Deer Management by "Hard Science" or "Common Sense"?

[jcn59]

It occurred to me that the final word on how many deer of either sex are harvested on private land is a function of what the landowners think is sensible and appropriate.
 
Conversely, the final word on public land is what the DNR and their (tongue in cheek) "hard science" think is necessary.  Plus, they charge up to $150+ per deer license to run their "Smoke and Mirror" show.
 
So, why do you think there are more deer and larger bucks on private land managed by regular people like you and I, than the DNR & their experts from afar can produce on public land?  Keep in mind that the DNR can do whatever they want to increase the carrying capacity of public land.
 
Here's a couple clues:
 
1.  Private landowners are maintaining or increasing their deer numbers.
 
2.  The DNR puts our license money to work increasing predator numbers, and reducing deer numbers.

[buck460XVR]

 
So, why do you think there are more deer and larger bucks on private land managed by regular people like you and I, than the DNR & their experts from afar can produce on public land?  Keep in mind that the DNR can do whatever they want to increase the carrying capacity of public land.

There's not an easy solution. Nor is there a solution that will make everyone happy. Many private land owners have their property for the sole purpose of raising deer for them and their immediate family/friends. Most public land is managed for many folks and a multitude of opportunities. Most private land with high deer numbers is prime agricultural land where deer benefit from the crops being raised either for cash/feed or food plots specifically for them. Most pubic land is public was acquired years ago because it was not decent for agriculture and not worth anything.......i.e. swamps/wetlands and scrub timber. There is not really a viable way to increase deer carrying capacity on this type of terrain without huge amounts of cost involved. Sounds like you don't want to help pay for this, where do you suggest they get the money? Many areas are managed by logging where the there is no real cost to the government, and cover and food is produced by the new regrowth. Still this does not produce the year round food supplies found on land managed for Ag/farm purposes. It is what it is.....marginal deer area. Public land also get much higher hunter pressure than most private land and because of this there is a Catch 22. Becasue of the amount of hunters, folk don't see many deer, so are happy to shoot most anything they see. Because of this deer numbers stay low and bucks have a hard time reaching maturity. I have let many small bucks go during bow/rifle seasons on public land only to see them in the back of someone elses truck. Not a problem to me, but to many, why let them walk just to let someone else get them. Lately, the DNR has reduced the number of antlerless permits on many public lands to try and increase their numbers, and I agree that public land needs to be managed as separate quota areas than private. This would  make getting a permit for public land surrounded by prime  private deer habitat more difficult to get and keep the deer on the public land from being decimated because it is in the same quota area. At the spring conservation hearings I have supported a minimal antler requirement(other than a single 3'' horn) for bucks for years. This would give those of us that hunt public land more opportunities to shoot a mature buck.  But most that hunt public land don't want a minimal antler requirement, because it would reduced their odds of taking a buck for a year or two. The DNR must manage these lands for the majority with the monies they have. I have also voiced support for a fee for those that hunt public lands. This would keep those with private lands from coming one day during the season  to public lands to shoot antlerless deer instead of shooting them on their property. This would also produce revenue for the sole purpose of acquiring more public land and improving what we have for those that hunt public lands. This would mean those that use public land would bear the brunt of the increase in cost without putting a burden on those that don't. Has always seemed like a win/win solution to me, but again, many that hunt public land want it all for nothing. I hunt much of the same public land that I started hunting in the mid-sixties. Regardless of what many say, there is still more deer there now than there was back then and many more opportunities to hunt deer. So much for the good old days. Much of the prime deer areas around here on Ag/private lands had no or very few deer back in the mid-sixties and those landowners then hunted public lands. Not the same today.

The DNR puts our license money to work increasing predator numbers and reducing deer numbers.

I would really like to see proof of this other than barstool game biologist talk. The DNR and private organizations have and still do spend monies to introduce Elk, Turkey and Pheasants to the state, but have never had a predator stocking program. Coyotes have naturally been here for years, same as bear and bobcats. The wolves reintroduced themselves from Michigan and Minnesota and the Cougars from farther west. The main reason for their increase is the increase in deer numbers. They really don't care if the deer are on public or private lands.

[jcn59]

I do believe that was the most thoughtful response I've ever received, Buck460! 

I think it was important that you added that the DNR did not reintroduce the predators, because I still encounter people who think our DNR reintroduced wolves.  When I spoke of the DNR using our license dollars for predator management, I was speaking specifically to the dollars that ARE spent on increasing predator numbers.  This would include law enforcement, Adrian W. salary, as well as many other related costs.

Last year units 9 & 12 were not herd control but more antlerless tags were available than sold at $12.00 each, so I would say that there were unlimited doe tags availble from a practical standpoint.  This year those units were herd control, so again, unlimited doe permits were available, but at $2.00 each.  I would conclude then that our beloved DNR is managing the doe kill by raising and lowering the price of the kill tags.  That is their "Hard Science".   Their goal is to reduce deer numbers and I think that is unfortunate for all of us.  Their goal is arbitrary and not consistent with good game management.  Ask any landowner if he thinks he can increase his deer numbers by unlimited doe killing.

[Cheesehead]

There are still 12 management units north of Highway 8 with unlimited tags. The DNR managers are so arrogent they will not listen to the hunters valid statements about deer numbers.

D - Do
N - Nothing
R - Right

Cheese

[ihookem]

Very good comments buck460. I also believe we have to have public and private  land doe tags. They need to be on the back tags like years past. The public land doe tags should go to  buying more public land. I'm troubled that the dnr sees a mature doe only worth 2 bucks and sells unlimited to out of state hunters that charge us 350 bucks for a tag in Iowa and similar prices from Illinois. I'm also bothered by hunters shooting 2 bucks a year. I believe 1 buck a year is in order for several years to see if this helps.  Also, a small fee for out of state hunters would not be a bad idea. Say a habitat stamp, 10 bucks would not kill anyone. We don't need more public land north of hwy 8. We do need them south of there.  The dnr needs to change things up a whole bunch if they want the license sales to stop dwindling.  This is also a good time to buy land, maybe tax forfeited land if there is any now days.

[bilmac]

Buck has given a good answer, the basic premise is, if you want animals to hunt, you have to have a wildlife management agency. Think in basic terms. If there were no DNR there would be yearlong unlimited harvest right. Just like the military is the basic thing the Feds should be doing, season setting and law enforcement are the basic things that wildlife management does.

Yes citizens need to be watching what their government agencies are doing, lots of them forget what their real mission is, but having worked as a wildlife manager for my career I can almost guarantee you that people who work as wildlife managers are some of the most dedicated public servants there are. They started out in the field because they had a passion. Some loose the passion after awhile, oftentimes, unfortunately many of them end up in "head offices", but most work at their jobs because they love their work.

One thing that a lot of people miss when they compare wildlife on public vs. private land is that wildlife is mobile and the critters do have brains. When the season opens and the critter on public ground gets jumped he moves or dies. If that happens again and again, the lucky animal crosses the line onto private ground and may well not see another hunter, certainly he doesn't get disturbed 3 or 4 or 5  times a day.

[Empty Quiver]

In addition to buck 460 comments.


Land owners are able to micro manage the 80 acre parcel they own. Think about that a bit, every 80 acres privately owned, has a person or persons who are able to work that land and keep track of every deer. They are not filling out land use studies, they are not petitioning there superiors for funding, they spend little time picking up litter, trail maintenance is nil.


Also don't forget, the two do not share the same goal, similar yes but not the same. Equal access for all? no. Small game, upland birds, waterfowl, songbirds, wildflowers, prairie restoration, and adequate numbers of all of the former to justify taxpayer expense.


I worked at two different parks. One was a State Park the other was a County Park. The budgets were very different the goals were fairly different. The state had less money to spend per visitor, but had exponentially more visitors. They had to provide lots of people an outdoor experience, and stay open 24 hours a day. The county had more land, and relatively few visitors, but the same staffing as the State Park. The county picked up cigarette butts, the state picked up beer bottles. The county would take the end loader back into the woods to help you extract a deer, the state would not even allow you to use screw in steps for deer stands. the county WANTED a park, the state had to have a park.  All that above to say it can be done if the people want it bad enough to pay for it.

[jcn59]

So to condense these thoughtful comments, is it safe to say that the private landowner controls the number and sex of the deer shot on his land, and the state controls the number and sex of the deer shot on public land? 
 
If so, I can only assume that the state wants to reduce the number of deer on public land and that is why they so frequently provide unlimited doe tags.  That might explain why public land hunters are seeing fewer deer every year.
 
I'm not being critical of the work done by our foresters, field wardens and park employees.  What I'm trying to say is that the DNR goals are inconsistant with what hunters want.  This is similar to the complaints most of us have about congress.  It's a lack of representation in government.

[Empty Quiver]

Department of Natural Resources. Not, Department of Hunter Appeasement.


They are charged with much more than hunting and fishing, which is much more than just deer hunting. If your farm, or condo association, or roadway to work is home to a herd your concerns are much different than those of a hunter. Rare to find someone who doesn't want to see deer, but after you lose an older car to one your viewpoint starts changing. I have hit 5 deer and lost a truck and a car in the process, you are not over compensated for your loss, believe me. I love to hunt and it still burned my tail.


Looking big picture the DNR has done a lot to improve the deer hunting. It was not that long ago that deer were nearly the Unicorns of the hunting scene, that is, heard of but never captured. The deer herd grew to the point that I have heard people refer to them as hoofed rats. They eat peoples landscaping, destroy young orchards and nursery crops, and are hazards on the road.


The pendulum is swinging the other direction perhaps. The excess deer that used to move from prime habitat to less prime, i.e.., public land is reduced now. In some cases private land owners are doing everything they can to hold deer on their own property.


In another thread I commented on how in the late 70's I used to be pleased to see deer tracks, and seeing a deer was cause to make a phone call home. I was not real happy with my deer season either, heck I saw nearly as many wolves as deer. I certainly don't have the answer. At one time i entertained the thought of working in the conservation field so I'm a bit biased perhaps. I mean you and your opinions no disrespect.

[bilmac]

The animal must be kept in balance with it's habitat. Things are more complicated in the east where there are a lot of things going on, but in the west the food the animal eats may well be the limiting factor as to how many animals can exist. Animals can become so abundant that they severely damage the plants that they depend on. When that happens there is massive die off that takes years to recover from, because the damaged landscape has to repair itself first.

[jcn59]

I don't think our marginal deer numbers here in the Sawyer county area came about because the deer ran out of trees to eat.  I think it happened because of liberal doe kill permits and the highest number of predators in Wisconsin ever. 

I think it's the responsibility of the DNR to use our license money to maintain or increase the number of huntable animals.  The answer to excess deer on private land is not to shoot off all the deer on public land! 
 
If there are too many car/deer crashes, then the D.O.T. should deal with it.  When people move into deer habitat, they should not be surprised when the deer eat their gardens.  Ask yourself how many of these same people would let you come on to their property and let you shoot their pesky deer.

This has turned into an interesting thread.  I appreciate all your input!

[Cheesehead]

 I think it happened because of liberal doe kill permits and the highest number of predators in Wisconsin ever.

I think this is exactly the problem.

Cheese

[buck460XVR]

Department of Natural Resources. Not, Department of Hunter Appeasement.


They are charged with much more than hunting and fishing, which is much more than just deer hunting. If your farm, or condo association, or roadway to work is home to a herd your concerns are much different than those of a hunter. Rare to find someone who doesn't want to see deer, but after you lose an older car to one your viewpoint starts changing. I have hit 5 deer and lost a truck and a car in the process, you are not over compensated for your loss, believe me. I love to hunt and it still burned my tail.


Looking big picture the DNR has done a lot to improve the deer hunting. It was not that long ago that deer were nearly the Unicorns of the hunting scene, that is, heard of but never captured. The deer herd grew to the point that I have heard people refer to them as hoofed rats. They eat peoples landscaping, destroy young orchards and nursery crops, and are hazards on the road.

Well said. I too started hunting in the 60s  when seeing one buck during the whole season, even at a distance, was considered a good year.  If someone got a forkhorn, the whole town stopped by to look at it an congratulate them. Get a ten pointer and your picture whould be on the front page of the local newspaper.

As EQ said, the DNR has more rows to hoe than just deer hunters. They must balance a healthy deer herd between farmers, Foresters, drivers and their passengers, home owners and deer hunters. Altho it's hard to imagine on that mystical Saturday before Thanksgiving, we, as deer hunters,  are a minority here in Wisconsin. To expect the DNR to ignore the needs of the whole so that we few can shoot more deer with greater ease, would be selfish. I agree the system is not perfect, but, as I said before, it wasn't the DNR that shot off the deer, it was hunters. The greed was not within the DNR for our license monies, it was the greed of those hunters that shot more deer than they needed...just cause they could. You say you want to see more deer on public land, it starts with you and your friends, and everyone else that hunts there to shoot less deer.  They same way good sportsman release fish that are legal to keep to catch them again, is why we need to let deer walk sometimes even when the DNR says it's legal to shoot them. That's what folks do on private land. They could shoot, but they don't. Just cause one hunts public land don't mean he can't hunt with the same philosophy.

[Cheesehead]

" it wasn't the DNR that shot off the deer, it was hunters."

Not without the DNR's blessing, approval and encouragement.

Cheese

[jcn59]

If we stopped buying deer licenses, and stopped killing deer, would the deer herd increase in size, or would it decrease?  I guess I could rest my case on that but I've never been known to shut up when I should.
 
The DNR sold us the permits AND TOLD US TO SHOOT THOSE DOES.   We didn't shoot the does years ago except as allowed under the "party" system.  We obeyed the laws and (blindly) did what the DNR told us to do.  Look where it got us.  Are any of our readers old enough to remember when the DNR told us that if we shot the does, there would be more bucks?   Do you remember when we first voiced our concern about the wolves, the DNR told us that "Wolves are reclusive creatures and they would locate far away from humans"?   
 
Most of you remember when the finest scientific minds in the country told us that on midnight, 2000, that all the computers would crash and there would be no electric power, and so on.  Don't be so quick to believe what the so-called experts tell you.  I remember when I was a little boy, the scientists said the world was flat.....

I started deer hunting in 1963.  Hunted public land ten years before I shot a buck.  Had lots of entertainment watching does while I was waiting to tag that buck.  Total deer kill during those earlier years was often under a hundred thousand.  Haven't seen a deer in the woods for the last four years during the nine day season.  Deer kill total during those four years in the hundreds of thousands.

Just to be clear, I am not begrudging the private land owners their deer.  If I wanted to chase opening weekend tresspassers away, I would buy some land, not a problem.  I would add that I have access to baited private land and permanent stands owned by a friend but I prefer to hunt the large tracts of public land.  I've shot my share and just enjoy being able to get out and hunt.

[Empty Quiver]

It is more fun when you have the option to pull the trigger though.


Might be time to find new haunts, the deer won't be returning as soon as you would wish. Sorry about your troubles.

[jcn59]

I didn't feel particularly troubled but I apologize if I presented as whiney. 
 
Life has been good to my wife and I.  I currently am able to work a couple days a week on my own schedule and my dog and I enjoy the woods and waters the rest of the time when my wife isn't available to be with us.  We have a modest life that we both enjoy.
 
Having said that, it disturbs me when half of my earnings go to taxes which are then squandered by our governments.  They speak of fiscal responsibility, then ask me to send them more of my money for their projects.  When I was 16 years old I worked at a gas station in Florida for a hard man named Savario Loria.   He said congress was made up of "rat bastards".  He was a wise man.
 
Merry Christmas, to all of you!
 
jim

[ihookem]

Yes, jcn59, I remember party tags, and waiting 3 years to shoot a doe. Then they said shoot all the does for better deer herds. They are healthier, just not many around. I remember them saying wolves will never invade farm country cause they don't like roads and a mile of road per sq. mi. of land would keep them from expanding   Yah right.  I still say they are managing deer for a perfect forest, which has no deer. They are almost there in unit 20. The hunter just pays the bills. They are not balanced on managing public land for everyone, just a perfect forest. The deer are healthy though if you can find one.

[jcn59]

Travel 10 miles of back-country gravel roads at dusk through public hunting land, (Sawyer, Ashland & Washburn co.) no houses on road,  never see a deer, (this week, last week, next week, doesn't make any difference when, THEY ARE GONE), almost no deer OR wolf tracks anymore.  Four years of 9-day season & did not see even one deer, still hunting public land alone like last 48 years.  Apparently the 50-60 deer I shot then was at least "one too many".   Maybe.  We don't have a huntable population anymore, yet the dnr issued unlimited doe and fawn tags last year.  Until we have a huntable deer herd again, I'll be doing my deer hunting elsewhere.   Bird hunting has been good though!