More deer killed by wolves than hunters in some Wisconsin counties

[BWALKER77]

It's hunters asking the govt to go in & kill predators. I'm all for folks doing it through their seasons. It doesn't change the fact that ungulate numbers are more influenced by habitat than any other issue.

Great, so you would support aerial gunning in MT to reach objectives?

 

[JLS]

Great, so you would support aerial gunning in MT to reach objectives?

Under very specific circumstances.

 

[BWALKER77]

Wolves are taking there share of deer in the U.P of Michigan from what I have read !!!!

They are, but the MI DNR doesnt help with long seasons, doe tags, etc.
For instance the DNR allows archery hunters to shoot does in the northern half of the UP, which has very few deer. Then they allow two bucks to be killed as well. Along with a 2.5 month archery season that allows the use of crossbows.

 

[Fsmith]

I didn't realize Wisconsin had such a poor deer herd. I mean, it's only 2 million animals w/1 county as a buck only zone.

The horror.

Deer population at potential record high as hunters set sights on 2019 Wisconsin gun season

The Department of Natural Resources estimates 2 million white-tailed deer are present in Wisconsin, providing good prospects for hunters in the 2019 gun season.

www.jsonline.com

Don’t believe everything you read in the media!

 

[ImBillT]

Comparing gardening to wildlife management?

@MTGomer is right. We may even be getting dumber.

Comparing gardening to wildlife management?

@MTGomer is right. We may even be getting dumber.

It’s called an analogy. You’ve suggested that it is invalid, while giving neither a reason, nor supporting evidence to suggest it’s invalidity. I’m sure such tactics win some arguments at the bar or in the locker room, but they’re not likely to win many debates judged by an educated and sober committee. Feel free to prove why the analogy is invalid.


It’s easy to look out your window and see your entire crop, and it’s also easy to see the negative effects of pests in a single season. It’s not easy to look out the window and see the entirety of elk or deer habitat, and it’s not easy to see the effects of a growing predator population within a single season, but the facts of the issue remain. Deer and elk habitat are limited, therefore deer and elk populations are limited. We attempt to keep hunter harvests within a range that generally keeps those populations stable(of course there are exceptions). Increasing mortality due to predation decreases the amount of hunter harvest that can be allowed while maintaining those populations. I’m not claiming that it’s a 1-to-1 trade. It is not. That said, there is no getting around the fact that a certain level of mortality caused by predation will decrease the allowable mortality caused by hunters. The questions are, how much should we accept, and how much are we willing to accept. I could easily be missing it, but when I hear from the wolf and grizzly crowd, there are a few things I never hear. How many deer or elk tags will we lose as a result of their increased populations? How many deer and elk tags will be considered too many and result in a change of the wolf or grizzly management plan? It’s quite easy to estimate how many deer or elk a wolf will eat in a year, and our game management agencies seem to think that hunter harvest statistics are important to managing game populations, so where is the number? How many tags will we loose if wolf populations reach what level, and what will we do about it?

 

[JLS]

@ImBillT First, paragraphs are nice. I will give you a detailed reason for my argument when I have access to my laptop, but I can assure you it will be no bar room argument or tactics.

 

[huronmtns]

They are, but the MI DNR doesnt help with long seasons, doe tags, etc.
For instance the DNR allows archery hunters to shoot does in the northern half of the UP, which has very few deer. Then they allow two bucks to be killed as well. Along with a 2.5 month archery season that allows the use of crossbows.

The Northern two thirds of the UP will not allow archery hunting for does any longer. They changed that regulation a number of years ago. Pretty much after the really bad winters you had referenced when you were still living the deep snow country. I just thought I would point out that the sportsmen in the North half brought up this change to the DNR and it was accepted for a rule change if I am remembering things correctly. And yes they still allow double buck harvest if you have 3-4 points on one antler side. Or you only can harvest one buck with intention of less than 3 points per antler on one side.

 

[mtmiller]

Don’t believe everything you read in the media!

Interested in your comment, could you elaborate?

I didn't read this in entirety, so who knows what I missed. The first page did make it sound pretty rosy.

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/Deerfallforecast2019.pdf

 

[rjthehunter]

The Northern two thirds of the UP will not allow archery hunting for does any longer. They changed that regulation a number of years ago. Pretty much after the really bad winters you had referenced when you were still living the deep snow country. I just thought I would point out that the sportsmen in the North half brought up this change to the DNR and it was accepted for a rule change if I am remembering things correctly. And yes they still allow double buck harvest if you have 3-4 points on one antler side. Or you only can harvest one buck with intention of less than 3 points per antler on one side.

You know, one big reasons these "bad winters" are so hard on prey animals is because of the snow? Wolves can move better and have the advantage in the snow making it easier for them to kill.

 

[huronmtns]

You know, one big reasons these "bad winters" are so hard on prey animals is because of the snow? Wolves can move better and have the advantage in the snow making it easier for them to kill.

Don't forget coyotes too. Especially bad when the snow starts crusting up at night in the month of March. The predators can run on top of the 18" plus of snow while the deer break through with nearly every step.

 

[rjthehunter]

It’s called an analogy. You’ve suggested that it is invalid, while giving neither a reason, nor supporting evidence to suggest it’s invalidity. I’m sure such tactics win some arguments at the bar or in the locker room, but they’re not likely to win many debates judged by an educated and sober committee. Feel free to prove why the analogy is invalid.


It’s easy to look out your window and see your entire crop, and it’s also easy to see the negative effects of pests in a single season. It’s not easy to look out the window and see the entirety of elk or deer habitat, and it’s not easy to see the effects of a growing predator population within a single season, but the facts of the issue remain. Deer and elk habitat are limited, therefore deer and elk populations are limited. We attempt to keep hunter harvests within a range that generally keeps those populations stable(of course there are exceptions). Increasing mortality due to predation decreases the amount of hunter harvest that can be allowed while maintaining those populations. I’m not claiming that it’s a 1-to-1 trade. It is not. That said, there is no getting around the fact that a certain level of mortality caused by predation will decrease the allowable mortality caused by hunters. The questions are, how much should we accept, and how much are we willing to accept. I could easily be missing it, but when I hear from the wolf and grizzly crowd, there are a few things I never hear. How many deer or elk tags will we lose as a result of their increased populations? How many deer and elk tags will be considered too many and result in a change of the wolf or grizzly management plan? It’s quite easy to estimate how many deer or elk a wolf will eat in a year, and our game management agencies seem to think that hunter harvest statistics are important to managing game populations, so where is the number? How many tags will we loose if wolf populations reach what level, and what will we do about it?

They don't want to look at it like that. No matter how much sense it makes, they won't understand. What doesn't make sense to me is that this is a hunting forum, so it's pretty safe to say we're all interested in hunting no? Anyone like harvesting elk and deer? Like Bill has mentioned, 95% of the red meat I eat in a year is from wild game. To have the number of tags cut in half or decline severely, I would be forced to a. Not hunt as much, and b. Buy beef. Whole thing goes back to global warming if you think about it.

Get this...

Wolves get reintroduced and go unmanaged; tags are cut to accommodate the wolves appetite; hunters spend less time hunting due to lack of tags; hunters are forced to purchase meat from a grocery store; cattle farmers expand; humans create more "global warming" with their tractors and factories.

So where are all the wolf advocates that want to limit hunting opportunities even more because there's an animal eating tags they could've filled?

 

[mtmuley]

A Toby Bridges disciple. mtmuley

 

[BWALKER77]

The Northern two thirds of the UP will not allow archery hunting for does any longer. They changed that regulation a number of years ago. Pretty much after the really bad winters you had referenced when you were still living the deep snow country. I just thought I would point out that the sportsmen in the North half brought up this change to the DNR and it was accepted for a rule change if I am remembering things correctly. And yes they still allow double buck harvest if you have 3-4 points on one antler side. Or you only can harvest one buck with intention of less than 3 points per antler on one side.

Any idea what year that changed?
I do believe that for many years after the winters in question archers could shoot does in the northern half and the gave out doe tags in the DMU's of the southern and central UP where many of the deer from the northern half migrate.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I laughed. You clearly dont live kin WI or know much about the WI wolf issue so you brad brush is by mistake.

no I think he is pretty much spot on

 

[bluespruce]

Got it. Thanks!

Lots of factors to consider, but it would seem with more deer & fewer harvests, it's tough to put the blame on wolves. Loss of access, loss of hunters, etc would be your biggest indicators.

Or there's not actually more deer. Wisconsin's population estimates are done using equations (developed in the 1960s) that take the actual buck harvest data and then apply various factors that account for buck-to-doe ratios and survival rates to arrive at a total population estimate. Seems like under or over estimating certain items like, ohhh I don't know, predator kill perhaps, would result in an inaccurate total population estimate.

I'm not saying its all the wolves fault, just that the WDNR has taken a lot of criticism over the last 10-15 years for what many feel are wildly inaccurate population estimates. Put your article and mine side-by-side (same author, written 2 weeks apart as a side note) and I think you can see where some of this criticism comes from.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I have not read this entire thread, but I gotta say this is sensationalist journalism at its finest. Three HUGE factors left out of the headline:

1. Doe tags are limited in these areas vs. other counties so a lot of guys are buck only
2. There was a huge snowstorm midway through the season that really put a halt on deer movement
3. Season was about as late as it can be (sometimes we are early enough to catch the trail end of the rut). Numbers were comparable to other years when the rifle season was this late.

Like always, many factors lead to hunting success, but it is always easiest to blame the DNR or the Woofs

 

[SAJ-99]

Do you believe that the greatly reduced elk numbers in YNP and MT hunting district 316 is caused by habitat loss?

I get a sense you are being sarcastic, but this is a very specific situation and a great example to use for this discussion because there is lots of data on the norther herd population, wolf population dynamics and (313/316) harvest. But I don’t want facts to get in the way of a good argument. Carry on everyone.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

The title of the article states that "wolves kill more deer than hunters in 2019". This is unequivocally false. The title of this thread claims wolves kill more deer than hunters in certain counties. This is also false. If the author of the article wanted to be taken seriously they wouldn't have made such a broad claim when the reality is wolves only killed more deer in four counties than did hunters during ONLY the 9 day gun season. Unfortunately, the author makes factual statements within the article, but he loses his ability to seem unbiased and objective by using a blatantly false and likely purposefully misleading title and through his selective use of harvest data within the article.

The total deer harvest by hunters counting the 9 day gun season, archery season, crossbow season, muzzleloader season, and december antlerless seasons for these four counties vs. estimated wolf harvest looks like this.

Ashland: 1276 deer harvested (700 in the 9 day rifle season, 139 in the archery season, 327 in the crossbow season, 37 in the youth season, 64 in the muzzleloader season, and 9 in the December antlerless season) vs 900 estimated wolf kills.

I'm not going to break down the rest but the total harvest by ALL DEER HUNTERS on the DNR website is as follows:

Iron: 517 deer harvested vs 400 estimated wolf kills.

Douglas: 2913 deer harvested vs 2260 estimated wolf kills.

Forest: 1158 deer harvested vs. 820 estimated wolf kills.

So no, as a matter of fact, wolves did not kill more deer than hunters in any county in Wisconsin in 2019. I don't even know about any potential tribal hunting taking place in those counties, that may or may not be another source of hunter harvest of deer in those counties. Perhaps a Wisconsin hunter on this thread could enlighten us on whether any tribal hunting takes place in those counties.

I doubt any of us oppose scientifically sound wolf management by the states, but parading around articles with incredibly misleading titles such as this does not serve us well. We should be honest and make factual arguments for state control. This article is not that. The claim in the title that wolves killed more deer than hunters, which any reasonable person would define as all deer hunters, does not stand up to five minutes of scrutiny.

There is likely significant tribal hunting in Ashland County, and likely some in all the counties. The author of the article had a goal with the article, and then collected data to prove his goal. Kinda how journalism is now days....

 

[SAJ-99]

I am not being sarcastic. I disagree that habitat is the main factor in ungulate populations when in a predator rich environment.

There are no elk in NYC Central Park, but you are correct. All else being equal, there are less elk when wolves are present than when they are not.

 

[huronmtns]

Any idea what year that changed?
I do believe that for many years after the winters in question archers could shoot does in the northern half and the gave out doe tags in the DMU's of the southern and central UP where many of the deer from the northern half migrate.

Wow it was later change than I thought it was, "2015" about 20 years after you mentioned per the extreme winters in 1995. We also had some very bad winters prior to 2015 that drove the request for this change. I also believe the intent was to help the Lake Superior water shed deer yarding complexes due to the increased amount of snow vs the Central and Southern yarding complexes.