Bowsite.com

Decline in WI Deer Hunting

Interesting Article. What is going on with Wisconsin’s deer hunting? The numbers below reflect the decline in deer killed by hunting from 1998 through 2020. The numbers were supplied by the Wisconsin DNR and for simplicity 3 year averages were taken in 5 year blocks so you don’t have to read endless numbers. 3 year averages over 22 years also covers variations in the severity of winter and its impact on deer population. Gun kills in 2018-2020 are down 197,977 on average annually from the 1998-2000 time period. Wisconsin firearms hunters killed 593,932 less deer in 2018-2020 compared to 1998-2000. Bow kills in 2018-2020 are up 13,660 on average annually from the 1998-2000 time period. From this writer’s perspective the two greatest impacts are the purposeful reduction in deer herd because of fears of CWD and the increase in the wolf population due to not managing the numbers. If CWD is a real threat, then baiting and feeding should immediately be banned statewide instead of waiting to see what counties are testing positive before the ban. If baiting and feeding bans assist in CWD reduction, why wait for the disease to show up before reacting? It’s like saying smoke until you get lung cancer… then quit smoking. The wolf advocates say that based on modeling the wolf numbers are not out of control and don’t have much impact on deer hunting success. The model that I was given from the “wolf expert,” formerly a Wisconsin DNR employee and now an activist for the group bringing lawsuits to prevent wolf hunting, never shows any increase in the wolf population no matter what number of wolves you start with. So we know the model is incorrect because the wolf population has grown by their own estimates to over 1,100 wolves in 2020 from 250 wolves in the year 2000. The DNR also uses other modeling instead of actually counting wolves to estimate population. The same advocates who say the wolves don’t reduce deer populations enough to negatively impact deer hunting say that wolves are needed to reduce over browsing of forests by deer and reduce car/deer accidents. Deer browse; they are not harmful to forests. Logically you can’t say wolves reduce the deer herd enough to prevent over browsing and car/ deer accidents but don’t impact hunting success negatively. Information regarding wolf pup survival rates and population growth, received from a different and trusted wolf expert, puts the population of wolves in the state at over 5,000 wolves. We need an actual count, not modeling to reach the accurate number of wolves. When proper management does call for deer reduction in any Wisconsin Deer Management Unit, man, not an overpopulation of wolves, is by far the most effective tool to accomplish the goal. Control of deer herd numbers is the job of hunters, not wolves. Wisconsin archery hunters killed 40,980 more deer in 2018-2020 compared to 1998-2000.This increase does not explain the reduction in gun kills because we’re still down 552,952 deer killed by gun and archery hunters combined from 2018-2000 when compared to 1998-2000.

This year is the first year I really noticed the decline of deer on the large tracts of public forest's in the Northern half of the state, especially the adult buck populations. The deer herds cannot rebuild because of the out of control wolf populations, and the adult buck populations are way down because of the xguns. Not because I hate the full inclusion of xguns, just from what I saw for adult buck sign in 4 public forest areas that I hunt. The pro-wolfer's are going to spin numbers to make there goals look right in the eye's of the sympathisers and the non-hunting world. Us who have been at this a long time and are out in the woods seeing the decline for years know what is happening. Our voices are stopped by the ones who want the wolves, people not to hunt, and the ones who want to use the easy button to kill only. The private land hunters don't care because they don't have to deal with it. But, WI has all this public forest land that the wildlife is supported largely because of hunting/fishing/trapping licenses and it is at a doom point. All hunters had better wake up and care what is happening as it will affect all of us one way or another. I for one am totally disgusted in the state and there handling of deer and deer hunting.

Deer Management units? In the past. Now with the deer Czar's implementation a unit covers what 20-30 counties. How in any sane thought can you lump that all together when habitat greatly changes by county but also within a county. And they include Milwaukee county in that. The only bucks you see in Milwaukee county are playing basketball. For the most part. It's mostly city a few places like parks where there are deer but to add it into the population estimates? Harrumph

MjF "Logically you can’t say wolves reduce the deer herd enough to prevent over browsing and car/ deer accidents but don’t impact hunting success negatively." That statement pretty much sums it up.

Great post MJF.

The north is not equal. This year I know personally, alot of good bucks were shot in Forest and Florence County, because I was assisting some of the lucky hunters. These are older no social media guys. why the increase from what has been going on, I have no idea....... Iron County in MI had a really good buck year, from those I keep in touch.

A 150 was shot within 2 miles of my place, and right after gun, was seeing some nice 8's moving late,,,,,,, There are more bucks out in some areas, than many realize, this year,

I did like the old DMU units, we use to have,,,,, but then again we use to have deer managers, that ate, slept and breathed deer, and deer hunting, now replaced more by craft beer and coffee crowd, with computer models, spending little time in field

I do not believe the managers see a problem. And, they would much rather have predator hunters doing the killing than human hunters. Simple as that.

Link?

Predators do not whine, Wisconsin deer hunters do

Predators do not complain, and they know no boundaries. Predators move with the game, human hunters do not, and oftentimes cannot.

Public land will always be conflicted by the pure fact that everyone owns it. No matter what path is taken, not all “owners” will ever be satisfied and it will be stuck in perpetual arguments over how it should be managed.

Trickle, I am pretty sure WI has 72 deer management units. Each county is a DMU and each has its own advisory board. This was implemented by Dr. Kroll.

Mike there in the past was 81 management units. 82 if you include Chambers Island. Now it's Northern forest. Central forest. Central farmland and I believe Southern farmland. With the 81 units managent could zero in on specific units and even parts of counties like 70, 70b, 70g etc. Doe tags were allocated accordingly. Where a tag for 70 was only for that unit not 70b or 70g even though it was in the same county. Now if you have doe tags that tag is good for the entire County regardless of population in and on that county. You can support Dr Kroll all you like but his Texas deer management style was the start of all this downfall of deer hunting state we find ourselves in. The same Dr. Kroll who has never hunted or purchased a Wisconsin license. He admitted that to me in person at a public meeting. CDAC? Ya right like anybody ever listens to their recommendations. Dream on

The fact remains we have 72 DMU’s.

At first I thought putting the allocation of antlerless permits under the control of counties comprised of a committee of informed, involved, unbiased citizens and hunters, was an excellent idea. Then I watched how the Bayfield County CDAC has become an aberration of its original design and year after year ignores declining harvest data and their overwhelming citizen survey responses. They have become in many ways a political arm of the WDNR.

Wink501... X2.... sooner than later it will happen in other counties as well. Enjoy your abundance of deer while you can.

Mike how is that 72 county DMU working for you? Just peachy right?

Yep Tickle there wasn't a "deer problem" until Dr. Kroll showed, up. Brilliant I say brilliant, bring back that whack em and stack em EAB, the endless rifles of September and October. The good old days of the endless slaughter of deer where you threw them in your truck and drove to the nearest CWD testing site where the fine folks at the WI DNR would lop off the heads and throw the rest of the deer in dumpster. Yes sir bring back the good old days when everything was fine. Where's Keith McCcaffery when you need him? Man I sure miss how great WI Deer Hunting once was before the good Dr. got here.

HF43

My view is that we cannot paint the "deer problem" across the whole State with a single brush. Conditions vary widely across the State and even within counties. The CDAC model and county DMUs just does not work in many areas for reasons several of you have pointed out. It would be nice to have someone genuinely concerned with hunting experiences across the State take a good hard look at the CDAC model and the county DMU model. There are a few even within the DNR who are trying to do this but they too are influenced heavily by different interests. These include forestry types (who I believe have gotten too powerful on CDACs and protect their own interests at the expense of others) but also include hunters who want very different things. Some hunters enjoy fair chase and hunting experiences and are happy getting a deer every few years, others just want to kill a deer as easily and as fast as they can so they love early seasons, xbows during the rut and pre rut, etc. These competing interests make it hard. What we need is someone to look at the whole picture. Fix the broken CDAC model, create more reasonable DMUs, allow extended seasons where there is a real deer problem, create consistent rules regarding weapons, etc. Only way to get this done is for all of us to express our opinions to the DNR, to the CDACs and to the NRB. Maybe someone will listen and come up with a structure most of us can live with.

Actually, there is 73 management units as Marinette is split into two. Take the counties with metro units, you could add up to 14 additional area where management goals are different.

.

The fact is: if the WDNR didn't mess around with CDACs and Dr. Kroll's plan, it could have been successful. They loaded the CDACs and forced their agenda to their planted reps. CDAC was set to manage the counties to a population agreeable to all. In most cases, the county was to identify high density areas and try to manage that area separate from the rest of the county using programs like DMAP, landowner tags, etc... SAK was not relevant as a true population number was not needed. Just look at the WDNR website and see. They have SAK and population estimate right on it. Dr. Kroll's plan was never implemented as designed. If you want to point fingers, point them at the liberal POS mid management WDNR personnel.

Its Walkers, Kroll and Trumps fault. Let's blame them. If that doesnt work let's look at human greed, money and ourselves.. .

Oh brother. You can belly up to your hero Dr. Kroll (isn't a doctorate he gave himself that nickname) all you want. But he yes your good fake doctor pushed for in his plan that the following would not affect the deer population or the hunting of said. 1) baiting is allowed. (Like Texas) 2) Crossbow inclusion will not affect deer numbers. 3) Flood the areas that need reduction with doe tags and extended seasons ( that sure helped the public land hunters) 4) Stop in person registration trust hunters to online registration (ba ha haha) 5) What the hell you need back tags for? Save money buy online proof. 6) The predators will not make a impact afterall when deer population drops so will the predator populations. (A big tee hee to that one) 7) Dump SAK what's the point of knowing the age structure of the herd or what effect winter severity has? 8) Encouragement for deer donation in reduction areas. 9) The insurance industry has a point. Too many road kills are costing them money. They need to have enough cash to pay for the naming of a ball park (formerly Miller Park) and oh by the way do they not jack up their premiums under accident surcharge when you make a claim? Yup pretty much unless you have accident forgiveness which gives you ONE free wreck. After that you pay it back. I listened to this clown doctor in person. All he cares about is getting paid for articles in Deer and Deer hunting magazine and selling his Texas deer spin feeders in every state he can. This ain't Texas Pilgrim

Trickle, you are so off base it would be difficult to start. I suggest you educate yourself on SAK, insurance and the CDAC plan. Once you go thru it all, go back and study some more. Then you're allow back on Bowsite to post. Only then will your realize how stupid your post is, delete it and wish you never wasted those 20 min of your life writing it. You just can't fix stupid.

Took me two minutes btw. I was there. In Stevens Point. I heard the man. You can read his transcript it is on record. So before you start calling names and playing hall monitor you need to educate yourself. Read it. Then come back with your finger pointing. I'll even make it easy for you

Are you saying boomer that insurance companies don't raise your rates when you have claims? In your dreams pal

Your good Doctor has a bachelor's degree. Also a PhD. But no doctorate. Zero Zip Doctorate in wildlife management or biology either. Bit he likes you'all to think that he does so he calls himself a doctor with no doctorate. Trusty guy hey!

The only thing that Doc knows is Texas

Sidenote. PhD is a doctor of philosophy. Philosophy. Lot to do with deer management.

First off, former Governor Walker wasn’t much of an outdoors guy and knew even less about Deer Hunting. I believe bringing in James Kroll to evaluate our practices was an honest, but failed attempt to address the many complaints voiced by WI hunters at that time. Mr Kroll might know Texas, but when it comes to deer hunting and management in WI, there are vast differences between the two states. As a former public employee I’m no big Scott Walker fan, but at least he gave a damn and tried to help the hunters of our state. Tony Evers on the other hand leaves me with the impression that he doesn’t like hunters, nor cares about the non-Native American hunting heritage. I feel Evers would rather replace us all with wolves and other predators to manage game populations.

Keith McCaffrey, man were we lucky to have him and his team, for alot of years, those guys lived for deer and good mgt. I remember the only thing he thought was dumb, was having to register your deer, in the DMU, you shot it, before heading for home. He realized not every place is open, when going home, and when they get the info, just make sure you wrote down the correct DMU, on the tag.... Should not have mattered where you register at,,,,,,,,,, One of the dumb things that use to go along with in person reg,,,,,,

Yes, McCaffrey..... He told me that in many areas in the northwoods, 6 DPSM is too many.

. "7) Dump SAK what's the point of knowing the age structure of the herd or what effect winter severity has" You have no clue about SAK.

"9) The insurance industry has a point. Too many road kills are costing them money." You have no clue. Increased claims, increase rates. For agents, increase rates = increase commission. Insurance companies don't care about deer hits. If there are too many, they have rate increases.

"Sidenote. PhD is a doctor of philosophy. Philosophy. Lot to do with deer management." There you go! After you review something, you realize what stupid things you write. He is a doctor. Just like your FLOTUS. They earned their titles. Based on you rambling, I wonder if you have a GED.

Shall I continue with your other 6 points and explain how you are as dumb as a box of rocks?

Is that the best you can do boomer? Oh yeah let's compare Jill Biden to a deer or wildlife management professional. There is also a wide chasim between being a PhD in philosophy and a doctorate in wildlife sciences. Huge wide chasim unless of course your going to debate a deer. Philosophically (pun intended) they are two distinct field of research and studies. Unless of course your ok with having a PhD in philosophy removing a brain to tumor for you? Afterall he is a Dr. right? Do you know the difference in education between a PhD and a doctorate. He didn't earn a doctorate. He got the same degree as any PhD gets. Minor doctorate of philosophy. That's what they all earn as a PhD......unless they go on to study and earn a doctorate in a specific field. He didn't. He just got the boilerplate philosophy degree. And shucks boomer I even made it thru 5th grade ya know!

So wink let's give Walker the benefit of the doubt and like you say tried to do the right thing. Applause Scott. But was it broken in the first place? And secondly I agree it was a complete failure. Do we have to stay with it? If one keeps falling in a hole isn't the prudent thing to do is fill the damn hole?

T. Rut As I remember it back then deer hunting / management was a very contentious. Was it broken ? That’s a matter of personal opinion. You ask do we have to stick with the new process that includes the current CDAC structure ? The answer to that is a “no” but I fear we are stuck with it until we get a new Governor and WDNR Secretary (Preston Cole) that cares enough to actually listen to hunters and not see the issue, as an us verses them.

If it was broken it sure is more broken now. Evers is a educator and administrator. Never was a politician. Preston Cole I don't really know anything about as far as experience. I think he is just a bean counting administrator also. Like I said a few weeks ago the DNR chief bottle and pot washer should be a elected position. That would bring out the sportsman vote. But he is appointed by the Governor and hence is beholden to him and him only. Can't be voted out so just be a yes man for your boss

T Rut. I really think you should read up on Preston Cole. Im sure a number of our Bowsite bloggers could give you some insight as to his merits and faults. Another good place to start might be googling the audio of the NRB Wolf management quota meeting this past fall. Secretary Cole showed just how much he thought of WI hunters.

I'll do that wink. Sounds bad news. Like I said I know less than zero about the man. Thanks I'll check it out

Trickle….. please do listen or even watch the NRB wolf management meeting from last fall you will certainly be very disappointed and down right angry in how this man represents himself.

Remember, it was Walker who first appointed Preston Cole to the Natural Resources Board.

here is one of CDACs problems, I own land and hunt in Clark County Forest zone, I have complained for at least 5 years to the county CDAC, In many email discussions and one phone call, I found out that nobody on the board hunts, resides or knows anything about the forest area !! There all involved if at all in the farmland ! Talk about pounding your head on a brick wall

Grouch, I'm in your exact same boat.

No use pointing the finger at one political party and not other when it comes to Wi game management. Politics is bad for game management and both parties are responsible for messing it up. I wish game management was not part of the political arena but that ship has sailed and politicians will never relinquish control. Ever. I’d like to think making the secretary position an elected position might be positive however remember, there are more non-hunters than there are hunters so who knows. Discussing its merits is wasted time anyway because no gov will ever give it up.

Since we as hunters/fishers/trappers pay the brunt of what the DNR does, I do wish it was a voted position also. Politics do not belong in the natural resources, and they need to start listening to us who are in the field seeing what is happening.

From what I read Preston Cole has no more time for the science than the previous unqualified head Kathy Stepp? Under her the science and workforce was gutted. Cole hasn't and has no intention of reviving that. Taking the science out of management is the same as taking the chips out of chocolate chip cookies. As far as the Wolf stuff he seems to agree with the Wolf team that the population is much lower than some argue and they are stable not growing. In one of his statements he (or a employee) stated comparing wolves to Canadian Lynx. When Snowshoe hare populations crash it is followed by a crash of Lynx. Then a rebound of hare followed by increase in Lynx. A cycle. But and you can Google this new science shows that Hare populations will actually stay smaller in order to keep the Lynx population low. Litters will remain low even in the absence of Lynx. Hence Lynx will have small or no litters at all and the Hare will be stable at a smaller population. How that compares to Wolves I don't know as they are much more mobile. All I know is there is way more Wolves in our state than they admit and growing while the Deer and Elk are not getting herd growth in Wolf areas. A respected Predator Biologist said Wisconsin has at a minimum 2000 wild Wolves. Minimum. Preston Cole agrees that it is less than 1000 and unstable. Right. Do these people ever get out from behind their PC screens? How do they explain that in two days last February 218 wolves were harvested in 2.5 days? They are one of the most difficult animals to trap or hunt but in that short timeframe they killed 218. Maybe cause there is so many? Nope they said it was because if perfect weather conditions coinciding with the Wolf hunt. Horse hockey. And during the weekdays no less.

And why are the forest jockeys so worried about forest regeneration? You can't hardly give pulp away. Paper companies have gone belly up. Newsprint is at a all time low. The print industry uses 60 percent less paper than 20 years ago. It's all digital. Newsprint, Magazines, Brochures are all digital. Paper packaging is all plastic now. When is the last time a butcher wrapped up your roast in white paper? There just is no market besides a few sawmills wanting mature oak for trim and furniture. So a deer eats a oak sapling that in 100 years could be harvested? By then there will be no wood construction. I just don't get it. Biodiversity? Aren't deer biodiverse also?

Yes, deer are part of biodiversity. It is the ideal number of deer that is in dispute. Hunters will always want more deer than most other groups interested in an ecological balance.

I sure don't see any issues with regrowth in the areas I hunt. One of which was in concern of the overpopulation of deer eating all the seedlings, Eau Claire county forests.

I look forward to hearing comments on this graph. Link is to source info from DNR.

Was there any info with the graph on license sales or hunter participation?

...and the graph is not representative of results in individual areas at all.

Both antlered and antlerless take a dive at the same time as the advent of online registration came to fruition. Coincidence?

I see the good philosopher Dr. Kroll has come out with some new products. Engineered seed for food plots and a more high nutritious mineral loaded pellet feed for his spin feeders business. Fake Doctor. Fake hunter. He should start a circus for all the suckers that follow his deer management opinions.

My first deer license was 1969. I had fun then, and have fun now.

There is a lot of decent data on the DNR site relative to harvest numbers and license numbers. On top of that you’d have to overlay season structure as it has changed over time to understand some of the numbers better (ex: EAB). One thing that stands out to me on the graph shown is the relative stability in the harvest numbers the last 10 years compared to the previous 20 years.

Tr, what great whitetail states have in person registration for deer?Does Iowa, Kansas, Dakotas, Colorado?

I have only hunted deer in a few other states, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado. None of those do.

What the overall numbers mask is the huge shift in harvest from the North to the South. That is its own story.

"Both antlered and antlerless take a dive at the same time as the advent of online registration came to fruition. Coincidence?"

Took a dive based on the dnr's counting (and honest reporting) of the registrations? lmao, no numbers whatsoever that the dnr has anything to do with can be believed, we should all know that by now. Although, I would think more folks are registering their deer these days since it is so simple and no road trip necessary. There's little reason to cheat, extra tags come free with the license and additional ones are cheap at $12 a piece. All those registration numbers are a joke anyway, I think all sorts of bs has been going on since online registration. I heard stories of guys registering deer they killed with a compound and sometimes deer they did not kill at all as crossbow kills to artificially inflate the crossbow harvest number, this is probably why some people wanted the separate season in the first place. The harvest registration numbers mean nothing now and actually never did when it was in person registration because the dnr does whatever they need to make money and couldn't care less about the quality of the herd, or quality of the hunt for human deer hunters.

"I heard stories of guys registering deer they killed with a compound and sometimes deer they did not kill at all as crossbow kills to artificially inflate the crossbow harvest number, this is probably why some people wanted the separate season in the first place. "

Well, if you heard those stories and believe them, you are an idiot. One of the stupidest things I've ever read here. Crossgun advocate fantasy land for sure.

Knifeman, what you fail to realize is WI Hunters are far more dishonest than those that live and hunt in those other states, just asks the Bowsite intellects and they will explain. This is the reason in person registration should be required.

HF43

Okay huntnfish43, I have a question for you.... Not to say you are wrong, but tell me who is going to conduct in person registration? Another question, I have no issues with it, but as long as I inform the Dept. where the deer was killed, what difference does it make, what in person station I go to.......... I lived thru those years, where no one was open, and it was not allowed, in another unit..... Use some common sense and I have not issue with it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

In this world, it is never coming back,,,,,,,

He is indeed an idiot.

I live very near Amish and Mennonite country. I do wonder how the Amish register their deer? I know many of them go to a neighbors house to use the phone and things of that nature. Actually, now that I'm writing this, I wonder how many actually get licenses either.

Don't want to sound like Capt Obvious but you ever think the reason for the down trend is because there isn't the amount of deer than in the past and the WDNR still cannot estimate deer populations?

BigEight…. They probably say the same thing about your kind

What is “his kind,” other than not belonging to a culture of people who generally do not use modern technology?

MJF, my kind? What? Polacks? HA! It wasn't meant to be disparaging toward the Amish. It's a fact that they don't use the technology that is required to register a deer. They have to do more steps to complete the same task as somebody who has a phone or internet. Human nature (not amish nature) may be that more steps equals less follow through. Just adding to the discussion of herd management/deer numbers, ect.

I am guessing some Amish perhaps then did not load a deer on to a buggy and get it to a check in station on time.

No matter what type of registration was used, it was never 100%. Glad it is no longer in person.

I have hunted for decades in Amish Country near Pardeeville and Dalton, WI. In fact the Amish, those that hunt would load their deer into their buggy and make the long and cumbersome trip into the registration station. Generally have access to cell phones (many Amish use them in their course of business) and land lines of friends and neighbors. So I would think their compliance is no worse than the "white man" for in person or call in registration.

HF43

I think you are correct, compliance was never 100%

Might even be higher now that it so easy.

CaptMike..... BINGO! Most of the time years ago the Amish would pay (little gas money) someone for transportation so they could register their deer as they did with me. They have many friends they work with that have cell phones. For those of you that don't understand the Amish ways they don't necessarily live in the dark like some people on here might think, you would be surprised at the modern technology they know how to use and have access to.... they just can't own it.

My neighbors in Vernon county are Amish and we all get along in the Valley,,,, I asked them about this,,,, They use to be able to mail it in, and they did, however that is now too much of a burden, on our over worked, Covid afraid state workers, to actually have to count those, so they do seek out the English, to call it in

I can just imagine, in person registration, that HuntFish43 always asks for, good luck finding state workers, that would actually, count the ballots

Groundhunter, you do understand that hf43's comment was tongue and cheek sarcasm, right?

MJF, I would guess that due to human nature, there is less compliance with something as it gets more difficult, expensive and time consuming to do. This is not aimed at Amish people but at all people in general.

I hunt in far southern Juneau county. Beginning of the hill country. The northern half of Juneau is completely different, flat as a pancake. I think my cdac has done an excellent job trying to appease two totally different areas. My zone has too many deer. The woods are bare. 20 miles north in Necedah, it's a ghost town. How do you make everyone happy? I hate all the extra season's, but the herd needs thinning in my area. I hate not having back tags. I hate not having in person registration (alot of businesses lost alot of money when that stopped). I hate all your political garbage on a hunting forum. I could gives two shits about crossbows. Or the north woods. So how is the DNR supposed to keep me happy and keep you happy and the guy up north and the guy in the metro area all happy?

And keep the farmer happy, the insurance companies happy, the foresters happy, the ecologists happy, the pro wolfers happy, and the public land users who are anti hunting happy. The DNR needs to keep everyone happy, no wonder a few become unhappy.

Some just think of themselves and are unhappy no matter what.

"the insurance companies happy" And here I thought you had some commonsense. Please show me your proof the insurance companies lobby for less deer. It is one of the most stupid statements people make.

How about you quit acting like a no it all prick and actually add something productive on here.

I never stated insurance companies "lobby for less deer". You can however do your own research.

You are correct Live2!

Hurt your feeling, Grub? If calling BS on some people because they make an incorrect statement makes me a prick, so be it. At least when I comment on something, it is on something that I know and/or have worked with.

.

MB listed insurance companies on list of those who either don't like hunting or dislike deer populations. It is a complaint I've heard for years and can't any farther from the truth. The insurance lobbyist and lobby(whom I know) doesn't lobby against deer populations. When I was lobbying, there was no insurance opposition to deer populations. Simple fact is, deer collision go up....rates go up; deer collision go down, rates go down. One could say, higher deer populations are better for the economy. More repairs, more jobs, more parts. Heck, even more premium for the agents to earn commission. But for insurance companies, it is a competitive business; if you loss ratios go down, you reduce rates to remain competitive with the industry.

If MB was talking about NR user groups which the DNR has to appease. His statement would be correct, except insurance companies which are not a NR user group.

Boomer is 100% correct. Insurance companies do not lobby for lower deer numbers. It just doesn’t happen. I know it seems like it might make sense and people want to point to the evil insurance industry, but it is a total fallacy, it doesn’t happen.

I will retract my comment on insurance companies, the DNR does not have to be concerned with them.

And I will retract everything as I'm a no-it-all prick and a non-productive contributor on Bowsite;)

All good boomer, now that you've explained you were a lobbyist, it makes perfect sense why you are a prick

Now you went and hurt me with your words..... better a prick than gravitationally challenged;)

I think that there is a correlation between the deer numbers reported and the fact that there are no tags required on the animals along with no in person registration. I think there are significant deer killed that do not get reported.

Jaycee significant numbers, Strong wording, I don’t believe that one bit, I continue to believe there are much more good honest hunters out there than bad.

About this deer registration thing. I thought it was milked too. I assumed most hunters followed the rules also so I did a what you call it..."blind poll". Of course all the folks I talked to I know or otherwise why would they right? Our group of 11. Longtime hunting chaps and a few friends of friends. I asked (total of 19) hunters this. Since the demise of in person registration have you fudged or non complied with the call in registration for Gun season harvested deer? And if so why? And do you know of any hunters that do so? 7 of the 19 said yes. Only 3 of the 7 said never called. The other 4 said they did but delayed doing so. The main reason was in order 1) lack of cell service. 2) Wished they would have waited a bit longer to harvest a buck. 3) Don't give a damn. DNR doesn't ever check up , allows baiting, crossbow etc. F- them. So I didn't find out if any just plain do not register the kills and I asked that single question again. With a please be honest it's just a poll thing. 5 said yes but what was odd was each and everyone added "only with Doe's". Why just those I asked? Mostly heard " the fines are nothing, and/ or don't want to take a chance on having a buck confiscated". Now I know these folks for years, decades actually. Good people. Hard workers and solid citizens. So if that is the tip of the iceberg I don't wanna see what is below the waves.

I am sure some people cheat on registrations but I do not know how many. I want to believe along with MJF that most hunters are honest. The question though is how many more cheat today than cheated under the old rules?

Exactly Milwroad. I'd hope 99 percent are following the rules. But they made it so easy to cheat now that perhaps people who never did do now. The in person registration was ground zero for wardens to check when they got complaints about over bagging or someone using non hunters to buy a license for them to use.

Seems strange that registration would become easier than ever, and more would abuse it. I do not buy it, not logical.

I do not believe a change in a regulation would turn law abiding people into violators.

Law abiding people are just that. Neglecting to register a deer on time within the time allowed and hunting in no cell service area are two things. I would not call these people poachers or violators at least knowing most of them. Just passing along what and how they answered my inquiry. Not passing judgement that's not my place to do Mike. But after talking to them i believe more deer are unregistered now than when there was in person registration. That's what I was pursuing to find out. Maybe nothing changed and that was always the case but I don't see that as realistic. In my own personal belief it's more easy now to not register and harder if not impossible to actually get caught. No way they can tell who harvested what, when and where with no tag attached and punched. It's just a deer. Anybody can claim it as theirs and anybody can call it in. Too easy.

I would tend to agree that there are more deer killed now that go unregistered, due to forgetfulness or lack of services. But, I would venture to guess that the department's number crunchers have come up with some factor that they use to account for this. And I would add that many states like Wyoming do not require any type of registration yet they still seem to have a handle on game numbers.

I bet bet they do also Mike. But what if they don't? Do they count road kills? Wolf kills? Must have some percentage of mortality of all kinds to figure in their estimates. Michigan also has no registration. But do they have a tag that goes on the carcass? Wyoming etc.? I haven't hunted Michigan in a long time. I did have a back tag but I do not recall if I needed to affix a tag. I think I did but not positive.

"Seems strange that registration would become easier than ever, and more would abuse it. I do not buy it, not logical."

+1

Under the old DMU’s road kill could not be used because road kills are policed and cleaned up by county personnel and multiple DMU’s often could be found within one county. That was one of the reasons for the change in DMU’s. I believe they should be used as one factor in population estimates as vehicles are indiscriminate killers, they do not differentiate by sex. And yes, I do believe we should have some sort of physical tag that must be validated when a deer is killed.

Hell ! Wi. DNR can,t count wolves, how do we expect them to tell us how many dee we have ?

They can count wolves just fine. They just stop at 1100. Experts from around the country say 4500-5000. 350 was the goal. Oops!

Register here to reply to this topic