Success data from WI xbow, bow and gun
Wisconsin
Contributors to this thread:
ArchersQuest's Link
Interesting hunter success data in MJS story of various weapons and license types for 2014 Wisconsin deer seasons.
The upgrade licenses muddy up the picture at this point. Sounds like the DNR is working on refining the report.
One year is just one year, as the article says, but it will be interesting to see how the harvest tracks in the years to come.
Naz 's Link
Paul does nice work, some good quotes in there, too.
More info on the harvests by season, bow, gun and crossbow, here.
It shows that kill numbers basically just move around via weapon of choice. That is what the other states have shown too. The net results have just been a push. That is really what people need to look at versus getting distraught.
All the reason to push it in the gun season, the stats explain it all.
Look at the average age of the crossbow hunter. Probably pretty experienced deer hunter. Most I know own their own property. They can shoot deer any way they want. It stands to reason they'll be more successful.
There is no correlation between owning a crossbow and owning property to hunt. The success factor comes from being able to use a more efficient weapon at a time period when bucks are more vulnerable. While I agree it won't matter much on private land, it has a very real ability to further decimate public land.
Agree to a point, but if public land is as decimated as some say it is, doesn't matter what you use. Deer at or below goal are very difficult animals to see during legal light. Add heavy pressure, and even deer in areas above goal can seem to disappear. Most hunters who scout (or turkey hunt) will see more deer the next two months, pre-fawn, than they'll see post-fawn this fall.
I agree the xbow factor will have its greatest impact on public lands. The deer hunt experience between dnr managed public land and privately managed land will continue to widen. Imagine what the dpsm would be in waupaca county if the dnr had all public land? Imo the dpsm in the northern zone is right where the dnr wants it but the public land guy has had it hence 25,000 less hunters in 2014. Kind of like buying a grayling license for the milwaukee river.
I agree with naz and November,,,,,,, November is also correct, the dnr has the dpsm where they want it in the north, except the hunters want it higher, and that is the disconnect.....
the cdac results is for an increase, but its going to take a few mild winters for that to happen,,,,,
from what I hear, more hunters will skip the north, area this year,,,,, even a lot of cabin guys tell me, they are hunting south and west
I do not think the xbow, will have that much of a factor in the north, not that many hunters anyway, but I think it will affect the kill in the south, west, and central......
There more people will be hunting, and like it or not, a lot of people enjoy the crossbow,,,,,,,,,,,
my wifes nephew, who is outside of Marion, has been contacted by several hunters from the north, and has leased out hunting land, for top dollar,,,,,, these guys are from Oneida Co.
I see a trend starting here, but not much more available in that county
I agree razor. Thats why waupaca land prices are skyrocketing and the north is stagant and declining. The oneida guys will be shocked how many deer they see, hope they have restraint or they will be tagged out before a leaf drops.
In an ironic twist, one of my local "farmland" friends co-owns a large spread in Oneida County that is a wildlife paradise. I've yet to shoot a buck as big as some they take up north. It's all in the habitat, and I realize you're talking about public land November.
Naz, look at land prices in oneida vs. waupaca. Look at bc/py entries between the 2 counties. Look at the dpsm difference. No way his oneida paradise can compete on any level then there is that pesky harsher winter factor.
I was surprised that the xbow buck kill was 1/2 that of the archery kill in the first season. I thought it would be less which points to the buck xbow kill becoming larger than the archery buck kill in a few years.
It appears that the total xbow/archery buck kill was up from last year while the gun buck kill was down from last year. It does not take a Phd to understand that part of the lower gun buck kill was due to the xbow buck kill.
It shows xbows being used north more as a percentage of use than in the south. North strikes me as public land and cabins. Some counties had a larger xbow kill than archery buck kill (Oneida). The magic question that cannot be answered by fact is which weapon shot more over bait? I have my opinion.
Novemberforever's Link
Here's a typical Oneida property for sale. $2k/acre. In Waupaca this same property would have 5x the deer and be listed for 5-6k/acre. Beauty and fishing not as good, what's the difference?
Those bucks aren't very impressive at all, that's one difference.
I've found a number of Waupaca properties for sale at $3-$5K an acre (typical of good farmland all over the state). One thing I would say about the single listing you posted is it's a lot of acreage. In general, you'll see lower cost/acre statewide for the largest parcels vs. "40s" and such. I would say those bucks, for late September, were pretty nice. The truly big boys were likely nocturnal at that time of year. I don't care where you hunt, you don't just go photographing wild "Booners" easily prior to rut. Even then, good luck!
Novemberforever's Link
Naz, are You really going to take a stance that acre for acre of hardwood hunting land Waupaca, Shawano, Buffalo county is not at least double the $$ of northern counties? Many factors go into the price difference. Lack of deer, and lots of wolves are 2 for starters. Here's a raw 40 for $4,138/are, no ag.
Well the trail camera pictures on the property weren't any better. Winters are just that much harder up there, and horns grow that much less.
By comparison here's an Oneida chunk with river frontage asking $1,689/acre.That's a 60% discount from the waupaca chunk.
Novemberforever's Link
Naz, I have a neighbor that farms with his two sons and they have a registered herd of holsteins. I believe he paid $10,500/acre two years ago for an 80 acre parcel of 95% ag land and 5% wooded. It seems the price for an acre of land will be going through the roof in the near future. Today $3k to $5k an acre would be a bargain for farm land.
2 years ago milk and corn prices were just a touch higher than today.Besides, lets not conflate ag land with straight up hunting woods.
In Taylor County the Amish and Mennonites that have sold land in Pennsylvanian for 6,000+ an acre are moving up here and Jacking up land value by over bidding on land to beat out locals. We lost out on a nice 70 acre chunk bordering our south last June We Offered $128,000 they were asking $133,000. Mennonites new to area from PA come in and offered $2500 and got it right away. This piece had about 14 acres of tillable, and then rest 1/2 swamp 1/2 soft wood forest. A lot of people were pretty shocked, but just goes to show its worth what some one will pay for it. And when you just made $6000+ an acre over paying for land by over 500 an acre when its 1/2 what you just sold for is no big deal.
Nice guys though and surprisingly they only shoot mature Bucks and even do some food plotting. Best part is they only rifle hunt.
When I said farmland, I meant to say "forest/ag mix in farm country" … sorry for the confusion. But yes, you can find $3-$5K/acre of hunting land in farm country yet. Certainly many are asking more, but not all are.
Raspy, some farmers near metro areas are becoming millionaires as suburbs creep their way. 40s for a million? Yes, it has happened when big business wants it. But those are the exceptions (and are creating more deer refuges, or suburban archery/crossbow hot spots, depending on what they do to the habitat and whether or not you can get access).
AVU bowhunter check your private messages.
Now that the dnr makes us designate county and public or private lands some nice metrics will come out of that data. Hunter buck success % by county, success % by county on both public and private land for antlerless. Will the dnr publish these stats in 1 year? It will make many upset and continue to drive land prices in opposite directions from central farmland vs. northern zone.
I can't believe they will not publish the stats. If we like it or not, micro-managing the herd seems to be the best way to address the differences between public/private and will hopefully result in a healthier herd for all. If it works, long term it will once again bring more parity to land costs.
DNR has decades of unit history, and when combined with research surveys have a pretty good idea on hunter success on even public vs. private land. Of course, that's taking for granted that hunters are honestly filling out the stubs, and honestly answering questions on surveys. But, it'll be no different with telecheck or whatever you want to call it. Someone can say they were on public when they weren't, or say they used a bow or crossbow when they didn't, etc. Still don't see how this will drive up land prices. We already know which counties have historically and recently produced the most whitetails overall and most deer per square mile of range.
Naz, all 900,000 deer hunting licenses will for the first time have to designate a county. With that data, which is far better then a statistically small survey, they can then have success rates by county, and public/private land. Land prices are already reflecting dpsm, wolves,harsh winters, antler growth ect. Simple free market supply/demand.Why else would woods in gods country, say Oneida county with far better local fishing be selling for 40 cents on the dollar vs. great deer hunting counties?
Deer/recreation is a part of it, for sure, but farming is still playing a huge role in many counties (including my area, one of the busiest in the state for CAFOs).
Saw this on a realtor's site: "Affordable large-acreage hunting land is generally found in Northern WI, and is more affordable simply because it is further from major metro areas. Often, the most affordable land is enrolled in programs that grant the land owner big tax breaks and manages the land to improve the quality of the forest and wildlife habitat. These programs often result in tax bills under $1 per acre! This allows you to hold your land for years and develop it for hunting without paying thousands of dollars each year in taxes."
Anyone buying land in WI to hunt on is 1 of 2 thinvs... a total idiot... or just has nothing else to do with their money.... with the price of parcels it can't be said it is a good investment any longer as the odds are interest rates will go up... and land values will then fall... feds holding up their liberal BS economy have printed enough jing to flood the system and keep rates low.... wait till they bounce back to 7% and see what your paradise is really worth....LOL... not worth near what folks think in this fake economy
Aw, you live in one of the top hunting/fishing states anywhere. God aint making anymore wild lands. Good luck with your prediction.
Interest rates have a big effect on vacant land values.. especially non ag lands that can not produce profit in crops... 7% is not our of the scope of real interest rates... only reason we have not seen a tate hike is the tree hugging Dems want us to believe their BS policies actually had positive results... so finacial chairs don't adjust for it... If the economy was truly doing better rates would be much higher.. 2016 we will see a new sheriff in town .. and things will eventually change... income levels have not risen so the pool of potential buyers is getting smaller by the minute....only thing saving land values is the interest rates.. that's it... timber value is up some now too but that is no where near 4Gs per acre.... just wait...
if I owned land in some of these big money counties like Waupaca... I would be considering getting out of it before it's too late... and more then likely owners will die with that investment property..
Front page of WON, "registration numbers show that gun hunters experienced their poorest season since 1993. BUT archery and crossbow hunters combined to shoot a record number of bucks during the first fall crossbows were allowed during the archery season"
I thought there was two separate seasons so archers wouldn't get lumped into the crossbow numbers. Doesn't seem to be working out that way or WON is trying to pit gun hunters against bow hunters.
WBH and all bow hunters should contact them and demand they post the truth and brake out the numbers for each season and not lump the two together.
DT, that was only a photo caption. The complete breakdown by vertical bow vs. crossbow vs, gun, is in the center spread, p. 24, big color chart.
Either way, I don't see a problem with saying that those using broadheads killed a record number of bucks. Meanwhile, gun deer hunters have seen their buck kill drop and never recover back to the highs of 1995 and 2000 (both 171K+) after the record antlerless harvest of 2000 and multiple earn-a-buck years in farm country between 2004-2008. That was by design, of course, trying to manage herds down to legislatively-established goals.
The combined bow/crossbow buck kill of just over 46,000 barely beat the previous high (which was also a combined bow/crossbow number when you consider that the "bow" numbers have had disabled and over 65 crossbows included for many years) which was set in 2012 at 45,988. The "archery" buck kill also topped 45,000 in 1999 and 2003 (which was more than double any archery buck kill prior to 1988).
While the north is different due to winters, habitat and predation, we should soon see all-season farmland buck kills at or near record numbers again due to a big-time backing off on antlerless harvest and this year's ultra-mild winter in the southern two-thirds of the state. Some ag counties weren't far off historic high buck kills already last season.
"Does anybody even buy WON any more? I gave up on them years ago due to the dislike they have for bowhunters and their easy to spot bias."
What dislike for bow hunters?
What bias?
Media sucks regardless. Twist to fit, spin to win and schmooz to confuse. In every day life as well as the outdoor publications.
"I gave up on them years ago due to the dislike they have for bowhunters and their easy to spot bias."
+1
I actually like WON. I don't see this bowhunter bias. I like that the news is current, diverse, and relevant to WI. I like the fishing information as well as the hunting. Bortz does have a liberal slant in his opinions and that is a shame.
Lots of wolf trapping land in the Wisconsin Northwoods for sale. There will be no increase in recreational value(hunting) for many years. Only a fool would invest in hunting there.
I agree all hunting north of Hwy 8 sucks,,,,, stay home
WON showed their bias when they refused to print any opinion that was contrary to the crossbow being included in the archery season.
Yes Naz, there is definitely something wrong with listing all kills with a broad head. That is nothing more than a deceptive and misleading way to try and lump the crossbow effort together with the archery effort.
Thats the media spin I talk of Captain Mike.
The comment about saying broadheads killed XX deer vs. firearms was my statement here on Bowsite, and not what was written in WON. Again, the full stats are separated by vertical bow, crossbow and firearm, easy for anyone to digest in full color on p. 24. Are you guys thinking the average subscriber or newsstand purchaser would simply look at a photo caption and not read the top feature story, in the center spread? If so, you're badly mistaken.
That's exactly what I'm saying. I have seen it over and over on Face Book. News channels report a story with a misleading opening comment and people reply never reading the story. Quite easy to spot.
Outdoor News has the highest readership of any of the WI hunting and fishing publications for a reason. I don't think most people would spend the $ on a subscription or pay even more on the newsstand if they only looked at the headline and photo captions.
The majority get it. You will always deal with a minority who either can't read, don't want to read or would just rather pee and moan about anything and everything than enjoying WI's world-class opportunities in fields, forests and waters.
Outdoor News has the highest readership of any of the WI hunting and fishing publications for a reason
Hang on Naz, I will find or write an article to refute that claim. HA.
World class?
Is that a very very high ranking or a buzz word used by the media type to highten the thread? I will find an article to say Wisconsin isnt.
WON showed their bias when they refused to print any opinion that was contrary to the crossbow being included in the archery season. x2 I will never buy another WON paper.
Wi needs a good outdoor publication.
Looks like a thrice-banned poster is back for more.
Pasq, you won't find one. And yes, world-class is proper, considering hunting in terms of numbers and trophies in Wisconsin is at or near the top in North America in multiple species, including deer, bear and wild turkey, and there's no better place in the world to hunt any of those species than North America.
Mike, what would be a "good" outdoor publication? One that writes about fenced hunts and African safaris? Not sure where you're going, but you're welcome as anyone to start one and try to top the Outdoor News model, which has found great success all over the Midwest.
Do any of you naysayers even read WON? Even if you don't like one or two opinion columns in there, there are a pile of features and photos. Articles in recent issues include a record tom turkey arrowed, in-depth dog/wolf news story, late-ice panfishing tips, pre-spawn bass and walleye tips, story on possible later start to wolf season, wood duck and bluebird house-building, turkey hunting tactics and the latest gear available, nurturing native trees and shrubs, shed hunting tips, off-season deer scouting and tree stand care, latest smartphone apps and outdoor gadgets, food plot preparation, seed and feed tips, and on an on the list goes. The cuffs and collars, vast assortment of reader-submitted letters and photos and shots from the past are always engaging. Truly something for everyone.
WON is a first rate outdoor publication.
When I used to have it delivered to the day job it was always one of the most popular publications in the reception area.
If someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by WON content then they should avoid reading it. Life is too short.
Looks like the herpes infection is back.
As previously, I really enjoy the day my WON shows up. It is the best WI outdoors publication that is very diverse. Do I agree with everything written? Of course not, but I read the daily newspaper too and it is true there too.
WON was my favorite publication, when my dogs were young and I needed something to line the floor with.
Naz, what are trying to infer with the "fenced hunts" comments? Regarding Africa, there are good publications available for that. Because you don't seem to get it, we are talking about Wisconsin. I don't think you are that dense, rather, you made a poor attempt to belittle me. Jealousy might be the cause but in case it isn't, why don't you explain?
My comment was directed at at WON and how WI hunting is represented by WON. When an editor and his minions continue to write with a bias they are not doing justice to the sportsmen of the state.
Capt. Mike, So far I see no valid criticism of yours towards WON. It is starting to appear that maybe their criticism of the HRC is your problem. Whatever, in my opinion WON tells the bow hunter story quite well so give it a rest you are repeating your message a time or two too many.
WON appears to be thriving.
If they weren't delivering to their readership they'd be out of business.
The grumpy detractors are probably envious or socialists...
WON refused to print anything contrary to crossbows being included in the archery season???????????????????? What about all the letters to the editor column from the anti crossbow people. What about the commentary articles from WBH president Mike Brust. What about the full page anti crossbow ad portrayed to be from SCI headquarters, when it was in fact only from the southeast chapter of bowhunters and did not have the support from SCI?
I think Glunker just hit the nail in the head. WON is the only publication I've seen, and I read a lot, to rightfully criticize HRC for their sketchy practices and staff.
just sayin' ............
Old, do you intentionally lie or are you simply ill informed? What is HRC?
"What about the full page anti crossbow ad portrayed to be from SCI headquarters, when it was in fact only from the southeast chapter of bowhunters and did not have the support from SCI? "
This is gunna get good with Capt. Mike.
The only good thing is that all the SCI chapters agreed to the compromise. Just as did all the HRC members, including the bear hunters and the NRA. Of course Internet dolts who make no effort to do anything would have no knowledge of that.
Correction capt mike, my recollection is that the bear hunters wanted the full crossbow inclusion. Only when enough support was brought forward to the present separate but equal bow/crossbow licenses did the bear hunters agree not to oppose what we have now. We have them to thank for being a pusher of crossbows. Too bad they did not stick to bear hunting. Do you think maybe they were behind the NRA being brought in with the bear hunters being the local frontmen?
Clunker, can you show your source that it was WBHA that was behind this? It's easy to say I recollect and name a group. I would like to see proof.
I recollect it was the manufactures and NRA pushing this as WI. was one of the last states to fall.
Drop Tine…… It was brought up a couple of years ago at convention(WBH)….. You support what the WBHA is pushing at the spring hearings and they will stick with us.
I also herd the NWTF, AAA, AARP, and NAACP were also behind the push also.
The reality is there was no stopping crossbows for all. We kept it out of the WI woods as long as we could. They're here and now we have to just make sure any adjustments to seasons come from the crossbow season and not Archery.
"The reality is there was no stopping crossbows for all"
The ONLY reason there was no stopping it is because there are politicians that benefitted from it.
Drop time, just watch the WI Eye video of the last leg is hearings on the bill. Watch the bear hunter testimony. Maybe there was no stopping it although that is debatable. The main take away is who is not our ally, people we had stood behind and supported in years past.
Although I bear hunt and enjoy it, the way the bear hunters org stabbed bowhunters in the back pisses me off. Maybe it's time to return the favor when bear baiting or hound hunting comes under attack again. Please don't anyone whine about no dividing fellow hunters. That's exactly what the bear hunters, NRA, and others did with their backing of the crossbow.
Glunker, the bear hunters first agreed, before they changed their mind and disagreed. Then, they agreed while they privately lobbied for something other than what they agreed to. I guess either of us could be correct, depending on what point in time we are talking about.
In the end, they were definitely not an ally of those who did not want crossbows. Regarding the NRA, no, I don't believe it was the bear hunters who brought the NRA on board with full inclusion. That directive came from national, although the two did work closely together to gain full inclusion.
Rut, you are spot on.
RutNut@work …. I agree 100%
Captmike -- Old, do you intentionally lie or are you simply ill informed? What is HRC?
Guess I am getting confused as much as you apparently are. Where did I lie? Where was I ill informed? Where did I mention HRC?
From the SAWYER COUNTY RECORD last week:
"As in its last meeting, members of the SCDAC continued to express concern over the state’s very long bow/cross bow season - starting in mid-September and ending in early January for removing too many deer, especially the trophy bucks that manage to survive the nine-day rifle season in November."
Looks like they are lumping it all together.
So capt. Are you saying that they flip flopped on their position then they lobbyed under the table against their stated position? Do their members put up with that? There are a lot of great bear hunting members that would not be happy with that MO by that leadership. Are you a member?
IMO, with crossbow inclusion and technology, archery seasons should be shortened.
No, the crossgun season should not be included in the bow season. Allow them in late season and that's it. Other than disabled or 65+, pink camo is required to all huntING with a crossgun.
Glunker, Yes they did and yes they did. I am not a member and have no idea what their membership thinks about their leadership.
Old, no confusion on this end. The WON article in no way, shape or form intimated that it came from National. Where you pulled that one from I have no idea.
Capt. Maybe your right that I was confused on the ad. Guess the big SCI trademark insignia at the bottom of the ad threw me off, along with 8,000 other readers.
Old, it does sound as if you are easily confused. That logo is available for every legitimate, dues paying chapter to use. It is the SCI logo, an organization made up of hundreds of local chapters who all combine to make the organization.
Just curious, who are the other 7,999 people you know that were as confused as yourself?
One thing I found very interesting was that there were more bucks killed by xbow than vert bow in Ashland County. Granted, the numbers aren't huge (appx 100 each) and are dwarfed by gun (appx 700), but it's year #1 and it's already flip/flopped.
I thought it would take longer than that. I wonder how long it will take in the other 71 counties?
I agree, but one thing to keep in mind is average age of Wisconsin hunters is rising. The average archer this year according to licensing data was in the upper 30s; the average crossbow user, low 50s. I believe crossbows already were a pretty significant force in Wisconsin "bow" hunting in recent years, with more than 10,000 disabled hunters and a solid number of age 65 and over users. It's not really apples to apples unless we know how many deer those user groups took in past "archery" harvests.
More to come. Eventually the numbers will be crystal clear.
Naz, where are you getting these age numbers from? Wdnr came out a few years back and confirmed usfw average deer hunter age at 54. Sorry, i am 56 and my 3/d , bowhunt club is 300 strong, all older, nobody i know has mentions xbows. Youth hunters? Tuff to find them. Broken homes, selfish dads, mainly lack of acess imo. I was flippin cedar arrows@deer in 68 without parents involved but i had the neighbors 80 to run wild in. Today that 80 is a suburb or someones qdm buck factory protected by gps cams. Lack of acess will drop hunter numbers big time., thats the big issue for the sport. South of hey 29, you better be a brillant $$$$ maker or marry into acerage because the day of making that $100k 40 into a 440 someday is gone.
Novemberforever right on! The lack of access is the MAIN reason that hunter numbers will diminish over time, all the rest of the arguments are minor in comparison. Lets say a person or large corporation owns the majority of land in a given area all the special promotion seasons etc will do nothing to increase hunters unless they have a place to hunt with decent amount of game.
Access is huge, but definitely far from the only issue. Seven million acres of public access in Wisconsin, and while it's not all great there are more than enough quality spots for archers willing to put in the time and explore.
We're in a forever-changed world. Think of the changes in just the past decade. So many digital distractions to take kids (and a LOT of adults) away to some fantasy world. I think the average "screen time" a few years ago was seven hours a day ... probably is on the low side already. Between that and extracurriculars, not a lot of time for other interests.
The numbers I believe Tom Hauge had in his PowerPoint presentation. I think he said 37 average age of archery license buyer and 52 average age of crossbow license buyer.
I hunt public up north and want to see deer. Regardless of rack size I wanna see deer. Five years ago I saw a more than seeing last two or three. Sign is down along with sightings. From Mountain to Cable I am seeing less deer the last few years.
Naz please dont tell us to hunt different like swamps, blah blah blah. Deer numbers are down and I hope they do something about it. Wether its cutting trees, killing preds, limiting tags for awhile or whatever. I wanna see deer.
Agree with Naz regarding access. WI has far more than most others.
" there are more than enough quality spots for archers willing to put in the time and explore."
But what about those poor souls that didn't have time to practice with a real bow to become proficient. How on earth do you expect those same types to find time to scout?
Another takeaway from our CDAC meeting last evening.
For 2014 - Vertical = 510 X-Bow = 352 Total = 862
Total kill was about two less over 2013. Call it unchanged.
The number of antlerless vs. antlered deer killed was also within a few deer.
Anybody reading the tea leaves able to read anything in those numbers?
Crossbow users are definitely not part of those who are willing to put in time.
Naz, access was never mentioned as the ONLY issue,just the main one. Public land, low deer numbers and too many hunters for the MOST part. There are pockets but far and few,especially south HWY 64,which takes in a large part of the state. I dont see or know of anyone that primarily hunts public land going before all the "meetings" etc., saying we need more hunters. It usually the other way around at least from this side of the "fence" anyway.
Yup, private land hunters are better stewards of their land and of the herd. A better gauge will be what occurs on public lands where hunters will typically spend fewer hours hunting per season and are more driven to kill what they see.
Better habitat in general and a string of mild winters would definitely help the northern WI deer herd, and limiting public land doe tags even when antlerless permits are again available will help even more. It's night and day private vs. public in some areas, though there are pockets of deer in some counties up north where there's good, young habitat, and/or year-round feeding near cabins, homes and resorts. Pressured deer in good habitat can just about disappear by day, and up north, they have a lot of options, including going in even deeper than most go or finding a nasty thicket or private refuge. Lots of options. For sure the numbers are down. We could expect no less after the cold, snowy late spring in '13 and the most severe winter recorded in many areas in '13-'14. This winter should help. So should more "buck-only" areas again this fall. Give it a couple years and see what happens.
" Give it a couple years and see what happens."
Unfortunately Naz, in quite a few areas up north it's going to take more than a couple years. Even if all the "stars" line up, as far as weather, no doe tags etc... There is still a very strong predator presence, which at this time some of can not be managed.
Naz 's Link
There are a few areas up north (Iron County is one) where predators might be able to prevent growth. But if this research is accurate (linked), it showed that deer populations would need to as low as three deer/square mile for wolves to limit growth. Yes, it was 1990, but the Minnesota wolf population then was close to 2,000.
This also shows that winters and hunters by far are much more important factors in limiting herd growth than predators.
I would put hunters first, weather second and predators third as to how much the deer herd can rebuild in northern WI. A wild card is winter browse. Any idea if the higher deer densities from the past reduced the browse to a point that it is still affecting over winter survival? Browse does not get the airtime that it did in the "old days".
Naz 's Link
Agree, except perhaps in severe winters such as the mid-90s when 200K+ whitetails were estimated to have died in back-to-back winters and maybe even 2013-2014, though with herd numbers down far fewer deer likely died overwinter.
Many opinions that high populations did indeed decimate the habitat via high browse lines and not allowing much recruitment of young trees, esp. in areas where there's far too little logging. However, even where there is "adequate" logging, exclosures have shown dramatic differences inside vs. outside. I've got photos of decade-old "tiny stumps" of trees outside the fences that never reach any potential in height or browse potential as the fresh growth is nipped off every year.
With deer populations at or below goals in many northern units, you'd think some of that would improve. However, local "hot spots" of deer in the best habitat can take a toll. That's why widespread logging — the young forest initiative — needs to take hold.
DNR is holding a chat next week, noon on April 1, on the Young Forest Partnership. Learn more at www.youngforest.org (linked).