Winter kill can be a serious problem and a herd can take years to recover, especially with high predator numbers. Saw it happen to moose in Alaska. I'm seeing the results on deer from last winter here in ND. Obviously high quality habitat helps year round.

Wisconsin needs to get the wolves from the feds and open up a season!

Bad winter 22-23 = larger wolf pups produced because of all the carrion food for the females to feed on
no need for a rocket scientist report

I remember when CWD hit there was a mess of Wisc hunters coming up here to waterfowl hunt for their 2 week holidays with the boys

The nut case antler fanatic deer manager in Michigan says we are not killing enough does.
In Michigan we voted for Prop G in 1996, it says all wildlife management decisions need to be based on sound science.
Few years later the antler fanatics came up with the term "Social Science" in their desire to force antler point restrictions.
The social science is now behind allowing anti hunters to have a say and seat on commitees tasked with wildlife seasons and management.
Seems just recently year round coyote hunting was being reduced due to coyote pups being orphaned.
I could be wrong on some of this, when I saw Prop G being ignored I quit paying attention.

I just read this week he was going to veto this one

If the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is anything like it is in northern Minnesota the deer recovery will be very slow if at all.

A doe ban is one step form a deer ban. Somehow, we need to get real science back into wildlife management.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Northern MN has had the same doe ban for quite a few years. It has made no increase in the deer population because of all the wolves. Reduce the number of wolves and the deer population will increase.

I wasn't hunting on 81 but in 1991 nothing to see 30 deer all does with 1 buck in the herd browse lines and 1 doe tag for every 10 people
now 50 doe tags for 10 people and the only browse lines I see are late winter when there has been heavy snow.

then again where I am at in Door there wasn't a shortage of deer really ever.

I don't live up north but I have lost of relation that does and I know others.
The wolves have not wiped out the deer. The deer have gotten wise to the fact that its safer around cities and other higher densities of human habitation than out in the big woods with the wolves.
Not to mention there is often food in the way of bird feeders and people who feed the deer exclusively.
I get pictures from all the time from people up there that show dozens of deer at one time during the day feeding in their yards. One I know comments that the area that his group hunts is almost deerless but his backyard has dozens. This is 180 degrees from a couple of decades ago.

Another point is habitat. I focus on Grouse hunting. I have been hunting birds since the '70s up north. Thats a 1/2 century, boy, I'm getting old. I have noticed that logging, especially clear cutting which benefits grouse and deer is not what it used to be. Many of areas I hunted back in the '70's and 80's are grown up and thus have become poor habitat. Not nearly as much land it seems to me is being clear cut as there was decades ago

The left wants the wolves to take the place of sport hunting - it is working

How are the vehicle/deer kill numbers trending?

In my opinion, the GOP legislature would have helped the cause a lot more by joining into move the wolf plan forward instead of shutting down anterless harvests. Sure the plan maybe too wolf friendly, maybe drafted by persons we don't like or feel have our best interests in mind, but getting politically on the same side on issues like this and to work with our administrative organizations may move the control back to WI sooner than later. We need a season and a season for an extended period of time to better assess the wolf population and the increases in range etc. Way more resources get thrown at species with licenses, permits etc. and that will be helpful in the long run. Just blaming each other for our standstills gets us nothing. Our big issue currently is working across aisles to solve problems (compromise) is seen as being weak instead of strong or realistic. I doubt the governer would veto a bill that had NRB, GOP and WDNR and other stakeholders agreeing to a managment plan with harvest involved. Also with conservation agencies along with political input and native organization input it is much less likely that federal judges would rule against moving forward with that plan.

Another aspect is we think we won't act until we have the ultimate plan and things won't every change. That mindset prevents taking risks to set things in motion. Just look at all the changers (some good, some bad, some ugly) that have taken place in many species just in the last 20-30 years. We need to understand that one needs to gain control to be able to manage wildlife and that managing wildlife is an extremely "fluid" business.

Bryce

This is an expert of my email that I am sending to governor evers asking him to VETO the bill


Second, a complete ban on doe harvests for the entire northern forest zone is simply too broad. In Wisconsin we have county deer advisory committees. These address the population needs and number of tags that should be issued at a local level. For example, the Chippewa county forest, which is in northern Chippewa county and just barely in the northern forest zone, has plenty of deer. I have also heard from several landowners in northern Wisconsin that they are overrun with deer to such an extent that there is severe damage to crops.
Third, enacting a ban on killing does with the driving force being one bad hunting season is an overreaction. The low harvest numbers could be explained by many factors, including the abundant acorn crop, the warm weather affecting deer movement, the lack of snow affecting deer movement, fewer hunters out in the field, and hunters just getting lazier and not leaving the beaten path. The DNR released a statement this fall, saying that the remarkably large acorn crop had affected bear and turkey harvest numbers. The large number of acorns available to the deer will spread out where the deer are going. This means that just because there aren't deer going to and eating at representative Green’s corn pile, doesn’t mean that the deer all got killed by wolves. Another point I feel I should mention is that most hunters are getting lazier. Nowadays, a good number of deer hunters have private land with nice (expensive) stands that are difficult to move. These can make hunting more pleasurable, however the users of these stands expect the deer to always use the same areas. And when the deer don’t cooperate, they complain and put the blame on whatever they can, in this case blaming the wolves and introducing this legislation. Meanwhile, those of us who spend our time competing with lots of other hunters on public land, are used to running around swamps, logging waste, and “difficult to hunt” areas.
Fourth, some of us rely on deer meat for healthy, cheap meat. Deer meat has lower fat content and is 100 percent chemical free. More than that, deer are the largest animal in Wisconsin that you can just buy tags and harvest one or more. Bear and elk both take years to get a tag, therefore they are not a reliable source of meat. Depriving northern Wisconsin hunters of the opportunity to harvest does would be depriving them of a healthier alternative to commercial meat.
Fifth, northern Wisconsin has a lot more public hunting land than southern Wisconsin. Banning doe hunting up north would push the hunters that normally would hunt at northern public hunting areas like the vast chequamegon national forest and many other county forests , onto the already overcrowded southern Wisconsin public hunting areas. This will not only create even more competition for the low number of deer on southern Wisconsin public land, but also pose a safety hazard by cramming hunters even closer together. This will also deplete the southern Wisconsin public land herds.
Sixth, by banning the harvesting of does in the northern part of the state, there will be fewer mature bucks with good genetics within the herd. If hunters are only allowed to shoot bucks, more hunters will take the first buck that they see instead of waiting and hoping a mature buck shows up. Removing small, one and a half year old bucks from the herd prevents them from becoming the large trophy bucks that most hunters seek.
Seventh, as I previously mentioned, this past fall we had a remarkably high acorn crop. This provided deer with abundant food sources. On top of that, the mild winter that we have had has further assisted the deer population by keeping the acorns available and not covered in snow. With this in mind, this radical legislation is
eighth, the Wisconsin constitution guarantees us the right to fish, hunt,
trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions. This legislation, which is based on the opinion of several individuals that are not trained in fish and wildlife management, nor trust the people that have been trained in fish and wildlife management, is not reasonable.

I'm sure Evers loves the support. Be careful who you get in bed with.

he doesn't seem nearly as liberal as some of 'em though.

You can't be serious.

What are you guys that are against the ban basing your comments on. If the numbers are low they are low. Some on here are complaining about not seeing any deer at all. Blame it on the wolves, weather , over harvest. The only thing DNR can control is deer harvest. But I'll say this again. I hunted for 40 years and wasn't allowed to shoot a doe in my county. I lived. If anyone in eastern 1/3 of the state wanted to kill a doe you had to drive west. You meat hunters need to start looking for a place south.

x2

I don't want legislators with no biology or wildlife management knowledge going over the heads of the DNR staff trained and hired to manage wildlife. Especially when there are already methods in place to reduce antlerless harvest if that's what the public and the data actually supports.

Sorry you hunted in a state with such a poor deer population. Hopefully you're involved as much with management in KY as you are concerned with how we manage our wildlife here in WI.