wisconsin dnr
03-10-2009, 09:08 AM
#1
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 472
wisconsin dnr
This is what the dnr sent me when I Told them that the deer numbers are way to low
Tom shared with me your correspondence as he indicated to you he would. I'd like to share with you another email letter that I think captures some of the issues we have in common and differ on. If there was one sentiment that I could change in some hunters minds, its that we do not care about the deer resource or the hunter. This typically stems from the notion that some hunters think our primary objective is to raise money. I'd be lying if I said we don't worry about the money, it makes wildlife conservation possible in Wisconsin; but we know it would be foolish to put the long-term health of the deer population at risk for the sake of selling more licenses now. Please read on if you are honestly interested in hearing some of the considerations that go into deer management. [/align] Thank you for the time and thought you took in writing this letter. I appreciate the opportunity to walk in the boots of dedicated hunters through the many letters and calls I have fielded since November. Hopefully my responses which I've imbedded in your email will help you also walk in my boots for a bit, and in the end we can agree that we have at least one goal in common, to preserve the hunting heritage which we both cherish and hope to pass on to our kids.[/align] Dear Mr. Pritzl,[/align] I am not writing this letter as a knee-jerk reaction to a poor 2008 deer season, but rather as a culmination of recent years of frustration. I am sure that this will not be the only such letter that you will receive, but I hope to possibly be more rational and logical than most of the "damn DNR" rants you hear. I appreciate your awareness of the advice we've been receiving I am a life long bow hunter, as well as a Master of Science in natural resources. I would appreciate you being open minded in considering what I write. I have written this letter in my mind over countless hours sitting in deer woods over the past three to four years, but have allowed myself time after the deer season to simmer down and hopefully be more rational before putting words to paper. I can't tell you how many 40 minute phone conversations I've had with other hunters this winter. They tend to start and end the same; beginning with great frustration and ending with a degree of appreciation that this is a very complex situation we find ourselves in, and an acknowledgement that things never stay the same, and its no different in the deer world. [/align] Although I do not own my own land, I am fortunate to have permission to hunt four pieces of private land in Oconto, Brown, and Kewaunee counties (40, 40, 80, and 160 acres). In addition, I feed deer in my back yard in Oconto County. I also muzzleloader hunt in Oconto County, and bow hunt in Manitowoc, which is similar to Brown and Kewaunee (which I realize doesn't mean a whole lot, as there is tremendous diversity of both habitat quality and deer density within any area we try to describe, be it county or deer management unit)[/align] As recently as five years ago I would routinely see 5 to 20 deer each night at the feeder, now my family and I go weeks or even a month between deer sightings. Similarly, the deer numbers on stand have crashed. It was not uncommon to see 5 to 10 and occasionally over 20 deer in a single sit. There is no question that deer numbers have been declining over the past 5 years, by design as you are aware. Most people will acknowledge that the deer herd was unnaturally high during that time and not in the best interest of many things, including the deer themselves, as I'll get into later. We cannot look at this time period as the bench mark to aspire too. Yes it was a time of outstanding hunting opportunity; but it was not sustainable. Our responsibility to both wildlife and land stewardship (as well as a statutory mandate) in many cases required us to try and reduce the deer herd by half; and we knew if we were successful, that many hunters would look upon the lower population as a major disappointment. That doesn't change our obligation to move in this direction. This bow season I spent over 30 days and 200 hours on stand with a total of 45 deer seen. Honestly, most reports I've gotten painted an even worse picture than this. I hunted 16 of the first 20 days in November (many times from dawn to dusk) and saw a total of 14 deer. It did not matter which stand or piece of land I hunted the results were the same. I found myself continually walking out of the woods thinking that I am not even enjoying what should be the best calendar period of the year, and I am not alone. Every deer-hunting friend and acquaintance I know has been experiencing the same success and emotions. Across the board, it appears the traditional rut period was a disappointment regarding deer activity and sightings in 2008. No doubt some of this was due to fewer deer. But curiously, there seemed to be something else going on as well. My own experience mirrors many stories I have been told. I have a trail camera in the woods behind my house. I had a beautiful buck that I watched grow into a 10 pointer with roughly one picture a week over the course of the summer. I also got a few pictures of a yearling 6 pointer, plus does and fawns that I couldn't identify to tell you how many (no more than 3-4 adults I suspect). From Oct. 28 to Nov. 1 there was a tremendous spike in deer activity (the "chase period" I guess bowhunting writers would call it) where I caught the 2 regular bucks multiple times each night and 4 other bucks that I had never seen before. After the 1st of November...nothing. I didn't get a single picture of any of those bucks again through the gun season. Many bowhunters I've spoken with shared this experience. I don't know why, but yes the rut seemed to be a bust this year. Some have speculated that the weather got too warm the first week of Nov. and shut things down. At any rate, the overall archery harvest last year shows a decline compared to the record harvest of 2007 as should be expected, but nothing close to a "crash". It was 7.5% above the 10 year average ranked #4 all time in Wisconsin. Imagine trying to explain to someone from outside the deer hunting world that the deer population has been decimated when it just provided the 4th highest archery harvest on record![/align] In 2007, I shot a 145" ten-point buck with the bow, and a smaller ten-point with the rifle, but still viewed the season as a whole as poor because of the low numbers of deer seen (approximately 80). Hopefully this will be the only comment I make that's somewhat pointed and unsympathetic
I think 90% of hunters would consider your 2007 season a dream season. You're coming across as a bit greedy here. But you have just hit the most important point of this discussion. Deer sighting is considerablydown, and the root of hunter discontent, not harvest figures. More on this later. The decline has been consistent and steep since about 2004 when I had seen over 100 deer during the first week of bow season. Again, 2004 should not be held as the bench mark. This was the result of a decade where deer hunting could not fulfill its important role as a tool to keep the population in balance with both the ecosystem and social considerations. It made for some great deer hunting, but it was not responsible resource management. I'll touch here on one of the important issues that has come to light during the past several years, that as an educated natural resources student you'll appreciate. The deer densities of the past decade are having a dramatic effect on the vegetative condition of our forests. This is why that deer herd was not ecologically sustainable. Also, we tout the importance of the 1 billion dollar economy of Wisconsin deer hunting. The $22 billion economy of the Wisconsin forest products industry has taken note of the dramatic lack of tree regeneration through out the state. They have taken a "seat at the table" and understandably have a stake in where deer populations are managed in the future. Besides the low numbers, the quality of deer seen is disturbing. A large doe with three fawns is basically nonexistent, a mature doe with two fawns is uncommon, and yearling does with one very small fawn is becoming the rule rather than the exception. I believe that this is a direct result of too many adult does being removed from the breeding pool, forcing a higher percentage of doe-fawns to be bred, which in turn produces late small fawns. Assuming the observations you make are true, I believe you have come to the wrong conclusion. Declining reproduction will eventually be driven by poor habitat quality, and yes will create a herd that is very slow to recover. The whole premise of Herd Control and EAB seasons is to reduce herd productivity before it occurs naturally. These late fawns are then less likely to survive to maturity which further exacerbates the problem. Again the problem you are referring to here is the lack of deer being seen. [/align] The reason I hunt is not for the kill or the venison, but for the thrill of hearing that first snap of a twig, the perfect rhythm of crunching leaves that only a deer can make, and the anticipation of what you will see once the sounds finally appear. This thrill has been happening far too infrequently lately. I can't argue with you here. You are right on. A satisfied hunter must at least be able to hold hope that when they go out, they stand a reasonable chance to feel the adrenaline rush that just the sound of a deer brings. And there is no question that hunters are not seeing and hearing deer like they used to; not even like they did 20 years ago, when believe it or not deer densities were much lower. There are a host of variables that have changed deer sightability over the past 15 years that I think have little to do with the size of the deer population. I empathize with this frustration. Unfortunately, there may not be much we can do about these variables, and a satisfied deer hunter of the future will have to set expectations differently, regardless of increasing or decreasing deer numbers. [/align] As you know, all of the areas where I hunt and live have been or are EAB or Zone-T on and off for the last decade, especially the last five years. The decline in deer numbers is not a coincidence. If I had only one parcel of land on which to base this claim, perhaps I maybe wrong, but this is too wide-spread. I am not the only one seeing this-nearly everyone I know is experiencing similar results in EAB and Zone-T areas. The only issue between us here is whether the declining deer numbers is considered a good thing or a bad thing. We all want deer sightings to increase. Deer harvest is still well higher that it has ever been prior to the early 90's. In 2008 deer hunters finally demonstrated that hunting is a legitimate herd management tool, and that we are relevant to the rest of the world that is affected by deer numbers, and now we want to go right back to a deer herd that was (undoubtedly producing eye-popping harvest numbers) way out of balance with the landscape?[/align] The DNR is responsible for managing the resource as well as the resource user. Put in other terms, the resource users are your constituents. The revenue generated by license sales helps pay for your programs, equipment and ultimately your jobs. Your constituents-the deer hunting public- are not happy. The voting public was not happy with the previous political administration resulting in an historic and hopefully positive change. Wisconsin deer hunters are also in drastic need of change. I'm afraid that change may be up to the hunter in the form of a different approach to deer hunting. We are not returning to deer numbers we saw at the turn of the century. This change needs to happen sooner than later. The truly sad part is that even if EAB and Zone-T stopped immediately, it will take several years for recovery. Only if the over-populated herds of the previous 15 years have done long-term damage to their natural forage. I personally have no problem with shooting an adult doe. I have shot at least one doe every year that I have hunted and believe that they are much more of a trophy than a yearling buck, I share your feeling here yet I have never nor will I ever participate in a Zone-T hunt even if it means letting a nice buck walk. The whole principal is disturbing and wrong. Forcing people to kill antlerless deer (and in many cases fawns) to get a piece paper that more times than not goes unused devalues all that deer hunting should be. It turns my stomach. I couldn't disagree with you more here. Hunters that measure antler inches and refer to bucks as "shooters" or "management bucks" based on their antlers turns my stomach. The first objective of the hunt must be to simply reconnect with the land and natural processes, and perhaps share that experience others. You can have a very successful experience while coming home empty handed. The next measure of success of the hunt should be the procurement of meat by one's own hand. What is devaluing to the animal is considering a harvested fawn as a waste. As a student of ecology, you must acknowledge that the young of the year are naturally the most preyed upon, and most expendable members of the population. The mortality pattern that we as hunters place on the deer population has been quite unnatural for many years. Under herd control and EAB seasons, we actually come much closer to natural mortality patterns, as more fawns and mature bucks become the focus of our harvest. There's no question that a large buck is special and unique, and I will be tremendously excited if I ever get one (or see one). But I truly cherish the opportunity to put wholesome food on the table for my family in the form of young, tender venison. That's what deer hunting should be. But I am a realist and I don't pretend that the buck isn't preferred game. [/align] I am 40 years old. Deer and deer hunting have consumed me for my entire life. I have never been more discouraged. When my wife and I had our first child, a boy, I told her that if the rest of our kids were girls I would be fine because at least I would have one boy to share my passion for the outdoors with. I hope you would offer the same opportunity to a daughter. Mine is a cherished hunting companion. I now have two boys (ages 4 and 7). As things stand right now, I wouldn't even consider introducing them to deer hunting because they would be turned off immediately. This is no doubt a great challenge for all of us. Kids these days have so many other ways to experience that adrenaline rush without putting any real effort into it, that they can't imagine investing hours on end for just the chance at a heart-pounding moment. We can't compete with that. Our challenge is to expose them to the complete package of an outdoor experience and see what a REAL experience offers that a simulated one can't. That includes the peace and calmness of quite hours in nature, the curiosity and adventure of exploring what's around the next bend, and the payoff reward that only comes from hard work and patience. The excuse that we can't keep kids interested is real, but useless. It just means our role as a mentor of genuine life skills is that much harder, but more important than ever. Even I, as a die-hard, am having a hard time staying out in the woods after consistently seeing few or no deer. I am one of the lucky people to have access to quality private land where there are supposedly too many deer. I can't even imagine how bad it must be on public land.[/align] I know that your management is based on scientific theory and understand the principle behind the Age/Sex/Kill formula, but it is time to adjust. SAK has had an unquestionable success record 9 of the past 10 years, and about 9 years out of every decade before it. Yes, it threw us off some last year, as did the winters you speak of next; but I'll take a 9 and 1 record any day. For as much attention as the DNR's ability to estimate the herd gets, it really has no bearing on the individual hunter. A hunter is naturally concerned with what is available on his 40, 80, or 160 in your case. In all likelihood, that piece of land doesn't reflect the average deer density of the unit. Unfortunately deer distribution on the land is becoming more and more uneven, and more parcels hold below average deer numbers than above. This in part is contributing to fewer deer sightings for many hunters, while the overall deer population in the unit hasn't declined as drastically as one might think. The harvest tells us how many deer are out there, and the 2008 harvest has pointed out that the estimate had strayed some from reality. The beauty of the system is we can catch the error the very next year and adjust. Several years ago there was such a thing as the winter severity index and winter deer kills. Recent mild winters have virtually eliminated this concern (at least in the southern and central EAB and Zone-T areas). As for crop damage, farmers who want deer dead can basically have as many tags as they can fill. I refuse to believe that insurance companies are forcing your management hand to reduce car/deer crashes. Thank you, you are correct, and probably aware that many assume otherwise. So why do you feel the need to reduce the deer herd so drastically. I believe I've addressed this somewhat already; the ecosystem in general cannot sustain the deer densities of the previous decade, and will eventually result in fewer deer one way or the other. Wisconsin is lucky enough to be blessed with the natural habitat to sustain a large herd. Why not embrace this fact, advertise it, and use it to your advantage. States such as Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas do not have nearly the natural habitat that we do, yet they are becoming whitetail hunting destinations for many people because their resource managers are doing just the opposite of what Wisconsin is doing-limiting kill tags and thereby improving hunting. I personally know two groups of people that are foregoing buying Wisconsin licenses and only hunting out of state for these reasons. This is not a positive trend for you or anyone that has an interest in Wisconsin deer hunting! I also know of two other families who own large parcels of land in Oconto County who have not bought tags during the EAB years. Because they are lucky enough to have enough land to not be drastically affected by adjacent land owners, they are still enjoying good deer numbers and quality deer hunting.[/align] As I stated earlier, I'm sure that you have receive many letters expressing similar feelings and are probably frustrated with so much negativity, but this message needs to get through. A conservation warden I know told me that he had the area wildlife biologist ride along during the 2008 gun season to "hear the constant complaining that I hear all day", and that the biologist might be starting to think that there is some validity to the complaints. I hope that this is true and it results in a trend in the other direction. We rode with wardens more this year for the opportunity walk in each others shoes for a bit, and share experiences and perspectives. But trust me, wildlife staff get no shortage of negative input directly. Its not that we don't hear or understand the perspectives of a wide variety of hunter opinions. We have certain responsibilities that do go beyond the interests of some hunters. Here's another way to look at it. 640,000 gun hunters plus some archery only hunters is an amazing number. Even though we kill upwards of a half million deer each year (another amazing number); when you consider that many hunters that have the "prime" spots kill multiple deer each year (sounds like that includes you) that leaves well over 300,000 hunters that will not kill a deer, and easily tens of thousands of hunters that had what they would consider a bad year. This occurs even during a record harvest year. Its never surprising that we get negative feedback. We do try to take into consideration what we can change. But to simply make changes in an attempt to appease the disgruntled portion of the hunting public would simply not be responsible conservation. We are trying to strike the elusive balance. As you demonstrate, today even successful hunters find themselves often in the camp of unhappy hunters. This stems from the very real issue that hunters don't see deer like they used to. I've touched on a few reasons why that is (including yes fewer deer than 5 years ago). I bet you can think of even more reasons: baiting&feeding, a proliferation of sanctuary (including hunting land that used to get driven, and now only gets hunted by stand), and changing hunting styles (fewer deer drives, more sitting), etc.[/align] Current deer management has turned my obsession into frustration and depression. Please think long and hard about your current management and the points that I have brought up. I would appreciate you forwarding this to other wildlife managers so that they can do the same. Also I would like a response to get an idea of the direction that deer management may be heading. I think I may have invested as much in this letter as you have. Please know that I appreciate your passion and want to maintain an environment where you can pursue it the rest of your life. My wish for you and all fellow hunters is that we can position our attitudes and expectations where we can rediscover the joys of hunting that aren't jaded by trophy buck hype, 10 minute success stories on outdoor TV channels, and deer harvests of the past decade. There are still great experiences out there to be had. If someone told me I wouldn't see a deer this fall, they couldn't stop me from trying. There's too many wonderful things that happen almost every time I enter the woods.[/align] Thank you for your time and consideration. And thank you. I welcome further discussion. I'll share this with my colleagues, and I ask you to do the same with yours. [/align] P Jeff Pritzl[/align] Northeast Regional Wildlife Biologist[/align] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources[/align] 2984 Shawano Ave.[/align] Green Bay, WI 54313[/align] (()phone: (920) 662-5127[/align] (()fax:(920) 662-5413[/align] (+)e-mail: jeffrey[email protected][/align] [/align]
Tom shared with me your correspondence as he indicated to you he would. I'd like to share with you another email letter that I think captures some of the issues we have in common and differ on. If there was one sentiment that I could change in some hunters minds, its that we do not care about the deer resource or the hunter. This typically stems from the notion that some hunters think our primary objective is to raise money. I'd be lying if I said we don't worry about the money, it makes wildlife conservation possible in Wisconsin; but we know it would be foolish to put the long-term health of the deer population at risk for the sake of selling more licenses now. Please read on if you are honestly interested in hearing some of the considerations that go into deer management. [/align] Thank you for the time and thought you took in writing this letter. I appreciate the opportunity to walk in the boots of dedicated hunters through the many letters and calls I have fielded since November. Hopefully my responses which I've imbedded in your email will help you also walk in my boots for a bit, and in the end we can agree that we have at least one goal in common, to preserve the hunting heritage which we both cherish and hope to pass on to our kids.[/align] Dear Mr. Pritzl,[/align] I am not writing this letter as a knee-jerk reaction to a poor 2008 deer season, but rather as a culmination of recent years of frustration. I am sure that this will not be the only such letter that you will receive, but I hope to possibly be more rational and logical than most of the "damn DNR" rants you hear. I appreciate your awareness of the advice we've been receiving I am a life long bow hunter, as well as a Master of Science in natural resources. I would appreciate you being open minded in considering what I write. I have written this letter in my mind over countless hours sitting in deer woods over the past three to four years, but have allowed myself time after the deer season to simmer down and hopefully be more rational before putting words to paper. I can't tell you how many 40 minute phone conversations I've had with other hunters this winter. They tend to start and end the same; beginning with great frustration and ending with a degree of appreciation that this is a very complex situation we find ourselves in, and an acknowledgement that things never stay the same, and its no different in the deer world. [/align] Although I do not own my own land, I am fortunate to have permission to hunt four pieces of private land in Oconto, Brown, and Kewaunee counties (40, 40, 80, and 160 acres). In addition, I feed deer in my back yard in Oconto County. I also muzzleloader hunt in Oconto County, and bow hunt in Manitowoc, which is similar to Brown and Kewaunee (which I realize doesn't mean a whole lot, as there is tremendous diversity of both habitat quality and deer density within any area we try to describe, be it county or deer management unit)[/align] As recently as five years ago I would routinely see 5 to 20 deer each night at the feeder, now my family and I go weeks or even a month between deer sightings. Similarly, the deer numbers on stand have crashed. It was not uncommon to see 5 to 10 and occasionally over 20 deer in a single sit. There is no question that deer numbers have been declining over the past 5 years, by design as you are aware. Most people will acknowledge that the deer herd was unnaturally high during that time and not in the best interest of many things, including the deer themselves, as I'll get into later. We cannot look at this time period as the bench mark to aspire too. Yes it was a time of outstanding hunting opportunity; but it was not sustainable. Our responsibility to both wildlife and land stewardship (as well as a statutory mandate) in many cases required us to try and reduce the deer herd by half; and we knew if we were successful, that many hunters would look upon the lower population as a major disappointment. That doesn't change our obligation to move in this direction. This bow season I spent over 30 days and 200 hours on stand with a total of 45 deer seen. Honestly, most reports I've gotten painted an even worse picture than this. I hunted 16 of the first 20 days in November (many times from dawn to dusk) and saw a total of 14 deer. It did not matter which stand or piece of land I hunted the results were the same. I found myself continually walking out of the woods thinking that I am not even enjoying what should be the best calendar period of the year, and I am not alone. Every deer-hunting friend and acquaintance I know has been experiencing the same success and emotions. Across the board, it appears the traditional rut period was a disappointment regarding deer activity and sightings in 2008. No doubt some of this was due to fewer deer. But curiously, there seemed to be something else going on as well. My own experience mirrors many stories I have been told. I have a trail camera in the woods behind my house. I had a beautiful buck that I watched grow into a 10 pointer with roughly one picture a week over the course of the summer. I also got a few pictures of a yearling 6 pointer, plus does and fawns that I couldn't identify to tell you how many (no more than 3-4 adults I suspect). From Oct. 28 to Nov. 1 there was a tremendous spike in deer activity (the "chase period" I guess bowhunting writers would call it) where I caught the 2 regular bucks multiple times each night and 4 other bucks that I had never seen before. After the 1st of November...nothing. I didn't get a single picture of any of those bucks again through the gun season. Many bowhunters I've spoken with shared this experience. I don't know why, but yes the rut seemed to be a bust this year. Some have speculated that the weather got too warm the first week of Nov. and shut things down. At any rate, the overall archery harvest last year shows a decline compared to the record harvest of 2007 as should be expected, but nothing close to a "crash". It was 7.5% above the 10 year average ranked #4 all time in Wisconsin. Imagine trying to explain to someone from outside the deer hunting world that the deer population has been decimated when it just provided the 4th highest archery harvest on record![/align] In 2007, I shot a 145" ten-point buck with the bow, and a smaller ten-point with the rifle, but still viewed the season as a whole as poor because of the low numbers of deer seen (approximately 80). Hopefully this will be the only comment I make that's somewhat pointed and unsympathetic
I think 90% of hunters would consider your 2007 season a dream season. You're coming across as a bit greedy here. But you have just hit the most important point of this discussion. Deer sighting is considerablydown, and the root of hunter discontent, not harvest figures. More on this later. The decline has been consistent and steep since about 2004 when I had seen over 100 deer during the first week of bow season. Again, 2004 should not be held as the bench mark. This was the result of a decade where deer hunting could not fulfill its important role as a tool to keep the population in balance with both the ecosystem and social considerations. It made for some great deer hunting, but it was not responsible resource management. I'll touch here on one of the important issues that has come to light during the past several years, that as an educated natural resources student you'll appreciate. The deer densities of the past decade are having a dramatic effect on the vegetative condition of our forests. This is why that deer herd was not ecologically sustainable. Also, we tout the importance of the 1 billion dollar economy of Wisconsin deer hunting. The $22 billion economy of the Wisconsin forest products industry has taken note of the dramatic lack of tree regeneration through out the state. They have taken a "seat at the table" and understandably have a stake in where deer populations are managed in the future. Besides the low numbers, the quality of deer seen is disturbing. A large doe with three fawns is basically nonexistent, a mature doe with two fawns is uncommon, and yearling does with one very small fawn is becoming the rule rather than the exception. I believe that this is a direct result of too many adult does being removed from the breeding pool, forcing a higher percentage of doe-fawns to be bred, which in turn produces late small fawns. Assuming the observations you make are true, I believe you have come to the wrong conclusion. Declining reproduction will eventually be driven by poor habitat quality, and yes will create a herd that is very slow to recover. The whole premise of Herd Control and EAB seasons is to reduce herd productivity before it occurs naturally. These late fawns are then less likely to survive to maturity which further exacerbates the problem. Again the problem you are referring to here is the lack of deer being seen. [/align] The reason I hunt is not for the kill or the venison, but for the thrill of hearing that first snap of a twig, the perfect rhythm of crunching leaves that only a deer can make, and the anticipation of what you will see once the sounds finally appear. This thrill has been happening far too infrequently lately. I can't argue with you here. You are right on. A satisfied hunter must at least be able to hold hope that when they go out, they stand a reasonable chance to feel the adrenaline rush that just the sound of a deer brings. And there is no question that hunters are not seeing and hearing deer like they used to; not even like they did 20 years ago, when believe it or not deer densities were much lower. There are a host of variables that have changed deer sightability over the past 15 years that I think have little to do with the size of the deer population. I empathize with this frustration. Unfortunately, there may not be much we can do about these variables, and a satisfied deer hunter of the future will have to set expectations differently, regardless of increasing or decreasing deer numbers. [/align] As you know, all of the areas where I hunt and live have been or are EAB or Zone-T on and off for the last decade, especially the last five years. The decline in deer numbers is not a coincidence. If I had only one parcel of land on which to base this claim, perhaps I maybe wrong, but this is too wide-spread. I am not the only one seeing this-nearly everyone I know is experiencing similar results in EAB and Zone-T areas. The only issue between us here is whether the declining deer numbers is considered a good thing or a bad thing. We all want deer sightings to increase. Deer harvest is still well higher that it has ever been prior to the early 90's. In 2008 deer hunters finally demonstrated that hunting is a legitimate herd management tool, and that we are relevant to the rest of the world that is affected by deer numbers, and now we want to go right back to a deer herd that was (undoubtedly producing eye-popping harvest numbers) way out of balance with the landscape?[/align] The DNR is responsible for managing the resource as well as the resource user. Put in other terms, the resource users are your constituents. The revenue generated by license sales helps pay for your programs, equipment and ultimately your jobs. Your constituents-the deer hunting public- are not happy. The voting public was not happy with the previous political administration resulting in an historic and hopefully positive change. Wisconsin deer hunters are also in drastic need of change. I'm afraid that change may be up to the hunter in the form of a different approach to deer hunting. We are not returning to deer numbers we saw at the turn of the century. This change needs to happen sooner than later. The truly sad part is that even if EAB and Zone-T stopped immediately, it will take several years for recovery. Only if the over-populated herds of the previous 15 years have done long-term damage to their natural forage. I personally have no problem with shooting an adult doe. I have shot at least one doe every year that I have hunted and believe that they are much more of a trophy than a yearling buck, I share your feeling here yet I have never nor will I ever participate in a Zone-T hunt even if it means letting a nice buck walk. The whole principal is disturbing and wrong. Forcing people to kill antlerless deer (and in many cases fawns) to get a piece paper that more times than not goes unused devalues all that deer hunting should be. It turns my stomach. I couldn't disagree with you more here. Hunters that measure antler inches and refer to bucks as "shooters" or "management bucks" based on their antlers turns my stomach. The first objective of the hunt must be to simply reconnect with the land and natural processes, and perhaps share that experience others. You can have a very successful experience while coming home empty handed. The next measure of success of the hunt should be the procurement of meat by one's own hand. What is devaluing to the animal is considering a harvested fawn as a waste. As a student of ecology, you must acknowledge that the young of the year are naturally the most preyed upon, and most expendable members of the population. The mortality pattern that we as hunters place on the deer population has been quite unnatural for many years. Under herd control and EAB seasons, we actually come much closer to natural mortality patterns, as more fawns and mature bucks become the focus of our harvest. There's no question that a large buck is special and unique, and I will be tremendously excited if I ever get one (or see one). But I truly cherish the opportunity to put wholesome food on the table for my family in the form of young, tender venison. That's what deer hunting should be. But I am a realist and I don't pretend that the buck isn't preferred game. [/align] I am 40 years old. Deer and deer hunting have consumed me for my entire life. I have never been more discouraged. When my wife and I had our first child, a boy, I told her that if the rest of our kids were girls I would be fine because at least I would have one boy to share my passion for the outdoors with. I hope you would offer the same opportunity to a daughter. Mine is a cherished hunting companion. I now have two boys (ages 4 and 7). As things stand right now, I wouldn't even consider introducing them to deer hunting because they would be turned off immediately. This is no doubt a great challenge for all of us. Kids these days have so many other ways to experience that adrenaline rush without putting any real effort into it, that they can't imagine investing hours on end for just the chance at a heart-pounding moment. We can't compete with that. Our challenge is to expose them to the complete package of an outdoor experience and see what a REAL experience offers that a simulated one can't. That includes the peace and calmness of quite hours in nature, the curiosity and adventure of exploring what's around the next bend, and the payoff reward that only comes from hard work and patience. The excuse that we can't keep kids interested is real, but useless. It just means our role as a mentor of genuine life skills is that much harder, but more important than ever. Even I, as a die-hard, am having a hard time staying out in the woods after consistently seeing few or no deer. I am one of the lucky people to have access to quality private land where there are supposedly too many deer. I can't even imagine how bad it must be on public land.[/align] I know that your management is based on scientific theory and understand the principle behind the Age/Sex/Kill formula, but it is time to adjust. SAK has had an unquestionable success record 9 of the past 10 years, and about 9 years out of every decade before it. Yes, it threw us off some last year, as did the winters you speak of next; but I'll take a 9 and 1 record any day. For as much attention as the DNR's ability to estimate the herd gets, it really has no bearing on the individual hunter. A hunter is naturally concerned with what is available on his 40, 80, or 160 in your case. In all likelihood, that piece of land doesn't reflect the average deer density of the unit. Unfortunately deer distribution on the land is becoming more and more uneven, and more parcels hold below average deer numbers than above. This in part is contributing to fewer deer sightings for many hunters, while the overall deer population in the unit hasn't declined as drastically as one might think. The harvest tells us how many deer are out there, and the 2008 harvest has pointed out that the estimate had strayed some from reality. The beauty of the system is we can catch the error the very next year and adjust. Several years ago there was such a thing as the winter severity index and winter deer kills. Recent mild winters have virtually eliminated this concern (at least in the southern and central EAB and Zone-T areas). As for crop damage, farmers who want deer dead can basically have as many tags as they can fill. I refuse to believe that insurance companies are forcing your management hand to reduce car/deer crashes. Thank you, you are correct, and probably aware that many assume otherwise. So why do you feel the need to reduce the deer herd so drastically. I believe I've addressed this somewhat already; the ecosystem in general cannot sustain the deer densities of the previous decade, and will eventually result in fewer deer one way or the other. Wisconsin is lucky enough to be blessed with the natural habitat to sustain a large herd. Why not embrace this fact, advertise it, and use it to your advantage. States such as Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas do not have nearly the natural habitat that we do, yet they are becoming whitetail hunting destinations for many people because their resource managers are doing just the opposite of what Wisconsin is doing-limiting kill tags and thereby improving hunting. I personally know two groups of people that are foregoing buying Wisconsin licenses and only hunting out of state for these reasons. This is not a positive trend for you or anyone that has an interest in Wisconsin deer hunting! I also know of two other families who own large parcels of land in Oconto County who have not bought tags during the EAB years. Because they are lucky enough to have enough land to not be drastically affected by adjacent land owners, they are still enjoying good deer numbers and quality deer hunting.[/align] As I stated earlier, I'm sure that you have receive many letters expressing similar feelings and are probably frustrated with so much negativity, but this message needs to get through. A conservation warden I know told me that he had the area wildlife biologist ride along during the 2008 gun season to "hear the constant complaining that I hear all day", and that the biologist might be starting to think that there is some validity to the complaints. I hope that this is true and it results in a trend in the other direction. We rode with wardens more this year for the opportunity walk in each others shoes for a bit, and share experiences and perspectives. But trust me, wildlife staff get no shortage of negative input directly. Its not that we don't hear or understand the perspectives of a wide variety of hunter opinions. We have certain responsibilities that do go beyond the interests of some hunters. Here's another way to look at it. 640,000 gun hunters plus some archery only hunters is an amazing number. Even though we kill upwards of a half million deer each year (another amazing number); when you consider that many hunters that have the "prime" spots kill multiple deer each year (sounds like that includes you) that leaves well over 300,000 hunters that will not kill a deer, and easily tens of thousands of hunters that had what they would consider a bad year. This occurs even during a record harvest year. Its never surprising that we get negative feedback. We do try to take into consideration what we can change. But to simply make changes in an attempt to appease the disgruntled portion of the hunting public would simply not be responsible conservation. We are trying to strike the elusive balance. As you demonstrate, today even successful hunters find themselves often in the camp of unhappy hunters. This stems from the very real issue that hunters don't see deer like they used to. I've touched on a few reasons why that is (including yes fewer deer than 5 years ago). I bet you can think of even more reasons: baiting&feeding, a proliferation of sanctuary (including hunting land that used to get driven, and now only gets hunted by stand), and changing hunting styles (fewer deer drives, more sitting), etc.[/align] Current deer management has turned my obsession into frustration and depression. Please think long and hard about your current management and the points that I have brought up. I would appreciate you forwarding this to other wildlife managers so that they can do the same. Also I would like a response to get an idea of the direction that deer management may be heading. I think I may have invested as much in this letter as you have. Please know that I appreciate your passion and want to maintain an environment where you can pursue it the rest of your life. My wish for you and all fellow hunters is that we can position our attitudes and expectations where we can rediscover the joys of hunting that aren't jaded by trophy buck hype, 10 minute success stories on outdoor TV channels, and deer harvests of the past decade. There are still great experiences out there to be had. If someone told me I wouldn't see a deer this fall, they couldn't stop me from trying. There's too many wonderful things that happen almost every time I enter the woods.[/align] Thank you for your time and consideration. And thank you. I welcome further discussion. I'll share this with my colleagues, and I ask you to do the same with yours. [/align] P Jeff Pritzl[/align] Northeast Regional Wildlife Biologist[/align] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources[/align] 2984 Shawano Ave.[/align] Green Bay, WI 54313[/align] (()phone: (920) 662-5127[/align] (()fax:(920) 662-5413[/align] (+)e-mail: jeffrey[email protected][/align] [/align]
03-10-2009, 02:28 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hortonville, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,456
RE: wisconsin dnr
Thanks T-Bone, that was very informative. I have often wondered why this was all happening and this explains alot of my questions. Long Read but helped alot. I really apperciate it!
03-11-2009, 12:41 PM
#5
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 494
RE: wisconsin dnr
Here's what Igot out of it: I believe he genuinely cares and thinks they are heading in the right direction. I also agree with him. Now I'll say why. If last year truly was the 4th largest kill in history, we have nothing to complain about, really. I do remember years when I did not see a deer during the rifle season. It was very frustrating, but I had a very enjoyable hunting season, every season being with family and friends. Sure, I love to see multiple deer each sitting, but it does not make it "worth it or not". I will still go out and hunt even if I do not see the numbers. If anything, the process has changed as far as how to hunt sucessfully. If there is one thing I would change, it's baiting. It is my honest opinion, that this one thing has spoiled more sightings during the day than anything else. GEt rid of that completely and the sightings will go up. I know this is not a popular opinion, but it is my heart-felt opinion. I do not wish to take away from the feed stores revenue because of this, but I would love to see a statewide ban on baiting.
Thanks for taking the time to share, I actually have more respect for them because of their response. I would guess that most of the officers are not as good speakers as this gentleman.
Dandbuck
Thanks for taking the time to share, I actually have more respect for them because of their response. I would guess that most of the officers are not as good speakers as this gentleman.
Dandbuck
