Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting 2009 Wisconsin Gun Season - Let's hear it ...

This was my 50th year of Deer hunting in Forest County. I did kill a decent 9 point, but it has been a long time since I killed the last buck. The silence in the woods up here is deafening. Our last good year was 1995. The winters of 95 and 96 were terrible, and we had 60% mortality in a lot of areas. I don't normally like to feed deer but those years I feed about 60 head at my shack near Hiles. Used alfalfa and potatos. Or herd has NEVER CAME BACK. Wolves, bears and coyotes are a big big problem as well as too damn many doe tags. The root cause of the bear problem is dumping corn in the woods. Deer baiting has ruined deer hunting up here and I suppose everywhere else it been done. I believe corn is the direct cause of the bear population explosion. Years past a sow had 1 or 2 cubs, now they are so fat and healthy they often have 4 and even 5. I had 6 in my back yard last spring. If you don't belive bear kill a lot of fawns, just look up bear and dear predation studies done buy almost every state in the union. I don't know how many bow hunters I have talked to the last few years that rarely see deer but bears are on their baits constantly. How long does it take for the light to come on. Dumping that GD corn in the brush is ruining our deer herd. You also hear the statement made," we have bucks on the trail cams but only at night", there again, how long does it take for the light to come on. QUIT dumping corn on the ground, it makes them nocturnal and they don't have to feed normally. It has brainwashed a generation of (hunters)into thinking that its the only way to kill a deer. IT DON'T WORK. I could rail on about wolves and coyotes, but will end with this. A young guy was bow hunting north of the Pine River Road about a month ago, when 13 wolves came through. If this so called game management in this State don't change their attitudes about these predators and start killing them we may as well sit in the shack and play cribbage. Sometimes I wonder if thats what they want.

I would have really like to see the DNR stop selling all the doe tags once they knew their count was that far off. You can still buy another 800 tags in one unit I hunt.

I think the coyote are taking a lot more fawns than people realize also.

Just a side not but the bear I shot last year dress at 300# and was thought by the game station to be 7 years old which was typical. I just recieved my report back on the tooth and he was only 4. There must be a lot more food availible for them now compared to prior years which they based things on.

As a person who grew up hunting in Wisconsin this is an interesting thread. My, how things have changed. Most of my deer were killed in the sixties and were all bucks. If I recall correctly the last deer I shot in Wisconsin was in the very early seventies and it sticks in my mind the gun kill was somewhere between 70 and 75 thousand then. I don't have a clue as to what the total population was then but I remember seeing 25 or 30 deer a season and I thought that was enough to make the season interesting. Bow-hunting was not real popular, or not anywhere near as popular as it is now. I don't ever remember seeing anyone hunt with a muzzle-loader although I heard some did. Predators were not a real problem, so in short I thought things were pretty cool as a whole.

Fast forward to today's world and things are pretty much the same in all parts of the country. What I mean by this is there is something wrong with the game management pretty much everywhere.

One thing I have observed wherever I have lived in recent years is that the bow-hunters have really gotten the best of both worlds. Their equipment is vastly improved and their seasons are usually the best. In some areas I've been the muzzle-loaders have pretty favorable seasons also and their equipment is also very high tech compared to what I first remember seeing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone had the same seasons?

One thing I don't like is point restriction rules. They make for a very big pain in the butt where I now live. We have to shoot a three point or better deer, measured on one side, and can only shoot a spike elk. If you can keep away from such a thing in Wisconsin I think it would be the best way.

As for shooting does, there wasn't much of that at all when I hunted in Wisconsin, but it seems that from what I read it is a perfectly acceptable thing now. Can this train of thought be reversed again or has it become to natural a thing to stop now?

$5.00 a point.Interested????Winner can buy Steak and lobster.

It's interesting to hear the grumbling every single year right after the firearm deer season. I found it interesting there were a couple of posts regarding Menominee County, MI. I helped manage that herd for about six years, including managing the deer damage control program. I can also tell you that the area around Crivitz is not the same carrying capacity as most of Menominee County (which is much higher biologically; socially, the farmers are always demanding lower numbers of deer for the most part).

There is a lot that goes in to deer management. The 'deer' management part of it is easy. The way in which the Wisconsin DNR derives population ESTIMATES is sound. Go visit your local biologist in January or February when they have some time and I am sure they would walk through the mathematics utilized in the calculations. But it is important to remember that it is not a 'count'; it is an estimate. Wildlife populations, for the most part, are impossible to 'count', and a count is not necessary for management purposes. What is important is to know what the trends are, i.e., up, down, stable, etc.

Then there are the other parts of deer managment that not many people think about. Go talk to a forester, either County or State forester. They will tell you how difficult it is to regenerate aspen, pine, cedar and many other forest types and species if deer numbers are too high. In bygone days, clearcuts could be made much larger to regenerate aspen and other shade-intolerant forest types. Wildlife managers would actually calculate population estimates for the local area and calculate how big cuts would have to be to 'overwhelm' the deer population in order to get adequate regeneration. Now, with public objection to many types of forest management practices, cuts are pounded by local deer populations and foresters demand reduction of deer numbers to allow regeneration of forest resources.

I never spoke to an insurance agent about reducing deer numbers and never was told to try and reduce numbers specifically to reduce car/deer accidents. Actually, insurance companies MAKE money on car/deer accidents because they raise premiums in high deer population areas. However, it is a consideration and a necessary consideration in the name of public safety. Many states also have it in their natural resource laws that the state agency must manage wildlife numbers to minimize car/deer accidents, minimize negative impact to forest resources, and minimize agricultural and/or horticultural damage.

So, it sounds easy to complain about deer numbers and it might seem simple to just back off 'doe permits', put all kinds of restrictions on hunters, etc. The reality is much more complicated and much more difficult. It is political; but that's not the fault of the DNR biologists and managers. Legislators make laws, not the DNR. Ask most biologists what is the most frustrating part of their job. Most will tell you it's the political parameters they must operate within.

As far as 'doe permit' numbers, it's really a fairly simple process to determine how many permits to issue in an area. After population estimates are calculated, they're compared to the objectives for the unit(s). If the herd is 10% above population objectives the herd needs to be reduces by MORE than 10% (in most cases) to account for fawn production the following spring. All this is done utilizing trends of a certain duration (sometimes 5 year, 10 year, etc...) on success rates. For example, if you decide you need to kill 500 antlerless deer to achieve an objective and your most-recent trend indicates a 50% success rate on antlerless deer, you need to issue 1000 antlerless permits. That part is really quite simple.

So, what can you do? Attend public meetings. Invariably, when I was a wildlife manager, these meetings would be attended by Sierra Club types, anti-hunting types, etc. The only hunters in attendance would be those would wanted to get their individual agenda off their chests. Attend the meeting to LEARN what the issues are; talk to your local biologists, get to know them. Most are really nice people who got into this because they really care about wildlife. Most are hunters, too. They just get tired of getting paid very little for getting bitched at all the time from all directions. They do work for you, though, and most are willing to explain things if you just ask.

Or, you could live in Colorado where I haven't drawn a deer tage in 6 years...

WOW!
I would have never thought I was so naive as to not thought that a WI DNR Biologist would not know all that it takes to arrive at a conclusion that pales all other rumors, heresies that mere Deer hunters in the field actually experience. Oops!
V

Never was a Wisconsin biologist...just know how they do things. I also never discounted hunter's experience, although I did manage properties upon which the 'hunters' placed their blinds in the most convenient places, not necessarily where the deer traveled on their land. I also didn't write my response to start an argument, which is why I included that last paragraph. Go talk to them, don't just complain about it. Have someone come out to your land and make suggestions on how you can improve your hunting. Just some ideas...

That's just the attitude that makes getting anything done that much harder. It's really easy to sit back and criticize, why don't we try to come up with a solution. Lots of problem creators/enablers in America these days, not many problem solvers or creative thinkers anymore. Probably why all the jobs keep get shipped overseas.

Actually I think he aluded to a potential solution.
They need to start actually listening to the guys and gals the go out there wear out boots walking the woods, fields and swamps or get sore rears from spending many hours observing from a tree stand or blind.

Or you chooe to take the approach of the WI DNR and blame the hunters for not being in the woods long enough, too hot, too cold, too much corn in the fields, not enough feed, ect...

God forbid you [bleep] up your ESTIMATES. Nope...that doesn't happen.

Trust me dude....the deer aren't here to be managed. Your buddies screwd the pooch for the last 5 or 6 years, and now it's out of control.

I noticed in the paper this weekend, the DNR was using buck kill numbers instead of overall kill numbers so they didn't look so bad.

That's like laying off 100 well paid employees and 90 go work at wally world for peanuts. Doesn't look so bad. All politics. They'll blame the fewer licenses next to justify the numbers.

Might want to take a look at this; just one of the many issues that wildlife managers have to contend with.

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/special_interests/white_tailed_deer.pdf

I think another part of the issue is that deer numbers in many parts of the country, including Wisconsin, have been so high over that last 10-20 years that hunters got used to seeing many deer each day in the blind and consider that 'normal'. Now that deer numbers are getting more realistic from a long-term sustainability standpoint, hunters aren't seeing nearly as many deer.

I used to do spotlight counts in the early fall and I would have members of local sportsmen's clubs come with me so they could report back to the membership how many deer there actually were out there. Just some other ideas of things people can do to help be a 'squeaky wheel' instead of the anti's. However, the days of wildlife managers and agencies being able to grow deer for hunter satisfaction are just about over...that much is true. It's kind of a bummer, but things will be better long-term.

If say 10 years ago deer pop. was 1.6mil & kill numbers were 645k (be mindful that predator (wolf pack pop) was lower. That was normal.

Now, wolf and bear # substancially higher. Deer pop. lower. Predation of fawns higher, slob hunters using bonus "doe" tags resulted in not only larger doe kill, but nubby bucks mistaken for doe.

See a wolf, or a pack, gut shoot. Least the DNR increased the available bear tags for fall '09 bear.

Why don't we kick each other in the balls a little more? Slob hunters and all. Just because someone goes out and buys a tag that is produced by the DNR and then fills it with an antlerless deer a slob hunter does not make. The name calling and divisive behavior needs to stop or your precious hobby is going to go away. You give an inch, and the anti's take a mile.

Just because a guy fills a doe tag, doesn't make him a slob hunter!

A slob hunter would be a guy on the internet tell others to "gut shoot" a pack of wolves.

yea, ok, point understood. I typed "tags" not singular "tag" guys. IMO too many does have been shot in recient years (and the nubby bucks mistaken for does)and that has reduced the deer numbers. As a responsable hunter, respect for nature and its resources and all that, practicing restraint instead of killing whatever the DNR allows you to kill just makes sense.

I do not like the concept of wolf re-introduction. JMO, if you disagree, ok.

No I don't disagree with the wolf deal. They've been unchecked for over a decade now. They screwed over the bear hunters too, with poor "estimates".

Baiting doesn't help either, I have seen those deer go nocturna. Listen to when you hear the most shots...7:00am and 4:30pm.

Agree 100% that you can't shoot that many does, and not have this problem. Now, I've also got no problem with a guy shooting a doe, but I know a lot of people that fill tags and give away the meat because they can't eat all they have.

What is so irritating to me and others, is the DNR's complete ignoring of the Dear, Wolf, and Coyote predation problem. I have never seen or heard anyone from the Deer game management attribute the terrible shape our deer herd is in to any of these animals. It's always the last cold winter,foggy weather opening weekend, too much corn in the fields, poor fawn survival etc, ad nausem. They are on to something when poor fawn survival is quoted, they just need to take it to the next question. It's as if these predators don't exist and if they do, they don't kill deer. A couple of years ago the Bear count was around 10,000, until they found out it was 30,000 plus. We were told 350 Wolves ws the right number for Wisconsin, last I heard we have over 900, and I believe that is WAY low. Coyotes are thick everywhere.This deer management crew should be fired and and new start made. No Deer season of any kind next year is appropriate. A bounty on bear, wolves and coytes should be instituted. This state,is a state of Deer hunters, our DNR had better wake up and do the right thing.

I'd be pretty surprised if there are 900 wolves in WI. But have no doubt there are more the the 350 that the DNR feels, the state can hold.

I do know there are a ton of coyotes in this area, and they're tough suckers to get when not many let you on their land to hunt them. They are the same guys that complain that there are too many. That is not a shot at you, just the land owners in general.

My post as "Marshrat" (sorry, forgot my password) was an attempt to point out that in the real world of wildlife management, deer are not the only thing that matters. There are not many 'deer managers' anymore, those days are gone. 'Wildlife managers' are concerned with all wildlife, not just deer, and need to be concerned with the long-term implications of over-abundant deer populations on habitat. Populations are not 'over-abundant' according to most deer hunters; heck, deer hunters (including myself) want to see as many deer as possible.

But think of it this way; most of northern Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. are scattered with camp ownerships of 40 acres. Let's just say that three people hunt in each camp and each hunter would consider seeing 10 deer a good day. Let's assume that they probably wouldn't be the same deer, for the most part, since the hunters are on different parts of the property. That's 30 deer sighted per 40, times 16 (640 acres/sq mi) = 480 deer/sq mi. I know I'm simplifying this and there are larger ownerships, etc. But it puts a different spin on what's realistic from a population standpoint. Even a huge population of 80/sq mi would calculate to only 5 seen per hunter, which would be a pretty slow day. Just some more the think about...