MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

2019 Gun Deer Final Numbers

12/3/19 @ 12:08 PM
ORIGNAL POST
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

Just released, 2019 vs. 2018: Total buck kill down 28.6%, total harvest down 24.9%.  Northern Forest region was the worst: buck kill down 39.5%, total harvest down 38.2%.

Post opening weekend quote: "In 2018, we held the earliest possible deer season followed by the latest possible season in 2019. This occurred between the 2012-13 and 2007-08 seasons as well, and we saw similar declines in opening weekend registration totals," said DNR big game ecologist Kevin Wallenfang. 

2012 antlered harvest: 119,469

2013 antlered harvest: 102,221, drop of 14.5%

2007 antlered harvest: 133,107

2008 antlered harvest: 103,845, drop of 22%

Yes, there were decreases if you only look at the variable as stated by DNR above.  Total harvest of 75,236 bucks in 2019 tells another story.  Even in the worst years, the total buck kill was down 25% on top of the decrease "due to a late start to the season."  The buck kill was down 19% from the lowest buck kill numbers in the last 13 years.  We are on a continued and readily apparent trend downward.

As I posted in another thread, pick the year and you get the same excuses from DNR: standing crops, no snow, late start date to season, and the best of all "lack of hunter effort."

Most of us had record snowfalls late in the season which has never been seen before.  The Winter Severity Index does not properly account for deep snow or extreme cold.  -1 degree counts the same as -30 degrees, and 18" of snow counts the same as 40" of snow according to their system.  I feel a lot of deer died last winter/spring, but we were told we had a record population and a moderate winter even though hundreds of barn roofs collapsed from all the snow.

Since we as hunters failed, and did not do our part to reduce this out of control population as DNR has told us about, I suspect DNR will offer more doe tags, more seasons, more weapons, and longer seasons since we all obviously are failing at hunting.  

I am guessing the number of licenses sold next year will drop even faster with the winter we are already having.  

DISPLAYING 20 TO 29 OF 211 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS
12/25/19 @ 10:52 AM
outfishin
MEMBER since 1/14/13

For the life of me I cannot figure out the driving force behind lowering the deer population. I know some people claim insurance companies and I get that theory. Not sure I believe it but that would be the only ones to benefit besides farmers. Anyone want to chime in?

12/25/19 @ 9:39 AM
Farnorthbadger
User since 12/7/13

That’s a very sensible  plan Luck and would give a little to all sides of this issue. SAK is simply used as an extremely flawed population model by our WDNR to further lower a historically low deer population in Wisconsin. They know just how flawed it really is and use that to their advantage to decimate Wisconsin’s deer populations . It’s  how KW can trot out such a ridiculous population number like 2 million and keep a straight face doing it when we all know ( and our WDNR management also ) that the real number most likely at least half of that or better . Durkin might be the only person in the state dumb enough to really believes that number . 

12/25/19 @ 8:51 AM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Sorry oops my last post was directed to BeerTownFyreman and any others that care to read it . FarNorthBadger was in my head as he made the last post.

12/25/19 @ 8:46 AM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Farnorthbadger,

If it is highly flawed SAK population guestimate or no population estimate model, I choose no population estimate model. The choice is easy. Do we really need a deer population guestimate model? What real value, purpose, use, meaning, benefit does a highly flawed SAK population guestimate or any other population estimate really have especially if you can't really check it or verify it.  All it does is ticks hunters off.  Say master expert chief deer biologist Kevin Wallenfang gives his bogus SAK population guestimate of a record over 2 million and I and many other hunters think it is 500,000 or 1 million, who is closer to the actual number if we can't verify either one? So why use SAK or another population estimate model. it is like throwing darts at a dart board and wherever it hits is your guestimate.  Past audits of SAK and history especially up north has showed it has failed terribly yet we should still use it because we don't have a better population estimate model. Really? think about it does that make any sense. Why do you think the deer populations, kill numbers are at or near all time lows especially up north?  Cause the DNR relied solely on a highly flawed SAK deer population guestimates for many years and issued tons of doe tags and didn't look at other metrics and didn't listen to hunters and we are dealing with the results today. Hunting sucks in many areas. We really don't need a population estimate model. Why is the DNR so obsessed with the highly flawed SAK deer population guestimate model? I don't know. Temper tantrum maybe cause they lost some of their power with the CDACS?  A new deer direction for deer management including the CDACS was brought about to get rid of SAK which makes sense and looks at the direction the population is going based on metrics such as kill numbers, car collisions, crop damage complaints, browsing data, winter severity, fawn recruitment, etc. If the CDACS don't get influenced by the highly flawed SAK populations guestimates that the DNR is still giving them, they are to look at all the metrics and come up with an objective, increase, decrease or maintain deer numbers. They are to work toward their goal by looking at the metrics. I believe this is a good approach and way better than relying solely on a highly flawed SAK.  I would look at the buck kill total weapons all types for many years to get a reasonable realistic average. For instance  look at your buck kill curve all weapon types for your county. Maybe look at the peak year, for many counties it may be the year 2000. Now take say 5 or 7 years on either side of the peak year to get your target average buck kill for all weapon types. Example my county lets says the average total weapons buck kill is 1200 and we currently are at 600. We have quite a ways to go before we reach our goal but we should do all we can to go in the direction of the objective to increase and reach the target all weapon type average buck kill of 1200 if metrics are showing no significant impact. It may be difficult especially with high predation, severe winters etc. But you have to stick to you guns, objective, goal. I would have buck only until you get close to your target average buck kill all weapon types or until your metrics show significant impacts by deer. When you reach your target goal or metrics start showing impacts then you start issuing some doe tags to try to keep you average target buck kill all weapons close to the long term average.  So in summary there really is no need for a deer population estimate model especially a highly flawed guestimate model like SAK.



12/25/19 @ 8:45 AM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Farnorthbadger,

If it is highly flawed SAK population guestimate or no population estimate model, I choose no population estimate model. The choice is easy. Do we really need a deer population guestimate model? What real value, purpose, use, meaning, benefit does a highly flawed SAK population guestimate or any other population estimate really have especially if you can't really check it or verify it.  All it does is ticks hunters off.  Say master expert chief deer biologist Kevin Wallenfang gives his bogus SAK population guestimate of a record over 2 million and I and many other hunters think it is 500,000 or 1 million, who is closer to the actual number if we can't verify either one? So why use SAK or another population estimate model. it is like throwing darts at a dart board and wherever it hits is your guestimate.  Past audits of SAK and history especially up north has showed it has failed terribly yet we should still use it because we don't have a better population estimate model. Really? think about it does that make any sense. Why do you think the deer populations, kill numbers are at or near all time lows especially up north?  Cause the DNR relied solely on a highly flawed SAK deer population guestimates for many years and issued tons of doe tags and didn't look at other metrics and didn't listen to hunters and we are dealing with the results today. Hunting sucks in many areas. We really don't need a population estimate model. Why is the DNR so obsessed with the highly flawed SAK deer population guestimate model? I don't know. Temper tantrum maybe cause they lost some of their power with the CDACS?  A new deer direction for deer management including the CDACS was brought about to get rid of SAK which makes sense and looks at the direction the population is going based on metrics such as kill numbers, car collisions, crop damage complaints, browsing data, winter severity, fawn recruitment, etc. If the CDACS don't get influenced by the highly flawed SAK populations guestimates that the DNR is still giving them, they are to look at all the metrics and come up with an objective, increase, decrease or maintain deer numbers. They are to work toward their goal by looking at the metrics. I believe this is a good approach and way better than relying solely on a highly flawed SAK.  I would look at the buck kill total weapons all types for many years to get a reasonable realistic average. For instance  look at your buck kill curve all weapon types for your county. Maybe look at the peak year, for many counties it may be the year 2000. Now take say 5 or 7 years on either side of the peak year to get your target average buck kill for all weapon types. Example my county lets says the average total weapons buck kill is 1200 and we currently are at 600. We have quite a ways to go before we reach our goal but we should do all we can to go in the direction of the objective to increase and reach the target all weapon type average buck kill of 1200 if metrics are showing no significant impact. It may be difficult especially with high predation, severe winters etc. But you have to stick to you guns, objective, goal. I would have buck only until you get close to your target average buck kill all weapon types or until your metrics show significant impacts by deer. When you reach your target goal or metrics start showing impacts then you start issuing some doe tags to try to keep you average target buck kill all weapons close to the long term average.  So in summary there really is no need for a deer population estimate model especially a highly flawed guestimate model like SAK.



12/25/19 @ 6:44 AM
Farnorthbadger
User since 12/7/13

The county by county historical car/deer crashes reported monthly/ yearly probably give as accurate of an estimate of climbing or falling deer populations as there is .

Aren’t we paying state biologists to do just that sort of thing? It seems to me that would be the place to watch historical trends and  override SAK when decreasing car crashes show a declining deer herd  yet SAK shows an increasing deer herd as it did last year.

 If our WDNR management would  get their heads out of their Durkins they’d stop trying to pawn SAK off as the shabby excuse to slaughter the Wisconsin deer herd yet again as regularly scheduled. 

12/24/19 @ 11:44 PM
BeerTownFyreman
User since 6/15/01

Which deer population estimate model do you suggest the DNR use?

12/24/19 @ 4:38 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

If you want to read some joke of articles read the December 27 Wisconsin outdoor news quoting Kevin Wallenfang.  Article is titled CDAC review pulls NRB into deer talk written by Tim Eisle Why does the outdoor news even quote Wallenfang the guy has done more harm to Wisconsin deer management than anyone? Another article that is rediculous in that same issue of the outdoor news is written by Pat Durkin who is a absolutely clueless about deer in this state. His article titled 2019 gun deer season fits historical patterns is loaded with garbage. He says scientific deer estimates put the deer population at record 2 million this year.  Really.  Hey Pat why don't you use that highly flawed SAK garbage scientific formula to balance your checkbook. I don't think you would use a formula that is accurate to plus or minus 121% to balance your checkbook. But DNR and Kevin Wallenfang is still using this formula to give us bogus population estimates like 2 million this year. Durkin thinks there is more deer than ever and that we have not shot enough female deer on recent years. What planet is this guy living on? He rips on hunters for being lazy etc. Why does the wisconsin outdoor news even let this totally clueless excuse of a writer put anything in their paper. Let alone pay him for his garbage. 

 



12/23/19 @ 7:16 PM
Stratos1967
User since 3/9/07

Go to your local Deer Advisory Council meetings, especially if you are in northern counties!  Make your voice heard!

12/22/19 @ 7:58 PM
Farnorthbadger
User since 12/7/13

And count the deer in the fall........badly .......it very much turns the entire predator /prey numbers into an irrelevant mess, as planned by our WDNR management . 

Competent deer management in Wisconsin factoring in logical predation numbers would certainly mean zero antlerless permits north of Highway 8 for good . The unmanaged wolves and bears and bobcats will always ensure there will never be an overpopulation of deer no matter what the WDNR and it’s foresters tell us about how badly overpopulated the deer are . Those false numbers have been proven wrong again and again time after time . 

DISPLAYING 20 TO 29 OF 211 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.