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

It has been more than a few years since the goal of 350 wolves was reached. I think there are easily 900 and even the wolf managers are wanting to thin them back. I was listening to a radio program a while back and they had a lady on who was with Friends of Animals or some title like that. She was not for any wolf killing. How can you call yourself friends of the animals especially wolves when they kill everything, and have no natural enemies except man. If you never want to control the wolf population, that tells me you hate deer, beaver, porcupines etc. I think some people would like to eliminate hunting as a sport because the wolves do all the predation thats needed. What in the hell do we need hunters for if we have wolves. Think about it.

Good point Luke.

Wolves are a big reason why we will probably never have a limited draw Elk hunt in Wi.There is heavy predation on calves by both Bear and Wolf.States like Kentucky who introduced Elk some years after we did have herds that are considerably larger and already have seasons.I personally dont need to see or hear Wolves to experience the Out of Doors.There was a reason to have a Bounty and eliminate them.I hear those SOB`s on almost a nightly occurance.I guess someone getting hurt by one is what it will take to stop this Wolf loving crap.Most likley it will be a Child or older person who cant defend themself.I am not telling anyone to shoot Wolves,but I wont turn anyone who does in either.Anyway its the last Muzzleloading day and I am heading out now.later,Huntz

Deer were moving last night before the storm hit us...I saw a bunch on my way home from work. Well, a bucnh is reletive. I saw about 8. Years past it would have been more like 30-40.

Last eve on the radio it was announced that the DNR Board of Directors meeting was cancled due to the coming storm. Main topic was to have been to 2009 gun deer hunt.

May still be time to email your comments to the BODs liaison:
Laurie Ross email addy for any here who wish to contact her.
laurie.ross@wisconsin.gov
here is a c/p of the email I sent, and she did reply to me too!

"Hello Laurie,
This email is a follow-up for the phone conversation we had today. I am a recreational land owner in the northern central portion of Wisconsin. I've owned this land for ten years, the main purpose is for gun deer hunting. I would like to express my disappointment regarding my 2009 deer gun hunt. Not a white tail deer was seen by myself and my brother who hunts with me. Also, the 2007 & 2008 gun hunts were void of deer activity.

One gage I use to judge deer population/activity in my area is the quantity of firearm reports, i.e., gun shots I hear in the surrounding area. I've noted that for the past 5+ years the quantity of gun shot activity has fallen substantially. To me this indicates fewer deer either seen or available.

In particular I was pretty annoyed by the 2008 deer population reports released by the DNR. DNR reports leading up to the gun hunt were presented as good. When harvest results were released, amid "noise" of complaints by hunters afield, DNR states that maybe they screwed up on their population numbers. Also DNR released info regarding the WI black bear population was much greater than projected. The DNR indicated that bear permits would be increased for the 2009 hunt to reduce bear numbers.

What I've concluded is that DNR "science" regarding bear population, deer population, wolf population, is flawed. Or, at least the info presented to the public is.

An additional disappointment I have is with the DNR "desired population goal" regarding the size of the WI deer herd. Never did understand what constitutes a desired pop. goal. Could the desired pop. be what the auto insurance vendors want to minimize car/deer hits? That's one theory I've heard told around the campfire so to speak. I recall when WI deer hunt harvest totals were in the 600,000 range +/-. Then this seeming endless request from the DNR for WI hunters to kill as many female (doe) whitetail as possible. Unlimited bonus tags, earn-a-buck, T-Zone, and so forth. Then the CWD scam to encourage hunters to kill all the deer in the more or less Madison area. Now, let's add the rapid increase of the wolf, bear, coyote predator population. There is now an active wolf pack in my area. DNR wolf map says so. Heard a wolf howl this year too. By the way, both 2007 & 2008 deer hunts, I was visited up close and personal by black bears. 2007 I was able to "yell" the bear off. 2008 yell off did not work. Had to fire gunshot to scare bear away. No bear this year though (relief).

Long and short, I do realize that many factors affect the deer hunt. Here is a list of what I feel contributed specifically for my 2009 deer gun hunt:

1)deer "rut" (breeding) was over. deer were tired, need rest.
2)warm temps, with said rut done, deer took advantage of warm weather to pretty much bed all day.
3)lack of snow, makes seeing deer that were moving difficult.
4)predation by wolfs, bears, coyote, fisher.

bullet #4 I feel is a huge contributing factor to the reduced deer population in my area.

Laurie, I've spent $84 in deer tags for the '07, '08, '09 deer gun hunts. Plus the monies I've spent for food, supplies, and so forth for those hunting years. I saw a news brief on the DNR website a week or three ago saying a 16 day gun hunt is being considered for the 2010 season. Why? I'm not real encouraged to go sit in the woods for 16 days just to see more of nothing.

My current position is that I'll simply not spend the money for the 2010 deer hunt. And encourage as many like minded friends and so forth to boycott the 2010 gun deer hunt as well.

I've attached a PDF document regarding wolf predation. I do believe that the information and data contained is valid. You know, a concern I have is that when the predator population in northern WI finds limited opportunities to feed on wildlife (deer fawns?), where will these find their food source. Common knowledge is that predators will simply relocate to an area that has a food source.

To close: I'd sure like to be told the truth by the DNR regarding deer population numbers. And told of how they were arrived at. The typical press releases issued by the DNR have generally left me having listened to many words that have said nothing. Fluff.

Thank You for your regard,

my sig & contact info was here"

TooDogs, Excellent letter, I agree 100%.

You guys may have all seen this already.

Pennsylvania is going through the same thing. The game commission took away the 3-day doe season and now allows doe to be taken throughout the entire rifle season not to mention some doe only seasons. Things have been down hill ever since. Now you see guys shooting yearlings the size of my dog, its sick.

We came back from shopping in GreenBay about 3:00 PM.I unloaded the Truck and was just on the Computer when my wife called me to the Living Room.i have about 2 acres of Rye on the other side of my pond and there is 3 Does and a Big Buck munching away.Dang how do they know??????Now I have to hang a tree stand there and try and boink that boy with my Bow.

The problem with your theories and counting of the deer population in most of northern Wisconsin and Michigan, at least in the area that our group hunts is that most of the land is federally and state owned forest land. Over the past two seasons in the woods our camp of three has seen a total of 7 deer. Not very encouraging. And yes we do go into the woods and hunt. Not only that but 3 of the deer were seen and counted as such by all three members of our hunting party. To "assume" that they are different deer on a 40 acre parcel is foolish. Even if you hunt different areas of the 40, deer still travel to eat and sleep.

Doughboy,
Do you have brands on them to confirm they're the same deer? And how is the fact that the land ownership pattern is public land relevent? Hunters hunting on public land don't disperse themselves equally; I am well aware of that. I am also aware that deer do not disperse themselves equally throughout deer range. Better habitat holds higher concentrations of deer and show evidence of higher activity levels.

Theoretically, hunters on public land would all scout to find the best places to hunt. If this were true and all hunters were equally skilled, this would result in most of the hunters being concentrated in the same areas, but this doesn't happen that often either. Hunters tend to space themselves out at least a little bit so it must be that some hunters hunt where concentrations and/or activity centers are greater and some hunt where they are not.

I cannot emphasize this enough though; wildlife managers do not COUNT deer or any other wildlife species that ranges over large areas. They conduct population censuses that give them TRENDS over time. That is what is important. Hunters want to know NUMBERS, exactly, and it is not possible to obtain exact numbers. It is, however, possible to obtain scientifically sound population index numbers that indicate if a population is up, down or stable and by how much.

If I hunted public land and only saw 7 deer I would find a better spot. The assumption piece of my example was just that, an EXAMPLE of what many deer hunters expect and an explanation of why those levels of deer numbers are not possible. I used the example to merely show that IF deer WERE equally distributed throughout a section of land and hunters were equally dispersed and each hunter would be satisfied if they saw 'x' deer, the number of deer required to satisfy those hunters is not sustainable. In other words, it was a best-case scenario.

Part of the issue, too, is how wildlife agencies publish population numbers. In Wisconsin, when many hunters see the deer density maps that say '25 deer/sq.mi' many make the mistaken impression that there are 25 deer in every square mile in that county. This is obviously not true and some parts of the range (that which contains the best habitat) have more deer than others. The deer density per square mile business is a calculation of the estimated deer population for that management unit divided by the deer range is square miles. I think it would be better if agencies just said 'we estimate that there are x,xxx deer in unit z'. What do you think?

What about expanding the concept of Quality Deer Management (QDM) to more of a county wide or regional wide practice that is implemented and governed by the hunters. Around central wisconsin, there are groups of farmers and land owners that install food plots, which consist of more nutritious and beneficial food for the deer than corn, and then they agree to shoot only bucks of a mature age and specific rack size. I know the problem is going to be alot more complex to solve than this but would it be a practicle place to start?

I like that idea, but I think it would be too hard to get all the hunters to comply. Too many people like their meat, and don't care what they shoot. Even if it is better for the herd, and a lot more deer would probably be seen.

Don't forget that QDM dictates heavy antlerless harvests to keep herds well beneath carrying capacity of the range. It seems that is what all the fuss is about!

I am all for food plots and most of those plants are more nutritious than corn. The primary benefit of food plots is that it allows deer to get a jump on their nutritional needs coming out of winter which leads to better fawn production(more 'interest' on the herd) along with maximum body growth for all deer. Antler growth comes after that because antlers are a luxury and nutrition goes to body growth and fawn production first.

I think QDM is a great concept if it is not misconstrued to mean 'trophy buck management' which it too often is. It means quality bucks, does and fawns well within the carrying capacity of the habitat to support them.

Another thing to remember is that the bottleneck for northern deer herds is winter. Research shows that white-tailed deer at the northern edge of their range (N. Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, etc., etc.) slow their metabolism during winter as a survival response to lack of natural food. This is why wildlife agencies argue against winter feeding in yards. Deer simply cannot eat enough to obtain a positive energy balance during this time. The determining factors for northern deer survival during winter is what condition they entered winter in and how long winter lasts. Food plots improve nutritional condition during spring, summer and potentially fall and help wih this.

The other part of the equation is the timing of the hunting season, i.e. fall. It is well-documented that most white-tailed deer herds will earn about 30% 'interest' each year; in other words, about 30% of a deer herd needs to be removed each year during the hunting season just to maintain deer numbers and keep them from increasing. A pre-season herd of 1.5 million should have a harvest of about 450,000 just to keep even. Kill less, the herd increases; kill more and it decreases. This kill should be all antlerless deer, including buck fawns. I am not saying kill all the buck fawns; that is rediculous. But buck fawns have a higher mortality rate than other age/sex groups. It's just how it is. So people shouldn't get all bent out of shape about shooting buck fawns.

Lastly, although many hunters would like to see more deer (higher deer numbers) it must be remembered that the idea is to keep the herd not AT carrying capacity but well below it. The reason is that a herd at or above C.C. depletes the habitat, which then reduces it's C.C. From a hunting standpoint, the most 'harvestable deer' are produced by a herd that is about 1/2 the C.C. Fun stuff!!

Hunt in Vilas.. i saw 2 wolves, 0 deer in 5 days. The wolf population is probably getting bigger than the deer population.

I hate to keep rehashing this but the more I think about it, the more it eats at me. When I first started hunting some 30 years ago, I used to see alot more deer in the woods than I do now. I'd like to think that in all those years of hunting, that I learned a few things along the way. Apparantly not. I do not even see close to the number as I used to. At least back then, you could usually count on seeing one or two a day. Not alot I know, but then things got really good and to see 5-7 a day was awesome. Now to see 1 or two for the season, its depressing!
Ever since the "estimated" deer herd in Wisconsin zoomed up over 1.7 million (Nevermind the fact that the D.N.R. was off on their estimate) The actual number of deer killed or seen by hunters is dramatically down. It seems that the political powers and special interest groups have too much power and say in what our D.N.R. does and does not do. Baiting deer with corn, the farmers would loose too much money! Timberwolves, Oh aren't they pretty! In my oppinion, it seems the only thing the D.N.R. understands is money. How about if every camp out there was to buy two less tags next year? You know according to the papers and articles hunters do not know how to hunt anymore and the weather, it will probably be too hot or cold or too snowy or they wont give out as many bonus tags as last year so the kill will be down even more. Not only that hunters just like to get together for the camaraderie of it all anyway (hope you are catching the sarcasm). So two less tags for each camp and I'm sure we might be able to get through to some answers or ideas on how to fix the problem. Another thing, if the D.N.R. would at least realize there have been mistakes made in their management practices, why can't they just come out and fess up and offer an appology. You know something like "were sorry we reintroduced the timberwolf, we didn't know they would eat that many deer, and multiply so fast". Or how about "gee we didn't know that hunters putting all those piles of corn in the woods would screw up deer hunting".

that is my biggest complaint.

I can go a season without seeing a deer. Done it before, will probalby do it again. that is part of hunting...toatally OK with that.

It's the lies and misdirection, that bugs me so much. Come out and say "we [bleep] up the estimate. It's an estimate and we missed on it." That would go further with most hunter than the DNR thinks...I think.

to this point so far...I'm not buying a deer tag in WI next year.

At this point me either, that goes for archery and rifle. I can go to the cabin and relax and not have to pay for a license.

Yep... I can fish muskies, walleyes, and bluegills from the deck of the cabin, literally. Plus I can drink beer while I fish, so I have that going for me...which is nice.

Doughboy, I hunt pretty close to Rosholt and there was not nearly the fawns shot this year without EAB, of course they weren't there either but the public land didn't get hammered as bad. Unfortunately we saw a lot of deer heading into it.

Hunter's in this area aren't passing up deer because they all think they might not see another one.