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.  

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.

I've been following this thread from it's onset and while I really consider myself to be a rather uninformed dumb ass allow me to contribute. I am I must admit well into a bottle of rather tasty Hennessy so please pardon my intense desire to fulminant. I live in Sawyer county year round, the heart of the north woods. Though I am retired from full time employment I work part-time for a meat processor. In addition to Canadian game, out west game and Texas exotics I've processed hundreds of deer over the years . I also have had to live with hearing all the stories from expert outdoorsman . The common thread running between most of them is baiting and trail cams. Baiting as in everyday and some year round. A few rent loaded silos so as to never run out. Not only does baiting case excessive nocturnal behavior it all but removed the need for deer to dispirse and engage in a natural need to browse and travel. I see the kill numbers continuing to dwindle . As I see it baiting is impossible to regulate and making it illegal won't end the problem. Many so called hunters are so full of lust for the kill they will never put in the time and risk not making a kill in the interest of ethics. Most aren't even smart enough to pull the inside tenders and properly field dress their corn filled trophy. But that's just me , I could be wrong. I'm going to bed.

JC 

All points well taken....there are a lot of moving parts.  It's definitely going to take some compromise on both parts.  Just like deer hunters can't complain without solutions, neither can the foresters.  It'll be funny the day the foresters show up and start with "help me deer hunters, you're my only hope" :)

CDAC meetings will be more than interesting this spring, hopefully all can keep a level head and really think about what they are saying before they speak.

"3.  Forestry is incredibly important to WI both in terms of job creation as well as revenue to individual counties through timber sales.  That is revenue that is not tax based which benefits everyone, including the 80-90% of folks that don't care about deer hunting.  I think it will be a dead end fight to convince the vast majority of residents that the forestry industry should not be represented when they are representing their side of a natural resource that produces a lot more revenue, jobs and useful products than deer hunting ever will.  Same goes for the tourism industry....deer hunting is a small part of WI tourism.  They've got other agendas too. "

True, but when you have a seat at the table (Forestry - CDAC) who will never be satisfied enough deer are killed, it completely is a biased vote.  I have not personally seen one person from Forestry vote to increase a deer herd.  Keep in mind, if we allow forestry to have a large say in the discussion it results in dismal numbers of deer and will drive many hunters away from the sport.  This has a snowball effect as there are less hunters to show the sport to their kids and pass on the traditions.  Push enough away, have a few easy winters, and there won't be enough hunters to control the deer population - the only tool foresters have control of to curtail the deer population.  

"JC, wouldn't a buck only season reduce the buck numbers and reduce breeding the following spring? "

Nope, breeding would largely be unaffected.  It has been proven that does get bred even with a small population of bucks.  In short, buck harvest has little to no effect on populations.

Littleluck

All great potential options, sounds like pretty cool technology!