2019 Gun Deer Final Numbers

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.  

So....I've got to ask; If there are so very few deer in the northwoods, why is it that so many northern hunters are lobbying for an earlier opener so they can kill more deer? (that purportedly aren't there)

FNB and LL. As passionate as you two are regarding the low deer numbers I would think it best for you both to start a campaign to close all deer hunting in the northern 1/3 of the state. Maybe with your encouragement other hunters will agree and completely quit hunting the northern part  of Wisconsin. It seems the only way to save the deer

Just a question FNB. If you weren't seeing any deer like you say why would you continue to hunt for the few that are left? Wouldn't it be better to help the problem you are enraged about (low deer numbers) by not hunting? If it were me, I would find a new area to hunt

"they stated the success rate was around 15%. That blew me away as I’m not a spearer and was shocked that possibly success rates on spearing sturgeon would or could be higher than harvesting a buck with a rifle in 2019 in the state of Wisconsin . Hats off to to the WDNR  fisheries for taking such good care of that fishery along with so many others  to average success rates that high ."

You do know that's an historical average with high's and low's and are well lower than the deer gun average since the 80's. Or probably not, and you'll probably be ranting at the fish management team for the disasterous overharvest resulting in only a 7% success rate this year. Forget that the conditions weren't conducive to even a mediocre harvest.

"If I had to guestimate not even a half of the 1.8"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            So what you are saying is with less than a million whitetails in the state of Wisconsin over half a million die each year and have for many years?

"There will always be a lot of people who really get it and some that don't."

Lol. I couldn't agree with you more. 

"OSD you are in the minority in that you are one of the few non dnr people who still believes in SAK and that it is useful for deer population estimates."

Lol.....ok.

" Like I said before kill numbers alone are showing how far off and useless SAK is."

Let me ask you this. What do YOU think the population has been state wide with a fawn to doe ratio of about 1 (higher in the south lower in the north) and year after year harvest of around 350k. Tack on the 15% crippling loss. Add in another 100k for predation and vehicle crashes plus more some years for winterkill. Just curious.

"OSD I would say you are in the minority when it comes to SAK." 

A minority how? In what context....lol.

"OSD just curious are you a former or current dnr employee and or do you have friends or relatives who work for the dnr and are involved in deer management? "

I did work at a State Park one summer. Does that count?

"In 2019, 4,772 mi of rural roads were surveyed across all 99 Iowa counties. The number of miles surveyed was 18 mi shorter than the long-term average due to high spring precipitation and wet or flooded conditions along rural roads in riverine areas. In total, 16,490 white-tailed deer"

Seems like a similar method is used for visual summer samples in Wisconsin. Wisconsin gathers information from many sources to determine fawn to doe ratios. Perhaps I should backtrack a bit an agree with LL if this is the way you want to go and make sex ratios irrelevant. I did find it interesting that only unpaved rural roads were driven for the survey. Again though, Iowa is not Wisconsin in that it is very flat land consisting of farm fields cut only by river bottoms for the most part. Hardly comparable to Wisconsin. It would be an interesting comparison method in a few areas.

"It seems to me that should be an exceptionally important number and one that should be used to completely override SAK at any point in time  as far as numbers of antlerless tags being voted on ."

So now you are only concerned with a miniscule number compared to harvest statistics. You really have to take your act on the road. You'd make millions.

Interesting. In late winter early spring deer in wisconsin may be congregated in select fields. As you say might work in some farmland country.  What do they then do with that count? 

OSD-  I assume Iowa has the same issue with deer congregating in certain area's/fields/food sources in winter/early spring. Looks like they are flexible with the date of the survey (state mid-March to mid-May) and they wait for snow to come off the ground, but before things 'green-up" according to the DNR site. They also have other criteria for the nights they pick ( must have low wind..temps must be over 32 degree etc). Forgot to mention this is a "spotlight" survey and it appears it is done right after sunset.. They have tweaked the survey process a number of times and it actually started in 1978.  As noted this is just one of the methods used to help calculate the herd, but I really like and agree with a "boots on the ground" approach and actually counting deer as part of the process.

"They use a spring survey where they select two different east/west roads in each county and they perform a manual count."

Interesting. In late winter early spring deer in wisconsin may be congregated in select fields. As you say might work in some farmland country.  What do they then do with that count? 

OSD do you even live or visit Wisconsin? What part of the state did you hunt in ? 

Lived in Wisconsin until 2 years ago. I've hunted Waushara, Waupaca, Green Lake, Fond du Lac, Marquette, Monroe, Langlade, Oneida, Lincoln and Vilas. Owned land in Langlade from '96 until just before I moved. Hunted Langlade as early as the 60's. Could go days back then without seeing a deer. Didn't do much serious hunting after my dad died in 03. How about you?

OSD-  I reviewed a few neighboring states on how they calculate their deer herd and was intrigued by Iowa.. They use a spring survey where they select two different east/west roads in each county and they perform a manual count. They also use this process to count fox/yotes/coons and other critters.. Believe they have been doing this survey for 30+ years. I know this would work in all southern/middle of the state counties but may need to be tweaked in Northern forest counties.. Drone suggestion has some merit and you could pick a certain portion of each Northern county to review each year.. Iowa also uses car/deer collision data which I know has some potential shortfalls since many crashes are not reported. They also use a bow-hunter survey that is supposed to be pretty comprehensive but I did not research all the details of this survey (how do they select hunters..how many are involved etc).. Could not confirm if Iowa also uses some type of SAK method but the three listed methods mentioned above are what they promote/state on their DNR site.

I believe most on this thread agree that SAK has some issues and we need to look at more data points.. Not saying any one method will get an accurate account but we need to look at more options. I will be bringing up this topic at my CDAC meeting on March 30th.. Would hope other folks do the same..   

Give me something better that's used in any other state to estimate deer herds. I guess I'd rather have a beater of a truck than walk. Please don't tell me you want to drone count 54000 sq mi. Questions are, how do you accurately account for hunters passing all those tasty spikes and forks and shooting tasty fawn bearing does instead so they can brag to the guy next door, drive around with a big rack laying in their truck bed, and mount it on their wall? And how do you account for the loss to 1000 wolves, 24000 bears, and who knows how many coyotes? That's a lot of deer.

"Shortcomings include predation isn't built into the formula enough, fawn recruitment can be way off, aging can be subjective and inaccurate to name a few."

Predation isn't built in per se. My problem is its not accounted for until the following years calculations or later. Fawn predation shows up in the observations by people across the state and is entered by the fawn to doe ratio in the pre-hunt calculation. Adult predation is a little different in that it doesn't show up until it rears its ugly head in the form of reduced harvest the following year. I'd rather see it entered as a percentage of harvest much like the loss from crippling so it shows up in the post hunt numbers. Fawn recruitment is determined by the observations listed above and is used in the SAK formula in the form of fawn to doe ratio. Aging is probably the least subjective in that the differences in tooth development/wear is greatest the first 3 years fawn/yearling/2.5 year old. My problem there is, the sampling, I feel, needs to be larger as I've stated.