Deer Management 101

I you don’t appreciate seeing, hunting or caring about the future of white tail deer you can skip this post.

I attended the DNR listening session for our deer management units (DMUs) last night in Algoma. These would be Units 80A, 80B, 80C and 81.

There was a rather large turn-out of hunters.

There was also the obligatory collection of three or four souls who naturally wish to dominate the discussion. Maybe they like the cat-calls and applause for brilliant ideas like letting the landowners do whatever they want with the deer.

They must think that people that hunt public land or people that just like watching wildlife don’t matter or have a say-so. Maybe they think the deer belong to them. Everyone else is not a stakeholder. Maybe they want American hunting to morph into a European form of hunting. You know, where only the landed aristocracy can hunt.

Teddy Roosevelt must be turning in his grave.

But I digress.

Anyway, the deer management units covering Door and Kewaunee Counties total 568 square miles of landmass. Of that, 194 square miles is considered deer range. This would include woodlots, swamps and other natural cover. It would not include agricultural fields, population centers, roads, water bodies and the like. Deer cannot live year-round in a field cultivated for annual crops so that acreage does not count.

If you were to talk to the old time deer hunters in our neck of the woods they will tell you that they can recall a time when there were no deer - or at least hardly any at all. They can also tell you about the forests dominated by elm that gave way to ash which will eventually succumb to an exotic borer from Asia. But that would be another story.

Back in the 1960s the State was hopeful to get the deer population around here up to 15 animals per square mile of range (not to be confused with total square miles). That was the goal. Remember there were not many deer. The goal was eventually reached by means of all sorts of arcane rules like you couldn't shoot does and they had the Party Permit system. Remember any of that?

By the time the 1980s rolled-around it was thought that it might be a good idea to get the deer population up to somewhere around 20 animals per square mile of range. That way there would be more hunting opportunities without having too many deer on the landscape.

There would be a balance. Regeneration of trees, shrubs, flowers and other wildlife would all be in a cooperative balance with the deer population. That goal was attained.

Following that, somehow things got away from everyone and the deer population ballooned.

About that noble goal of 20 deer per square mile of cover? The DNR estimates that we’re upwards of 38.

As you might guess, for the last decade and a half deer hunting around here has been fat and sassy. You could practically trip over the deer. I can remember one opening day that we had eight deer on our meat pole before sunset. The old Dutchman in our deer camp likened it to a stringer of deer.

But don’t take my word for it.

No other lakeshore DMU in northeast Wisconsin has harvests as high as we do in 80B. Our unit has an incredible ability to reproduce following repeated aggressive harvests.

Just last year the total harvest for the Door and Kewaunee units was 5,123 deer – and the kill was down significantly. Nonetheless, for the last decade 2008 represented the 10th highest gun buck harvest, 5th highest antlerless harvest, 8th highest bow buck harvest and 4th highest bow antlerless harvest.

What’s not to like about that?

Have we all become spoiled?

Now I know that plenty of people disbelieve the State’s ability to count all the deer accurately. But unless you were to hire an army of deer enumerators ever year to conduct a winter census of deer willing to complete and return their paperwork I’ll take the DNR’s estimates as basically being in the ball park.

I know that deer hunters (including me) tend to judge deer numbers based-upon what they see afield. We have excellent deer cover all around us and anecdotally I see large numbers of deer year-round.

I can also tell you that there isn't any natural regeneration of white cedar any longer and you cannot grow a soft maple if your life depended upon it. Visualize thousands of ten-year-old maple bushes.

I also know that deer are not distributed evenly across the landscape. As a result there are likely significant numbers of hunters frustrated by the reality that they are now hunting an area that is already at goal – yet they still have to hunt by the same rules as those with beaucoup deer.

That’s brutal.

So for about a decade we’ve all been grumbling and laboring under more arcane rules like Herd Control (T-Zone) or Earn-a-Buck. All with a notion to getting the deer numbers closer to goal.

Are we there yet? Nope.

Are we closer? Maybe. But it’s hard to say. Remember, we have a remarkable capacity to regenerate deer after repeated aggressive harvests.

Even though we struggle with managing to a real or perceived goal a curious phenomenon has manifested itself. Over the past decade the average age of the average buck killed has risen from 1.5 to 2.5 to 3.5 years. Under these arcane rules more bucks walk to live another year than ever before so the age structure is improving. That is not such a bad thing.

I don’t have any easy answers.

What I know is deer are remarkably resilient and I would rather their numbers be brought closer to goal and the quality of the hunt to continue to improve.

After all – it was easy – everyone could do it.