James Kroll Named Deer Czar

Looking at the numbers, it is amazing that we as hunters even see deer north of HWY 29.

Just got done reading the article. I then calculated the numbers and if something drastic is not done, seeing a deer in the Northwoods will be a rare to nonexistent. I don't understand why the DNR keeps issuing high number of Doe tags in the Northwoods. They also reduced the number of Bear tags in the Northern zones and increased them in Zone C [Southern Area of Wisconsin> so there will be even more predators in the Northwoods. Another thing even thou there is a Bill going thru to allow Wolf hunting and Trapping, according to the DNR Wolf Plan there is going to be a 5 year study done by them before they will allow a Wolf season.One more thought the fawn survival is only 27%, could you imagine what it would have been if we would of had a normal Winter instead of our nonexistent winter that we are having this year.

Just saw on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online that results of the northern deer study area showed that only 27% of fawns born survived 7 months in the northern study area. Biggest impact on fawns was predators. Largest mortality on adult deer was hunting as expected, but nearly as many taken by predators. Bears, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes and other unidentified predators were responsible.

If people don't believe predators are a major problem in the north, then they are living in a different world. It is no wonder that when 3/4 of your deer cannot even make it to age 1 there is a real problem. Putting out thousands of antlerless tags on top of it only makes the problem worse. No wonder hunters are not seeing many deer, and shows why it is so difficult for a buck to even reach 3.5 years old in northern WI.

The article also said that a DNR study in 2009 predicted that predators would account only for 56% of the mortality of deer as hunters do. In the north, the results of the study showed 70% of adult and yearling deer alone were killed by predators, not even including fawns. Combined in the north, predators this last year from this study took more deer than hunters. Something we hunters have been saying for years. Yet, many tree huggers say predation isn't even a factor in estimating deer numbers. Ridiculous.

It is already enforced for archery. I know of several individuals that have shot bucks for others that have gotten busted. With rifles, they would have been fined. They are already able to enforce the rule to a degree for archery, and that should be the same for rifle season. Allowing group bagging of bucks is completely against sound deer management.

I'd add that there are legitimate reasons to implement rules but how much it may or may not be violated should not matter.

That may be, I really don't know the reason why it was implemented but I know that it sure is used by hungry, greedy shooters who are not happy killing only their own deer.

How do I know? I have seen it firsthand. I stopped hunting with a group of guys who used to get together just to do drives. When needed, they would find someone from outside their core group who had a tag, just so that they could continue their hunting.

Group bagging was implemented for firearm hunting to accomodate a style of hunting. I don't see a blood thirsty anti-deer conspirator atop this tree. If it was, the rule wud be in place for archery also. With that being said, i would be in favor of an alteration to the rule. Although, it would probably become the biggest violated rule...

Group bagging is nothing more than a tool the DNR came up with to help kill more deer. They are using the greed and bloodlust that some "hunters" display as a means to their end.

I agree about all areas being different that's for sure. With the increase in animals being taken and the plummeting numbers a bump in goals wouldn't hurt the way they may have in a few areas in the past.

It's been my opinion based on decades of observation that deer populations higher than 35 psm becomes detrimental to the available habitat. Crop damage,and forest regeneration issues become unacceptable to many landowners. All habitats are different, but all have a limit.

70 deer per square mile hasn't been seen in 10 years where I hunt. The farmers didn't care for that. 40-50 would work especially with all the free and 2.00 doe tags.

I am not advocating for 70 or more DPSM but I am pushing for something over 20, particularly in areas where they can be sustained at those elvated levels.

I do have quite a problem with goals set at 10-20 DPSM in areas that can biologically carry 70, 80 or even more DPSM.

You and the rest of the folks who live and hunt in these areas Captn. I agree 100 %. Too bad the state don't give two schitz. Until they start there will be division.

I am unaware of any midwest natural landscapes that can handle long term abundance of 70+ dpsm without negative ecological impacts.

I thought of one: if the natural landscape has been heavily grazed by cattle for decades, then 70+ dpsm wont make it any worse, ecologically. So I should probably place a qualifier in the above with '...any qualitymidwest natural landscapes...'

I think the big political argument against raising fees/lotteries would be the economic impacts to areas of the state where opening weekend means big dollars. Then again, as BB points out, if the deer aren't there...

I do have quite a problem with goals set at 10-20 DPSM in areas that can biologically carry 70, 80 or even more DPSM

I assume you are referring to the maximum bio-capacity? I am unaware of any midwest natural landscapes that can handle long term abundance of 70+ dpsm without negative ecological impacts.