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.  

Brule River bottoms. Deer do yard up here. Each pile of hair is where a deer laid and starved to death. There were a few more in the area, couldn't get them all in one pic. Must've been one of those rare occasions when the food source couldn't support the population. If they only could've googled to find out they were supposed to help each other through the winter they wouldn't have had to lay there staring at each other watching each other die. This was a few years back when we had a normal spring, all the snow was actually gone for the trout opener.

How does SAK take into consideration the notion that ALL deer north of 64 yard up and help each other through the winter? The more deer, the more assistance they can give/get. That reminds me, I saw two laying dead on the shoulder of highway 70 last Sunday when I was on my way out to my cabin to strap on the snowshoes and go for a hike. You know, like, get out there and observe. Not look crap up on google and believe everything that favors my cause and disbelieve everything that doesn't. Anyway, they were about 6 and 7 miles east of Eagle River. After googling about deer help each other I figure they unselfishly gave their lives to block traffic and help their fellow deer cross the highway to eat on the illegal corn piles that pretty much all of the residents of Vilas and Forest county are throwing down. FNB you didn't see those? Next time you take a drive from Florence to Eagle River do me a favor and take a right on 55 and go up around on A and through Phelps and down to Eagle River on 17. Let us know how many tracks you see. I would suggest you watch your speed. They are hungry this time of year and head for the piles at all hours of the day.

"SAK does not take into account any drops in the Wisconsin deer herd until years after the fact ."

Wrong again. Shows you know absolutely nothing about that which you continue to villianize. SAK is recalculated each year based on harvest statistics. I've told you what I've found to be lacking in the calculations. As far as the 1.8 mil estimate I'm not about to go through the calculations of each and every DMU in regards to yearling buck/doe percentages in the harvest, doe to fawn ratios, adjustments for winter severity and trophy hunting to double check their calculations. Feel free to have at it or you could just find another realtor article to quote. Keep talking. Let everyone know how up you are on deer management in Wisconsin. Better yet ask your realtor.

Just curious if you have actually looked at how SAK works or if you just bad mouth the DNR in general because you can't bait anymore. If you have, please explain what part of it YOU think gives such a bad estimate. I've explained what I think are its limitations and possible improvements. Oh wait, you can't explain anything you spew you just quote articles by realtors in states that annually have roughly 7% the harvest of Wisconsin to push your baiting agenda. You've been found out. Come hunt in Maine FNB. Oh wait, no baiting allowed here either. Never mind.

""here is a good article explaining the concept.  

https://www.wildernessrealty.com/why-do-deer-yard-up-in-winter/"

RFLMFAO....That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen.  You are going to quote a realtor article from a state that is ecstatic when they shoot 25k deer......wait for it.....in a year."

Deer yard up in every northern state.  This is not disputable.  And you can do a quick google search to see articles on this very subject, all saying it's to help them survive the winters.   Therefore, they need other deer to survive the winter.   A solo deer in the winter is far more likely to die than a yarded deer.  A group paves trails, digs through snow, and warns of predators far better.  A solo deer is going to run itself ragged even in a normal winter.   Every animal in the north has survival instincts for winter.  And don't lump me in with the baiting argument.  My argument is simply for a larger deer herd, and that a healthy deer herd will have higher survival rates in a winter due to the very reason they yard up in the first place.  Saying a low deer herd helps the remaining deer survive a winter is foolish.  It makes each deer work a lot harder.  There is a point of oversaturation and running out of food, but that takes a lot of deer.  

I'll chime in on what should be done for a more accurate estimation of the states deer herd. Allocate money and/or train people to do more aging at registration stations. Seeing the SAK is, well, aged based, the larger the sampling across the state the more accurate the data. Pose questionaires regarding how many and/or if a smaller buck was passed to wait for a larger buck. This, I think, is the biggest factor in the inaccuracy possibilities in the estimate. SAK is based on a "random" harvest meaning you shoot the first legal deer you see. While some factor is put in to adjust for "trophy hunting" I'm not sure it is accurate and it is not used statewide. Since the other two factors yearling does and fawn to doe ratios are factors of the buck estimation it is critical to get an accurate estimation of the buck population. 

What this means. As it stands any passing of bucks for trophies in the north tends to increase the estimated buck population which is then factored twice more. 

So baiting is used to make deer fat... Not for hunting!

"here is a good article explaining the concept.  

https://www.wildernessrealty.com/why-do-deer-yard-up-in-winter/"

RFLMFAO....That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen.  You are going to quote a realtor article from a state that is ecstatic when they shoot 25k deer......wait for it.....in a year.

"Lab the fact is that if deer are baited all fall by hunters they will go into winter with more fat reserves . That is indisputable."

And there you have it folks FNB wants to bait....wonder why? 

FNB, please supply supporting documentation to your "facts".

I'd counter that winter baiting/feeding that concentrates deer makes them more susceptible to predation in many cases. Evidence of this has been discussed frequently as it relates to wolf kills in close proximity to northern communities.

Simply put, artificial feeding is NOT a viable means of growing/supporting Wisconsins deer population whereas habitat enhancement certainly is!

And....before you mention Western big game feeding operations as justification, please recognize that in nearly all of these cases, we are dealing with migratory herds who have been cut off from traditional winter range that is either gone or inaccessible due to human development.

Just a hunch...I think the problem with recruitment has to do with predation moreso than does not producing enough fawns.

No I am not.  Deer yard up over winter.  If what you're saying is correct, they would spread out over winter.  They don't do that.   There is a reason they yard up.  Now there is a point where too many would hurt them as well due to not enough food, but the population is not even close to that point in many areas.  The bottom line is a healthy population helps in winter.  Over and under population hurts.  '

here is a good article explaining the concept.  

https://www.wildernessrealty.com/why-do-deer-yard-up-in-winter/

"Deer actually need other deer to survive winters.  They work together to dig through snow among other things.  They group together to survive.  It's why you see deer yards in the winter.  Higher population would actually increase survival rates."

OMFG. Your joking right?

Deer actually need other deer to survive winters.  They work together to dig through snow among other things.  They group together to survive.  It's why you see deer yards in the winter.  Higher population would actually increase survival rates.  

"There are fewer deer because they’re not birthing as many fawns after winter missing the extra fat those calories provided. There are fewer bucks because they’re not surviving with bad winters , wolves and less fat going into these bad winters."

So am I to infer from this statement (as well as others earlier in the thread) that you think the population density needs to be increased to offset winterkill? So, using easy math, your o.k with going into a winter with say 40 dpsm so we can come out with 20? So your ok with the 20 dpsm that didn't make it and had a slow painful death of starvation and left to rot on the forest floor as long as you "see deer" the 3rd weekend in November. That there is some stellar respect for the species and the ecosystem as a whole.

So...if there are very few deer, why would the remaining deer be starving or reproducing poorly?  With that logic, we'd best not increase the northern herd as they'll all just starve to death without supplemental feeding.