagine being able to use a rifle during the rut. Talk about easy pickings. Big bucks wouldn't stand a chance. I love Iowa. We need to keep it just the way it is.
 
Yes TH75 I remember the 80's and I remember the early 70s when residents might go a couple years without even drawing a tag.
But the 80s was great.No November antlerless season,no late rifle season,no leased ground,no non-resident hunting,you could get permission to hunt anywhere you wanted.
I had times in the 80s and early 90s when I would be standing by my truck in camo just getting out of the woods and have farmers stop and almost beg me to hunt deer on thier land.Now those same people have thier farm leased to some out of stater or may even have sold it to a NR.
 
Looking at the real-time harvest numbers on the DNR site says a lot. I like to check the numbers through the season and I'm a little shocked at this year's progress.

In previous seasons the total harvest for early bow and early muzzy combined was in the 35k to 40k range. At this point less than 27k have been reported. I'm anxious to see if 10k deer get killed over the course of the next week. I don't think it will hapen.

Deer numbers appear to be way down, and the data supports this.
 
Even if the data supports numbers down, the idea that Iowa has too many deer is ingrained. Has been fed to the general public for yrs now. Reinforced by the flowers eaten in suburban yards,or some corn stripped at the edge of your farm. Hunters know the truth, but who listens to us?
 
That's about 3 times as many as would be killed here in a yr, by residents and NR combined.............and we have rifle in the rut.

Holy pressure.
 
quote:"Even if the data supports numbers down, the idea that Iowa has too many deer is ingrained. Has been fed to the general public for yrs now."

Exactly what happend here in the early 90's, the DNR drove it into every person in WI that there are way too many deer here. Now after 10+ years of hunters crying out, the public and DNR is finally starting to listen... a little bit. Just within the last year the DNR and public has started to take notice of what hunters have been saying for many years. Like I said, it seems to me that Iowa is about 6-8 years behind WI, and from what I see, Iowa hunters are just starting to "cry out" the last year or two, so be ready for a long fight ahead unless your DNR and the public is a lot more receptive to your feelings about the deer herd than Wisconsin's DNR is.
 
Last edited:
I think the biggest problem is that what a hunter might consider an acceptable herd size and what farmers/insurance companies think is acceptable are very different. Deer in Iowa reproduce like rabbits, something like 75% of first year does reproduce, and the herd size could double in a few years by limiting extra doe tags and all of the extra doe seasons. Good luck trying to convince the DNR/Farmers/Insurance companies that a huge deer herd is what they want/need. Deer have no value to the average person and are considered a nuisance by Farmers and Insurance companies, who also have large lobbying arms in the Iowa legislature.
 
Question

whitetail fanatic: So what do you think Iowa should do to improve the hunting and what do you think Wisconsin should do? As far as I know, Iowa hasn't changed the current system other than allowing more doe permits in certain counties?
 
In the last 9 years or so, I think Iowa has added all these seasons: the antlerless hunt the 3 days following Thanksgiving, the January Antlerless season, and the nonresident Holiday antlerless season. The have increased antlerless tags from almost nothing to thousands in many counties (4500 in Allamakee). Of course, you get some dishonest people shooting bucks during these seasons:mad:, but as we all know, many many "shed bucks" have been shot the last few years in the January "antlerless" season by hunters who thought they were shooting at a large doe.

Similarly, Wisconsin has also added several extra antlerless seasons. What has happened here that is much worse than Iowa, is that many areas of the state had basically no limit to the # of antlerless tags available, you could get them for free or $2 a piece (depending on area), and many areas have had earn-a-buck (EAB) which requires hunters to first kill and register an antlerless deer before even being allowed to kill a buck. Talk about drastic reductions in deer numbers! The first year of this wasn't quite so bad when does were plentiful, but year after year of EAB takes a toll in a hurry! The average hunter (not people who are serious about quality deer management) found themselves desperate to shoot the first deer without horns, which causes a lot of nubbin bucks to be killed. Without EAB, a hunter with an antlerless tag is more likely to be patient and make sure they are shooting at a mature doe instead of a nubbin buck.

I'm not saying that Wisconsin should have as many deer as we did in the 80s and early 90s, or that Iowa should have as many as they did around year 2000, but somewhere in between would be nice. Also, there are still areas in both states that have plentiful numbers of deer, and still need a fair number of does taken each year to keep them from getting overrun with deer. These are mainly areas with lower deer hunting pressure or areas where hunters have refused to take many antlerless deer.

What do I suggest for a better herd in IA and WI? I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but here goes. First of all, WI needs to get rid of EAB. Then, I think both states should get rid of all the extra antlerless seasons that have been added in the last 10-15 years. Next, reduce the number of antlerless tags (or eliminate them for a year or two where deer numbers are really down). After a few years, see if antlerless tag quotas need to be raised or lowered even more to achieve a deer population that both hunters and the public can live with. As it was said before, in a few years with lower #'s of does killed, the population can rebound pretty quickly, so quotas may have to be adjusted after a few years. I think simply by adjusting the antlerless tag quota, hunters can easily keep deer numbers at acceptable levels using the regular archery and gun seasons, and neither state should need all the extra antlerless seasons.

The problem is, with the way WI and IA has increased their doe kill, some areas end of being overharvested and some areas still have high numbers of deer. Some areas may need more antlerless deer taken than what the changes above would allow, so I suggest something like allowing landowners to get up to a certain # of antlerless tags depending on how many acres they own, like 1 tag per 20 acres. A landowner with 200 acres could get up to 10 tags. These tags would have to be used on their land only, and they could be used by anyone the landowner allows to hunt their land, and they could be use during any of the regular archery or gun seasons. I think by doing this it would reduce the chance of certain areas getting overharvested (like areas where hunters are seeing very few deer now) but still allow landowners that have high deer numbers to be able to take the number of doe they need to keep the population at an acceptable level. The # of tags a landowner would be able to get each year could be raised or lower to adjust for how the deer population is reacting to the new changes. For example, if the deer population is still too low overall, the number of tags a landowner could get might be reduced to one per 40 acres, so someone with 200 acres could get a maximum of 5 tags. Or, if 1 per 20 acres is not enough to keep the deer population at a good level for most landowners, it could be raised to 1 per 10 acres so 200 acres would get you a maximum of 20 tags. If hunters and the DNR felt like they needed more ways to reduce deer in certain areas, they could also add a mid December hunt where landowners could harvest antlerless deer using these special landowner tags. This season would not be open to anywhere except those landowners that have the special landowner antlerless tags. I think by eliminating all the extra antlerless seasons and reducing the # of regular antlerles tags available to the public, that would allow deer populations to increase in areas where they are so low, and implementing the landowner tag program like I outlined above, would allow for reducing deer numbers where they are still high.

As TH75, we will alway have the problem of what hunters consider to be an acceptable deer population compared to what some motorists, insurance companies, and farmers find acceptable.
 
Last edited:
You have put a lot of thought into your suggestions Whitetail Fanatic.The only flaws I can see in your theory is that the land with an overpopulation of land that is leased up or owned by someone that doesn't think there is to many deer.The farmers that think they have to many are the ones that let everyone and their brother hunt,have people doing drives during shotgun season,have a bunch hunting every antlerless season there is.And really those places aren't where the deer are plentyfull.
The 10-20 does per 200 acres is more than any place could handle.Lee Lakoski has over 6000 acres under his control and shoots 200 does a year of that.That is 6.7 does taken per every 200 acres.I don't think there is a 6000 acres anywhere in the state that has more deer than his property and I am sure he has a pretty good handle on his buck/does ratio.
IMO there is no way to satisfy the Insurance lobby or the farm bureau.But it's not the hunters fault.It's the cost of collision repairs that have gone so sky high that is making the insurance companies cring.I dent from a deer running into your rear bumper is $2000.And the price of corn and beans.The farmers don't want to lose a single kernal to deer when the price is low OR high.
It seems that the DNR knows the areas where there is a overpopulation of deer.
I have suggested before that in those areas they should lower ALL speed limits.The general public should have to help satisfy the insurance companies.I drive highways a lot where there is a "deer crossing next X miles" and no one pays any atention to those signs or area.They should inforce a fine if you hit a deer in an area like that.Make people slow down from 70 to 45.I know that would stop some of the deer/car accidents.
And even though the farmers would be up in arms about this.I think that for farms along highways,it should be a law that the farmer can't harvest at night.They can harvest from mid Oct. till mid Dec most of the time with decent weather.There is really no need to do it at night.
 
quote:"The only flaws I can see in your theory is that the land with an overpopulation of land that is leased up or owned by someone that doesn't think there is to many deer.The farmers that think they have to many are the ones that let everyone and their brother hunt,have people doing drives during shotgun season,have a bunch hunting every antlerless season there is.And really those places aren't where the deer are plentyfull."


Yeah, you're right, I hadn't thought of that I guess:eek:. This deer management is more difficult than I thought, so many different situations.

quote:"The 10-20 does per 200 acres is more than any place could handle.Lee Lakoski has over 6000 acres under his control and shoots 200 does a year of that. That is 6.7 does taken per every 200 acres"

Yeah, that was just a maximum that a landowner could get each year. Most wouldn't, but if there were some landowners that wanted/needed to take that many, they could get up to that many tags. Even if they did get that many tags, doesn't mean they are going to fill them, or even half of them either. It was just a starting point I guess and something that would have to be worked out to find what the right # would be.

Lakoski has probably been taking an adequate # of does each year, so 6-7 per 200 is enough for them just to keep them at the level they want I assume. I just through of 10 or 20 per 200 in case there were some areas where does hadn't been harvested enough in recent years and the landowner wanted to harvest a bunch for a year or two. I know of a 200 acre parcel around here where the owners had not harvested any does for like 8 years and they ended up with more than they or their neighbors wanted. One year they took like 23 and there were still a lot left that they wanted to take almost that many the next year too. I guess that's sort of how I came up with a max. of 10 or 20 tags per 200.
 
quote:"I know of a 200 acre parcel around here where the owners had not harvested any does for like 8 years and they ended up with more than they or their neighbors wanted. One year they took like 23 and there were still a lot left that they wanted to take almost that many the next year too."

I just realized some of you might wonder how that's possible. First of all, this 200 acres I was talking about has awesome deer habitat, lots of thick cover/browse. They have awesome food plots, the rest is awesome cover. They hardly disturbed the 200 acres during gun season, so deer from the neighbors would pour into there and stay til the season was over. And the neighbors never took many does either during the 8 or so years when they never shot any does on that 200, so the population ended up exploding.
 
Iowa/Wisconsin

Whitetail fanatic & Archery95: Some very good points, I hope they can get a handle on the doe population, because it seems to be high in some areas, but very low in others. I read somewhere maybe on this thread that a guy hunting in Iowa hadn't seen a deer in 7 sits?? Wow, I just came in from hunting tonight and I have saw 13 tonight and 30 last night (in MINNESOTA, can you believe that). My zone has lowered doe tags in the last three years and all of sudden we have a decent deer population again.

We are still short on mature bucks though. Minnesota would simply be awesome if we moved the gun season back 2-3 weeks!

I agree that these special doe seasons, other than youth hunts, are not really justified in many counties and result in dead button bucks and shed bucks.
 
With so many counties, and so many opinions on how many is too many, and funding down for DNR, how would anyone get an accurate handle on where deer need to be left alone or reduced? Hunters still a minority and just about everyone else but hunters, I meet, would just as soon see less of them.
 
The DNR went into the 2010 hunt under intense pressure from hunters and state lawmakers to deliver a better hunt than last year. Hunters in 2009 killed only 241,862 deer, down about 30 percent from the year before and down 54 percent from 2000
Click to expand...

Yup, I hunted harder this year guns season than I have for several now and I saw a total of 3 deer. Yup 3 live deer during the gun season. The early antlerless seasons, earn a buck, liberal doe tags have decimated the population. Now mind you the gun kill was up 6 percent opening weekend from last year, (I saw 2 deer last year gun hunting so I guess my deer sightings increased quite a bit) but the deer kill is down 54 percent from 10 years ago. I remember seeing 15-20 deer a day back then hunting from dawn to dark. But the wonder why we cannot get the youth out from infront of the televison set and video games and get them in the woods. Who beyond us obsessed knuckleheads wants to sit for 10+ hours a day in the cold and see nothing but tree rats.

My $.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom