After a dramatic drop in the gun deer harvest up north, Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would bar hunting does or antlerless deer in northern Wisconsin for the next four years. Granted, last years northern Wisconsin winter was harsh but does one year make a trend?, we're off to an extremely mild winter so far entering 2024- is that taken into consideration? Until we address the wolf and predator issues the severity index alone doesn't support the bill- I reject the null hypothesis.

Until something is done about the wolf population nothing else matters.

The beginning of the end, going as planned.

Osky

Didn’t they pound the deer population over CWD years back pretty hard also? Maybe they did not go that far North so I’m just asking.

Our population has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years and in some areas it’s a fraction of what we had 20 years ago.

Without wolf management, all this bill would do is provide more food for wolves.

x2

The loggers in big woods are seeing less wolf tracks and no deer tracks- more food coming soon.

I cant believe they have doe seasons where they have predator problems. Now you have two problems.

In my opinion this is very short-sighted. There are a lot more factors like habitat, wolves, and other predators involved in the deer population or lack of than the annual kill. I am afraid this is pointing the finger at hunting as being the cause of the population decrease.

Moosetrot

How many of those does not harvested will become pregnent if bucks are still harvested while populations are low? High predator numbers are an issue when the prey numbers are at or below critical mass, but improving habitat is critical to rebuilding a population. Habitat is a critical aspect. The central and southern farm zones have had extremely liberal anterless harvest opportunities and still have numbers that exced desired levels.
Many hunters have not gone north for some years now and if we impose further limitations on harvest there will be more likely to not come back to the north. It is easy to pick on wolves as they are easy targets. We seem to forget that we have essentially let our bear population grow about 50% higher than pre 2000 goals and numbers. We are also wanting to increase bobcat numbers so we can harvest more and coyotes are learning to live with wolves. We detest wolves but bear and bobcats are desired species, especially bear and the economic value they bring to the norhthwoods. We also make the remaining deer easier targets by letting vast wooded areas mature and not have browse and cover and put in small food plots which bring in the remaining deer but also the predators know where they are living as well.

Bryce

I'll make it simple. If you want to grow a population, you don't shoot does. If you want to slow the decline in a population, you don't shoot does. Killing a doe, kills all the future deer she would have produced, not just her.

I bet you are right - it is probably cumulative. In my home state of Arkansas, warm mild winters, our does average 1.7 fetuses, yet the fawn recruitment numbers come September, are normally just below 1 fawn per TWO does. Twin fawns are very rare. All we have in my area is coyotes and bobcats that largely only prey on fawns. Snow is not a factor here. If we had bears, bobcats, coyotes, wolves, snow, and harsh winters - we would have zero deer.

Truth

Minnesota DNR has been under counting wolf populations for years, now with the low numbers of deer they are getting close to their utopia. As deer are at an unhuntable level people quit as my relatives have done and we own 80 acres including a 5 acre hay field. Their are no deer there, no trails, no sign at all. Last time the 3 of them hunted they saw no deer in three days. I hunted there in years past and have seen up to 21 deer the first day. Sorry Brice but I blame the wolves and can throw out some beaver carcasses in the field and the wolves will come to get them during the day, have seen that 2 different times.

We need two things, stop shooting does, and start shooting wolves.

No wolves = more deer.

I read that the peta and greenies claimed, when they started wolf introduction in the pacific northwest, that they would not need hunters there if successful. Looks like MN and WI are proving their claim

Where you see deer tracks there are plenty of wolf tracks.

The bear are the major predators IMHO. I know of two farms up north (Sawyer Co) that have had 30+ bears taken per year the last few years. These bears were captured using culvert traps and moved somewhere. They were doing enough damage to the corn to pose a major problem yet some seem to think they don't have a major impact on fawn mortality rates. I know a few hound guys who don't want the bear numbers reduced but something has to give and without the ability to limit wolves and bobcat the only predator we can manage is bear.

Do state elected officials have input on game laws in WI and MN?

Deer populations are so low across North Central WI, that I can see no downside to trying this.

I saw one stat that said the mortality rate can be 25% of fawn population by black bear predation, couple that with Bobcats, Coyotes and Wolves and you wonder why hunter satisfaction and numbers are declining.

Gov. Evers' DNR just spent $ 15 million dollars on a conservation easement on the Pelican River State Forest. This was over the objections of local Town and County officials and State Representatives. They completely ignored local input, contrary to State and Federal law. This doe hunting proposal will never be signed by Evers because it would encroach on the DNR's authority which is sacrosanct in northern WI. It doesn't matter one bit if it's a good or bad idea. The power of the bureaucracy is not to be challenged.

Wisconsin wildlife management is plagued by politicians playing armchair biologist (especially in election years) to get votes.

Another part of the bill text I noticed that's been left out of the news coverage is only one buck tag per license type. Right now the DNR issues replacement tags for deer that test positive. So if you shoot a buck and it tests positive, you couldn't use your replacement buck tag in the northern forest unit. Sucks for guys that live up there and don't want to eat CWD meat.

I hunt Langlade county which was historically split into a couple GMUs before the switch to county boundaries. The only silver lining I see to this bogus attempt at vote grabbing would be an eventual split of the southern portion of Langlade county to the central farmland zone after a couple years of extreme crop damage from no doe harvest.

S.s.s

some one needs to add a a little amendment.

phrase it carefully

amendment . In order to address the Deer herd population concerns for a period of 4 years from the passage of this bill no doe tags shall be authorized in Northern forest Zone 1 while at the same time authorizing a year round open season on deer and fawn predators of all types for the same 4 years. those participating in the predator hunt will need to hold a current small game license.


bam!
it will kill the bill or give us 4 years of open predator hunting.

Those farmers need to invest in a backhoe and bullets.

The three SSS.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's only one action in an overall multi-prong management plan that needs to be done to regain the northern herd numbers. Unfortunately, no one agency has control over all the pieces of the puzzle.

Northern Forest deer herd numbers have been dropping for years. Anyone spending any amount of time in the woods knows this, now whether they want to admit it is all together a different question. Yes indeed, predator numbers are increasing for several reasons outside of the states control and just not wolves. I'm sure late season snow storms influence to some small part herd survival rates. But state and local economic greed has also played a significant part in maintaining an unsustainable harvest system.

Maybe you could get some of the does to transition

The current language doesn't exempt youth or disabled hunters from the restriction either. Talk about local economic "greed" you can bet there will be plenty of folks staying home or not hunting in the northern region if this passes. What will that do for local businesses, especially after a year with little or no income from ice fisherman and snowmobilers. Kinda sounds similar to COVID shutdowns of businesses...

The DNR never put a gun to a hunter's head and made them harvest an antlerless deer. If folks don't want antlerless deer killed, it's as easy as not pulling the trigger.

Years ago there were no doe tags and we have more deer here now than ever, we have deer where they werent 50 years ago. We have no wolves or bears here in the south. Bears target fawns for about a three week period after that they arnt very successful and not all bears do, Wolves are hard on deer year around.
Anyone that spends time in the woods upnorth Knows why there are no deer, Everybody knows why the Elk population is stagnant.

We need to take politics out of wildlife management. We need real population estimates of deer and predators. And real plans to manage them. No feelings or knee jerk reactions from either side.

Maine had the same issue and did away with harvesting does for quite some time. Logging, coyotes, and harsh winters did a number on them. The population eventually rebounded to the point where they now issue antlerless permits.

The herd is nowhere near what it was when I was a kid but they're slowly coming back.

Until you can start killing wolves banning doe hunting will do nothing. Good luck.

If the feds are smart they will let the Midwest star hunting and trapping wolves

Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota could have wolves under state control if they would follow the lead of Montana and Idaho.

There's plenty for bucks to breed.

Red vs. Blue

Yup, if this bill passes, it's going to hurt economically. But it was businesses that push for higher permit numbers to attract out of area hunters following the allure of that hunting related money. And the state ain't going to object to an additional $12/ tag revenue. I'm not sure you can suggest to hunters that only go up to an area a couple of times a year, not to pull the trigger on a doe when they are given the opportunity and paid their money.

Over the year the deer management strategy has changed with a variety of twists and turns. This proposal is but another turn in an every changing environment. It's not the entire solution, but you have to start somewhere.

It is a start, no deer shouldn't be shooting does. We as hunters control this as well if we would choose not to hunt them. Predator management is a key part as we all know as well. But the cdacs up there have been being controlled by the foresters from what my friends up north say. Sadly, we need politicians to determine harvest levels.

LOL you guys crack me up. Up until 6 years ago you couldn't shoot does in my part of the state. Last day of late muzzle loader was only time to shoot does. EXCEPT youth 2 day weekend. Then they went to 15 days you can kill 1.
Now they are saying deer herd is down. Hunters have been saying the herd has fallen but the Insurance lobbyist and educated idiots that are getting all the biologist jobs know better. 90 % of them never get out of the office into the field. They want to sit at a computer and scan surveys from hunters...


BUT if you don't have the deer you have to let the does walk. Yes predators kill some but don't blame it all on the wolf. Sounds like a myriad of things. Did the wolf hurt the herd. Of course. But The DNR should take it a year at a time . NOt a blanket statement 4 years. Not sure how your state does it but ky has zones for each county. Deer bag limits are different for each zone.
You be ok.

I believe we lost some breeder bucks in that 4-1/2 year old class with last years winter- you now think of a buck doe ratio out of the new bill proposal. A breeder that lost over 25%-30% of his body weight trying to breed up to 20 does during the rut enters a tough winter after gun season. In my opinion it can alter the age class structure within high severity index years.

How far north is the wolf problem? Only thing I know of in Wisconsin is the famous Buffalo County

Disregard the numbers but the distribution is generally close to reality

Lot of FÀCTS you posted. Sure it wasn't 89/ 91 %.
Much experience with wolves?
This is about Wisconsin, not Kentucky.

Certainly a WEALTH of knowledge. Lol.lol.lol.

Oh, and another Edit

a total ban on doe harvests for all of northern Wisconsin is too broad. for example in the Chippewa county forest, there are plenty of deer. of coarse there were a ton of non-resident hunters. one group of Minnesotans in particular that drove out my spot and shot a dozen does and fawns. then they processed them at the parking area and left the carcasses along with a bunch of trash in a pile blocking the gate of a logging road. me being the guy that doesn't like to (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) off loggers, dragged the carcasses off the road and snatched some of the hides to tan. The way I figure, banning non-resident deer harvest would be much more reasonable.

They’re to expensive to ban. (NRs)

What’s different from 20 years ago? We had cats, coyotes and bears. What a few wolves?

What's different from 40 years ago? Back then a harvest like we had this year was nearly a record.

How many hunters back then?

Party tag. Ond doe for 4 humters.

where I hunted in north east price county,...25 years ago there was probably 20 + deer to every one that might be there today. .very sad situation

I hate a Buck only season. Too many bucks get killed and the older mature buck population isn’t there. Every year that 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 year old class gets slaughtered.

Trying to rebuild a deer population while banning Wolf hunting/trapping is puzzling.

What’s the estimate wolf population? What’s the estimated number of deer the wolves kill? Unfortunately for you guys not shooting does is first step in building the herd up. Your scenario of non residents is another contributor to the problem. FWD don’t care if you harvest a deer. They got your tag money.

Don’t claim to have knowledge about a wolf. But I do know and have lived thru low deer numbers. Ky is like 2 different worlds as far a deer numbers go. Half the state you can kill unlimited does if you buy extra tags. State license comes with 6 doe tags. But eastern part of state you can kill 1 doe with a bow. None with a rifle. 1 buck only state wide.

That is not the sentiment in my area. Lots of wolf tracks and little deer tracks. Now with the very mild winter and easy food to get to the loggers not seeing deer is not that surprising. I agree that we have to deal with the predator issue. One thing that I see most with some that complain of not seeing deer is that they aren't out there getting after them. They go to the ole "tried and true" stand that they haven't since the year prior or they are part of what I call the quarter mile club. Meaning they get no further than that in the woods. Deer numbers are down there is no doubt but the big woods can't sustain the deer populations that we had in the late 90's and into the 2000's. Prior to that the numbers are very similar to what they are now.Alot of people are willing to put in the time to scout. Finding the fringe areas in between packs is your friend. Our small group saw 72 deer this past gun season and all filled a tag. 3 bucks on public land and our management doe from my property.

I am not against eliminating the harvest of does for a year or two but I don't see that as the answer. One we saw more mature bucks this year than any year other than 2005 since we started recording number in 1986. Second with that buck to doe ratio being closer together ( 1 to 4 this year compared to 1 to 8 3 years ago) we need to be careful and try to keep that as close as possible as this promotes a more equal fawn production. Wolves are out of control. We all know that and all though the predator population needs a correction this is not the sole solution.

We voted for just that in Michigan. Propasal G voted for by public in the 90's I think.
Sound Science was to used for all wildlife regulations.
The antler fanatics pushed a new science, called "Social Science" to get around Prop G
Chad Stewart, Michigan DNR's deer bioligist/manager is firmly in the pocket of trophy only hunters. Creating rules that have now created overpopulation in some areas and severe underpopulation in others.
I feel for you hunters on the west side of Lake Michigan, we have big problems on the east shore of Lake Michigan also...

FYI your posts crack most of us up, no matter the topic.

This was a "study" completed in 2019- I'll try to post the link but here is the key takeaway. I'm not sure how scientific this study or any other would be but the consumption average seems to be 1.5 deer per wolf pack per week- seems plausible to me.


https://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/...killed-by-wolves-than-by-hunters-in-2019

Need to reduce the wolf and bear numbers. I’m in Marquette County MI. My Dad has 40 acres, which was excellent deer hunting in the 90’s and early 2000’s. We now get excited if we see a deer track! More bear and wolf tracks than anything. Even our coyote numbers are extremely low! The answer is to manage the predators correctly whether that’s in MN, WI, MI, AK, etc etc.

I have some experience in predator prey relationships and rebuilding ungulate populations. Nobody is following the science or the math or wildlife management 101. The first thing you do when you have increasing predator influence on your ungulates is try to increase the productivity of your prey by not having man kill the females of the prey. It is done all the time here. Controlling predators is far more difficult than controlling humans. Female harvest is generally allowed where populations are not being regulated by predators and man has to control ungulate numbers. It is counterproductive to harvest females when you are trying to increase deer numbers. This is why buck only hunting began in the early 1900's to rebuild devastated deep populations.

You are missing the whole point as usual. The predators were introduced, Prior to this introduction, The hunters were doing just fine, not perfect but just fine. So a thinking man would say, Lets de-introduce a few introductees and get this back to where WE want the population .
The carrying capacity is already known and it is more than the population, If man introduces a predator and the population drops significantly, Hmmmmm, Maybe manage the predator until deer levels rebound, THEN we will know the level of predators to manage.
You must be using common core math.

Well, a very good friend (hunting & fishing buddy) is a retired WDNR Wildlife Biologist. Listening to him and other retired WL guys, WDNR has not used science to manage our deer herd in 20 plus years, politics has oversight.

No doubt, the wolf population needs better management (can we say politics... again!). I hunt the far north and remember when WDNR issued huge numbers of doe tags, way too many, in our opinions.

While the wolves are natural predators, bears and coyotes are considerably worse on the fawn population. Our trail cams up north have recorded a significant increase in coyote activity.

Also, there are many residents up north who feed deer and ignore all of the reasons not to. One neighbor up there who does, doesn't care that his feeding station is a "buffet" for predators, despite our efforts to educate him.

Wisconsin deer "management" has been a perfect storm for some time.

Hows that predator management going?

It’s always been about extremes. And lagging data. Look at every specie that is over regulated. Otter, cats, wolves. Look at the liberal populations beaver, deer coyotes. All cycle “some” get overdone. Under harvest is more detrimental to a specie because it leads to hard adjustments and promotes waste. Must be a Wisconsin thing.

It makes sense to reduce the harvest of females, but to reduce predator populations would accelerate the growth. Predators have the largest affect on young-of-the-year survival. Increasing YOY survival is the quickest road to increasing the population. That can be done by reducing the number of females in the hunter harvest, or by reducing the number of teeth in the woods.

H - (d2) = d1
H+W-(d2) =d0

630k licenses sold in 1981, record harvest of 166,673 deer.

553k licenses sold in 2023, harvest of 175,100 (9 day gun season only)

Archery hunting has taken off substantially in 40 years as well. I don't have those numbers from the 80s, but in 2023 there were an additional 90k deer shot with bow and crossbow. Plus all the extra seasons.

People hunt differently now. More smaller parcels where guys don't push deer around for fear of their deer getting shot by the neighbors. Deer drives are few and far between. I was part of a deer drive on a square mile of county forest in Central Wisconsin this year. Saw 9 or 10 deer myself including a small buck I passed, the rest does. Plenty of deer out there if you want to put in the work to find them. I also saw 4 wolves on that drive....

Thank you. I didn't use those words but that's my point....

Maybe Posco can chime in again. I remember reading years ago that the Maine DNR thought the coyote was the problem for fawn loss contributing to low deer numbers.

A subsequent study proved for the most part it was black bears inflicting most of the damage.

I'm sure the wolves are a serious problem, but not the only one.

You own a 22 magnum? Black bear is protected in our eastern co to the point they are a problem. Trash cans destroyed. Crops destroyed. Might be unrelated but also low deer numbers. BUT They can be gotten rid of. Let me ask you . If a possum was eating your chickens would you call DNR?

The current dip in the deer population in Northern Wi. mirrors the current rise in the wolf population.Im not giving all predators a pass, but the writing is on the wall. If we do not start managing wolves you can manage the whitetails into oblivion.

When I was trapping beaver in December there was wolf tracks on every pond. Rarely crossed a deer. My mind started to wonder, if there ain’t no deer what are those wolves gonna eat? Me? May have to start packing. Wondering why they like those beaver ponds so much one pond the beaver was coming out of a hole in the ice. The snow revealed the wolf sat next to the hole. No evidence he got them tho.

I think that season a couple years back accelerated population growth. It is suspected in other species.

Minnesota's wolf population is 4 to 5 times that of Wisconsin's, let that sink in.

I believe the wolf density is as high or higher in some of the northern counties in WI as it is in MN.

Cuzk they killed our northern deer.
Finding new hunting grounds.

well it is a step closer like it or not

https://www.channel3000.com/news/as...FibmT411fzl1updb-JUZpXm4kqnauD5aB5G-t1Pk

What I don't get is why the citizens and the hunters in the northern forest zone are letting politicians play biologist when they already have a method for reducing antlerless harvest via the CDAC. Why paint with such a broad brush when the options are already there and not being utilized?

Everybody says they dislike the politics in game management, but then run crying to the legislators. Watch, it'll pass and the same folks will bemoan a 40% drop in deer harvest next year, completely ignoring the elimination of antlerless tags. Yes, people really are that stupid.

Does Gary Alt still work for Wisconsin?

Evers has more vetoes than any other governor in Wisconsin history, so nothing is certain at this point.

Winter kill can be a serious problem and a herd can take years to recover, especially with high predator numbers. Saw it happen to moose in Alaska. I'm seeing the results on deer from last winter here in ND. Obviously high quality habitat helps year round.

Wisconsin needs to get the wolves from the feds and open up a season!

Bad winter 22-23 = larger wolf pups produced because of all the carrion food for the females to feed on
no need for a rocket scientist report

I remember when CWD hit there was a mess of Wisc hunters coming up here to waterfowl hunt for their 2 week holidays with the boys

The nut case antler fanatic deer manager in Michigan says we are not killing enough does.
In Michigan we voted for Prop G in 1996, it says all wildlife management decisions need to be based on sound science.
Few years later the antler fanatics came up with the term "Social Science" in their desire to force antler point restrictions.
The social science is now behind allowing anti hunters to have a say and seat on commitees tasked with wildlife seasons and management.
Seems just recently year round coyote hunting was being reduced due to coyote pups being orphaned.
I could be wrong on some of this, when I saw Prop G being ignored I quit paying attention.

I just read this week he was going to veto this one

If the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is anything like it is in northern Minnesota the deer recovery will be very slow if at all.

A doe ban is one step form a deer ban. Somehow, we need to get real science back into wildlife management.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Northern MN has had the same doe ban for quite a few years. It has made no increase in the deer population because of all the wolves. Reduce the number of wolves and the deer population will increase.

I wasn't hunting on 81 but in 1991 nothing to see 30 deer all does with 1 buck in the herd browse lines and 1 doe tag for every 10 people
now 50 doe tags for 10 people and the only browse lines I see are late winter when there has been heavy snow.

then again where I am at in Door there wasn't a shortage of deer really ever.

I don't live up north but I have lost of relation that does and I know others.
The wolves have not wiped out the deer. The deer have gotten wise to the fact that its safer around cities and other higher densities of human habitation than out in the big woods with the wolves.
Not to mention there is often food in the way of bird feeders and people who feed the deer exclusively.
I get pictures from all the time from people up there that show dozens of deer at one time during the day feeding in their yards. One I know comments that the area that his group hunts is almost deerless but his backyard has dozens. This is 180 degrees from a couple of decades ago.

Another point is habitat. I focus on Grouse hunting. I have been hunting birds since the '70s up north. Thats a 1/2 century, boy, I'm getting old. I have noticed that logging, especially clear cutting which benefits grouse and deer is not what it used to be. Many of areas I hunted back in the '70's and 80's are grown up and thus have become poor habitat. Not nearly as much land it seems to me is being clear cut as there was decades ago

The left wants the wolves to take the place of sport hunting - it is working

How are the vehicle/deer kill numbers trending?

In my opinion, the GOP legislature would have helped the cause a lot more by joining into move the wolf plan forward instead of shutting down anterless harvests. Sure the plan maybe too wolf friendly, maybe drafted by persons we don't like or feel have our best interests in mind, but getting politically on the same side on issues like this and to work with our administrative organizations may move the control back to WI sooner than later. We need a season and a season for an extended period of time to better assess the wolf population and the increases in range etc. Way more resources get thrown at species with licenses, permits etc. and that will be helpful in the long run. Just blaming each other for our standstills gets us nothing. Our big issue currently is working across aisles to solve problems (compromise) is seen as being weak instead of strong or realistic. I doubt the governer would veto a bill that had NRB, GOP and WDNR and other stakeholders agreeing to a managment plan with harvest involved. Also with conservation agencies along with political input and native organization input it is much less likely that federal judges would rule against moving forward with that plan.

Another aspect is we think we won't act until we have the ultimate plan and things won't every change. That mindset prevents taking risks to set things in motion. Just look at all the changers (some good, some bad, some ugly) that have taken place in many species just in the last 20-30 years. We need to understand that one needs to gain control to be able to manage wildlife and that managing wildlife is an extremely "fluid" business.

Bryce

This is an expert of my email that I am sending to governor evers asking him to VETO the bill


Second, a complete ban on doe harvests for the entire northern forest zone is simply too broad. In Wisconsin we have county deer advisory committees. These address the population needs and number of tags that should be issued at a local level. For example, the Chippewa county forest, which is in northern Chippewa county and just barely in the northern forest zone, has plenty of deer. I have also heard from several landowners in northern Wisconsin that they are overrun with deer to such an extent that there is severe damage to crops.
Third, enacting a ban on killing does with the driving force being one bad hunting season is an overreaction. The low harvest numbers could be explained by many factors, including the abundant acorn crop, the warm weather affecting deer movement, the lack of snow affecting deer movement, fewer hunters out in the field, and hunters just getting lazier and not leaving the beaten path. The DNR released a statement this fall, saying that the remarkably large acorn crop had affected bear and turkey harvest numbers. The large number of acorns available to the deer will spread out where the deer are going. This means that just because there aren't deer going to and eating at representative Green’s corn pile, doesn’t mean that the deer all got killed by wolves. Another point I feel I should mention is that most hunters are getting lazier. Nowadays, a good number of deer hunters have private land with nice (expensive) stands that are difficult to move. These can make hunting more pleasurable, however the users of these stands expect the deer to always use the same areas. And when the deer don’t cooperate, they complain and put the blame on whatever they can, in this case blaming the wolves and introducing this legislation. Meanwhile, those of us who spend our time competing with lots of other hunters on public land, are used to running around swamps, logging waste, and “difficult to hunt” areas.
Fourth, some of us rely on deer meat for healthy, cheap meat. Deer meat has lower fat content and is 100 percent chemical free. More than that, deer are the largest animal in Wisconsin that you can just buy tags and harvest one or more. Bear and elk both take years to get a tag, therefore they are not a reliable source of meat. Depriving northern Wisconsin hunters of the opportunity to harvest does would be depriving them of a healthier alternative to commercial meat.
Fifth, northern Wisconsin has a lot more public hunting land than southern Wisconsin. Banning doe hunting up north would push the hunters that normally would hunt at northern public hunting areas like the vast chequamegon national forest and many other county forests , onto the already overcrowded southern Wisconsin public hunting areas. This will not only create even more competition for the low number of deer on southern Wisconsin public land, but also pose a safety hazard by cramming hunters even closer together. This will also deplete the southern Wisconsin public land herds.
Sixth, by banning the harvesting of does in the northern part of the state, there will be fewer mature bucks with good genetics within the herd. If hunters are only allowed to shoot bucks, more hunters will take the first buck that they see instead of waiting and hoping a mature buck shows up. Removing small, one and a half year old bucks from the herd prevents them from becoming the large trophy bucks that most hunters seek.
Seventh, as I previously mentioned, this past fall we had a remarkably high acorn crop. This provided deer with abundant food sources. On top of that, the mild winter that we have had has further assisted the deer population by keeping the acorns available and not covered in snow. With this in mind, this radical legislation is
eighth, the Wisconsin constitution guarantees us the right to fish, hunt,
trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions. This legislation, which is based on the opinion of several individuals that are not trained in fish and wildlife management, nor trust the people that have been trained in fish and wildlife management, is not reasonable.

I'm sure Evers loves the support. Be careful who you get in bed with.

he doesn't seem nearly as liberal as some of 'em though.

You can't be serious.

What are you guys that are against the ban basing your comments on. If the numbers are low they are low. Some on here are complaining about not seeing any deer at all. Blame it on the wolves, weather , over harvest. The only thing DNR can control is deer harvest. But I'll say this again. I hunted for 40 years and wasn't allowed to shoot a doe in my county. I lived. If anyone in eastern 1/3 of the state wanted to kill a doe you had to drive west. You meat hunters need to start looking for a place south.

x2

I don't want legislators with no biology or wildlife management knowledge going over the heads of the DNR staff trained and hired to manage wildlife. Especially when there are already methods in place to reduce antlerless harvest if that's what the public and the data actually supports.

Sorry you hunted in a state with such a poor deer population. Hopefully you're involved as much with management in KY as you are concerned with how we manage our wildlife here in WI.

That might hold true with your governor in your state. But, our governor said he will veto any bill that comes across his desk allowing any wolf hunting or trapping.

No kidding. You've made yourself pretty clear, again and again.

I really don't care....deer hunting isn't my thing. But, I don't see where it would hurt to stop shooting does for a few years.

But we can keep doing the same things and expect different results, I suppose. At least the deer had an easy winter. That should help a little.

As I mentioned earlier, Evers has more vetoes than any governor in Wisconsin history, so it's very likely he'll do the same with this.

[quote=tlguy]I don't want legislators with no biology or wildlife management knowledge going over the heads of the DNR staff trained and hired to manage wildlife. Especially when there are already methods in place to reduce antlerless harvest if that's what the public and the data actually supports.

tlguy, I think outdoors people with experience in the field are sometimes better equipped to make sound wildlife management decisions than some educated bureaucrats answering to the whims of an uninformed governor

People blindly thinking that politics does not play a role in wildlife management by government wildlife managers are a bit naive. "The science" is whatever a government wildlife manager makes up here, even if it is not valid science or fact.

8117 Steve R, I agree there are some really smart woodsmen in Wisconsin that probably have some great ideas on wildlife management for the property(s) they hunt. I don't think it's fair to discredit a biologist simply because they work for the DNR. Managing one property, even a big one, is a lot different than managing the herd in a whole county, let alone the whole state. Now we've got a couple legislators grubbing for votes and trying to undermine management in a knee-jerk reaction to a low harvest in a year following the 22-23 winter with record snowfall and burgeoning wolf population.

I feel like my opinion is getting repetitive. I've made it and I'll move on. We'll see what happens with this bill and go from there.

Speaking of Wisconsin deer hunting, new hunting and fishing licenses go on sale tomorrow, March 1st. And Evers signed Wisconsin Act 99 that increases NR bow/crossbow license prices to $200.

If you are telling me that the biologists on the ground can make these decisions without any direction from their political bosses, please accept my apology.

Politics is in everything, it is how we choose to utilize the aspects of politics and how deeply we want or allow the politics to impact choices. Science is in many or some ways a field that can limit the political impacts, but to say there is no politics in science would be incorrect. I think we also need to understand that science and or scientists typically work on larger scales and over more seasons and longer periods of time than the bulk of our outdoor sporting persons do. When we went from numbered habitat based deer management units to counties we went from a more science based population management method to a more political based management method. That is just one example of how we let or choose to let politics encroach on managing wildlife or any biological environment for that matter.
We have to remember that if we don't like the current situation we have today, we are responsible for dismantling the administrative- more science based department process for managing our natural resources and went running to the politicians to get rid of that model. Science may not be what many like but it sure is more likely to match populations with resources, habitat and harvest determinations then knee-jerk politics which can change quickly and dramatically. We get upset because we don't see near the deer on our 40 acres in Florence CO like we did 30 years ago, so we ask politicians to work on our issue and we open the door for politicians thousands of miles away to make judgement that impacts 54,000 plus square miles.

Bryce

Sometimes wildlife managers have to consider the economic consequences of their decisions. The economic damage or gain to their organization and others in the private sector when opportunities will be changed.

If politicians actually wanted to help their constituents, they would have directed them to the CDAC and WCC process. The CDACs already have the tools to make their county buck only for the next decade if they felt it was warranted. Instead, legislators wasted everyone's time with a bill that stood no chance of the governor signing.

I tend to believe many of the counties probably should be buck only for 4-5 years, but I don't have a dog in the fight. I will say the north is getting exactly what they are putting into it.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation data collection
https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/deermetrics/DeerStats.aspx?R=Collision

They actually still track deer car kills? I don't even think people are legally required to report those. I'm not even sure our hwy dept picks them up anymore. There seems to be more cars on the road & people are driving faster.

Just another piece of the puzzle wolves will keep the deer herd in check for a nonhunting society.

it would be more relevant if it was done by northern 1/2 and southern 1/2 at the least, by county would be better.

I know that we now see dead deer on the side of the road all year long and on our short drive to town (bout 10 miles) its not unusual to see 2-3 dead deer every time.
a couple of decades ago it was rare to see a dead deer at any time except in the fall.

Evers vetoed it today. I sent him a letter a few weeks ago expressing my opinion on the ban. He called me this morning and said he appreciated my input and would be vetoing it in a matter of minutes. I assume he only got back to me because I am 15.

Well, we do know what they've been doing for quite some time now isn't working.

You Governor Ever fanboys will be glad hear he vetoed the bill...just like he always does.