Deer success rate

In light of the archery season question at this year's spring hearing I decided to break down the success rate based on licenses sold vs harvest numbers.

Numbers are for 2017-18 season

Gun deer (includes regular, youth, muzzleloader and all antlerless)

License sold 582,281

Deer killed 227,645

Kill Rate 39%

Regular Archery

License sold 152,660

Deer Killed 45,166

Kill Rate 29%

Cross bow

Licenses sold 82,660

Deer killed 47,228

Kill Rate 57%

With the current season frame work a hunter using a crossbow has a 18% higher success rate than any other form of weapon.  Almost 2x the success rate over a verticle bow.

Amazing how rude and downright mean some can be and then call other whiners. 

Nobody can express an opinion but them..... huge double standard for sure!

So ere, exactly why do you need the option to kill 2 bucks per year? I don't get it...

Go have fun with your xbow but don't go telling others we don't have a right to seek a bit of quality in the Wisconsin hunting scene.

One thing interesting about the pdf file from the original comment, on page 7 it shows the buck harvest trends.  Even before crossbows the archery harvest was trending up and the gun harvest was trending down.  Seems like we are heading toward an Archery heavy harvest in the future and a reduced gun harvest.  That almost fits more in line that less people will get 2 bucks in the future or it will stabilize because if we shoot more bucks during archery, there are less for gun season.

If you look when it was archery only in 2012, 10480 people shot 2 bucks vs 10,676 this year.  So is the change really that drastic or is it how we look at it?

The number of vertical bow hunters who shot 2 bucks went down substantially so those guys probably switched to crossbows.  Patrons numbers increased a little but still fall pretty close to past trends.

I’m guessing buckshots numbers came from that Paul Smith article. I cannot for the life of me find where Mr Smith found the 82660 number. According to the Weapon use report there were over 163,000 hunters licensed to use a crossbow if all the upgrades and patron licenses are included compared to 125,151 archery only license holders. I could start a thread or author a resolution stating that archery hunters are more successful than crossbow hunters using those numbers. Now I know that isn’t the case but numbers can be manipulated any way to suit anyone’s agenda, especially when there is so much gray area here. I’d bet most upgrade license holders involve the hunter using or intending to use a crossbow at some point otherwise why waste the $3. Admittedly it’s impossible to speculate which percentage of patron holders use crossbows. To truly evaluate this, the upgrade needs to be eliminated and hunters must choose one or the other when buying a patron or they need to be surveyed to estimate weapons use. 

I think I got it now; 1 buck season, only shoot mature 3-4 year old bucks, arguing about a very small % of guys shooting 2 bucks in a season so we can improve deer hunting in wisconsin, and all crossbow hunters are lazy and couldn't shoot a deer with a vertical bow thus the switch. WOW, that's not a broad brush that's a flipping spray gun.

Buck in looking at your numbers its a misnomer to say that the success of crossbow use is 18% higher than with a gun.  Rather 57  / 39 = 1.46. so this is a 46% increase in success rate. 

Safe to assume this "1 buck only" tag would be purchased prior to bow season and would cover you for all seasons and all weapons. You'll see a jump in the price all together from the lost revenue of hunters purchasing bow and gun licenses. Otherwise you keep current system in place I tag out with bow I just wont buy a gun license, lost revenue to save 11000 deer.  Assuming 90000 of the archery kill was taken prior to gun season thats 90000 less gun hunters in the woods as well. There are economic factors to this as well, just something to consider. 

lol, LB you brought up the perch....

Mad,  cause people can't brag they killed two bucks.  Period.  

I wouldn't want the taxidermy bill for two.  

i'll never see two deer in WI that i'd kill in a year plus I only bow hunt. Christ,  I go a 3 to 5 years in between 4+ year old deer. 

11K more bucks a year saved,  that's HUGE no matter how anyone breaks it down.  someone said one every 2500 acres.  That makes a difference.  4 sections is big but a deer can go from one end to the other 10 minutes or less.  I hunt a 915 acre farm,  I've seen deer go from one end to the other and that's a few hundred sort of 2 sections.  Sq mile is referred to as a section if someone was wondering.  2500 acres is nothing at all.  one deer saved a year would help quality in a few years with out a doubt.

2500 acres in the Northwoods would seem a lot more,  but I've known deer to range 3-4 miles one way a day just to eat.  That according to cameras.  During the early winter,  no snow,  deer will go a hell of a lot farther than that prior to snow.

Some times you need to "pick your poison"  Beertown.  Buck only seasons certainly make sense in the context of GROWING the deer herd as your primary focus.  A byproduct of that as others have noted is a higher percentage of bucks get harvested which ultimately scews the age structure. There have been multiple comments on L-L about the lack of older, mature bucks being seen/killed in the Northwood in recent years. Why? A disproportionate number of 1.5 yr olds are being killed.

When population objectives are met, it's hard to argue against a more balanced age distribution of bucks from a strictly biological standpoint. There is a ton of literature out there supporting this.

Why, might I ask, would one be adamant about NOT supporting a 1 buck rule, particularly if the harvest continues to rise as I speculate it will?

Redhook,  Yeah I gottcha.  

I still agree with you 100% on your fishing issue.  I fish the mighty miss as well.  Every year I wonder when those big perch will dry up.  I see exactly what you explained EVERY year.  I release those big females and try to take the males or the fish between 8.75 and 10.  Those big old girls have no meat on them with that giant belly.  I've cleaned them before years ago,  I felt bad.  never again.

The idiocracy of that statement doesn't even warrant any type of reply, but I couldn't resist because I actually feel a bit sorry for you after reading that.

Oh Come on Fish hound,  where's the love?  Maybe it's just the guys I know that shoot Xbows,  that are absolute tools.  They couldn't kill a deer if their live depended on it with a Vbow.  Whined during Earn a buck,  whine cause they can't bait,  now whining cause the season could be reduced.  Poor Xbow guys,  here's a tissue.  I'm not saying all,  but i'd have to think a vast majority are clueless and had to pick up a different weapon to increase their odds.   

Make no mistake though,  there are PLENTY Vbow hunters in that same boat.

 .L B if you type in the definition of Good that is my understanding of the term. We may disagree on the numbers of deer harvested by which weapons and why we hunt but we should be able to agree that people have different reasons for what they do and how they do it and your opinion is just that, it is just how you perceive the facts. Modern  Crossbows are just a new technology just as compound bows were when they were introduced. We can agree to disagree on what crossbows will do to deer hunting but the fact is they open archery deer hunting to many that could not be introduced to the sport in the past which in my opinion is a great thing. Have a great day 

Increased buck harvest is going to further lower the average age of animals harvested and will negatively affect the quality of the deer herd. Those of us who target mature deer are going to see fewer of them. No question. 

We have had buck only deer hunting (or at least 90+% buck only) in the majority of northern and central forest zone counties for going on 4, 5, 6+ years now to build the herd. Is that negatively affecting the deer herd? May be we should just do away with buck only hunting then?

In the issue of an Outdoor News:  In 1897, a resident hunting license cost $1, a nonresident cost $30.  In 1899, a resident hunting license cost $1, a nonresident (with a deer tag) cost $50.

A little food for thought..

Some of the biggest slobs I know have taken to the woods with crossbows the last couple years. Am I naive enough to think slobs don't hunt with a vertical bow? No, but we found three nice bucks and a couple does that had crossbow bolts mixed in with the bones this winter/spring. The neighbor bragged up and down how on a calm day he can shoot a beer can at 75 yards with his crossbow...that is the kind of hunter you seem to draw with crossbows. Gun hunters who want to hunt the rut. The vertical bow guys already have/had their vertical bow setups before that law was passed. Again, I have met the guys that pull their 15 year old vertical bow out 2 days before the season and as long as they can hit their 18" block target at 20 yards, it's "good enough" and they go hunt...and lose the first 3 deer that they shoot at 30 yards, which they have never practiced at. I think too many guys think of a crossbow as a rifle and take poor shots. Manufacturers don't help when they advertise 'rifle-like accuracy at 100 yards'...people honestly buy their $1500 crossbow and shoot at deer at 60, 70+ yards. Madforlabs, I agree that license sales are a big driving force behind seasons and legislation regarding hunting and fishing. I've said for years that Wisconsin is the best bargain for nonresident hunters...good numbers in the southern half of the state and good trophy potential in a lot of that same area. I just got kicked between the legs by Montana FWP...$642.12 for a nonresident deer license in a DRAW...not even guaranteed a license! Nonresidents are guaranteed no more than 10% of the licenses in a given unit. Meanwhile, 100,000+ nonresidents show up annually the day before the opener here in Wisconsin and are guaranteed a license. And we wonder why our public land is over pressured and we don't have any revenue? I get that some nonresidents own land up here, but a lot hunt public land. Wisconsin has nowhere near the public land that western states have and yet nonresident tags are 2-4 times more expensive and some states you still have to draw. I would like to see nonresident deer licenses be in the $250 range here. People will still pay it, and maybe, just maybe will take it a little more seriously. It burns my arse having to pay 4 times as much in another state as a hunter from that state would pay to come here to hunt the same animal. The extra revenue would help hire wardens and biologists to help ensure our kids and grandkids will have the chance to hunt in the future.