Deer Management Unit revisions get a second look

In recent months, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made some preliminary revisions to the Deer Management Units (DMUs) in the Northern Forest Zone. This change was spurred on by deer hunters in the Northern Zone, primarily a vocal group in Oneida and Vilas Counties. The County Deer Advisory Council (CDAC) in both counties have been asking the department for a number of years to split the county into two separate management units, based on habitat type. At this time, only the Northern Forest Zone and the metro sub-units were being looked at for revision.Once the proposed changes in the Northern Forest Zone were reviewed, and with input from the CDAC and others, more proposed revisions came to the surface. Those revisions were the topic of the recent DNR deer advisory committee.

After receiving public comment in various forms, the Deer Management Unit revision would look more like this map.
(Contributed image)

The CDACs were created in 2014, following the recommendations of the Wisconsin Deer Trustee James Kroll. At that time, DMUs became, for the most part, the boundaries of the counties. This is much like how DMUs of the 1920s through the 1940s looked. In the 1950s, the state moved to a more habitat-type based system where DMUs were concerned. While this worked well for a number of years, there was ever-increasing desire to chop those DMUs up again and again until, by 2012, there were over 120 DMUs statewide. The issue with this was that the DMUs were then too small to be able to effectively manage the deer herd any longer. The decision was made to not only change those boundaries to county lines, but also to create the CDACs as a citizen stakeholder group in each county that would work in an advisory capacity to the DNR for managing the deer herd in each county.

The recent changes came about based on CDAC and other stakeholder input. In a recent DNR deer advisory committee meeting, department deer specialist Jeff Pritzl unveiled proposed revisions to the map, which he called “option B.” While there was interest in going back to habitat-based DMUs, Pritzl said, there was no desire to go back to the more than 40 DMUs that were in place prior to the CDACs being set up. With that in mind, an initial, proposed map was released for public comment, and several open houses were set up across the north as another public input option.

One of the bigger concerns with the original proposed map was what was labeled as DMU 111. That DMU spanned portions of three counties from north to south, From southern Bayfield, through Sawyer County, down to northern Rusk County. Pritzl said he received a great deal of feedback at open house events this fall on this unit, based on Winter Severity Index and deer distribution patterns. 

A new unit, called “the key” was carved out first, around the Lac Courte Orielles Reservation, down to Ladysmith, which influenced the new thinking on dividing up unit 111. The new map would create unit 112, which would then be part of Ashland, Sawyer counties, with unit 111 being south of that, as shown on the accompanying map here. This reallocation of units also took into consideration differing deer densities, using the best roads possible as boundaries. There was also the recognition that, by using roadways as boundaries, there may be some higher density pockets of deer around the fringes of some units.

Unit 111, as shown on the map, would extend over to the east slightly. As things were being shifted and portions carved out of one piece, the department felt it made sense to shift units into other similar areas.

Farther to the east, the debate was over unit 116, which was essentially 29A and 29B in the past. There was some thought that the part of 116 surrounding the Lac du Flambeau reservation could be grouped in with 115, to the south, in eastern Price and western Oneida counties. However, the department felt it was better suited to keep that portion of 116 with the rest of the DMU as originally proposed, which would then encompass part of Iron and western Vilas counties. There was also some thought that the western portion of the area carved out around the reservation would be moved down to pool with 115, with the eastern and northeastern portion of that unit being grouped in with 116 to the north. There were thoughts for and against each of these changes from various groups. The decision was made that all of 29A would be grouped with unit 115, and the portion west of Highway 47 to the Lac du Flambeau reservation would go with 115 as well. This would mean the portions of the 116/115 in question directly north and directly east would be grouped with the current 116 on the Option B map.

Pritzl also spoke about predation and deer densities. He said one of the up sides of having deer management units that matched historical boundaries means that they match the game management units that still exist for bear registration data and, perhaps in the future, wolf registration data. This would allow the department to look at those relationships closer to determine any patterns over time. 

CDACs

There was also some discussion about how CDACs would operate under this new system. The Wisconsin Conservation Congress put forth the idea that CDACs would remain covering one county, yet still have the opportunity to manage those different DMUs in their county in a different way. Individual counties that shared a DMU could then get together to discuss management of that unit, should there be a disagreement between counties with a shared DMU.

Pritzl said it was a good conversation to have, looking at how that would work out. He said it was definitely a conversation that the Congress and the department would be having in the future. At this time, he said, the focus was on the creation of the proper units, with the CDACs to be laid over top of that once the units were correct. That would all be worked through once the committee and other stakeholders were satisfied they had created the best possible DMU options in the Northern Forest.

Committee decision

Ultimately, the committee decided to move the Option B map forward to the wildlife leadership team with the proposed changes. The map was largely supported by local department staff and the supervisory staff, with the only open question of local staff being the area around the Lac du Flambeau area. That final decision on the map was left to supervisory staff. While the first version of the revised DMU map was based on old DMU boundaries, but the Option B map was based on how those DMUs have changed over time as far as habitat, landscape use and deer densities. The committee, of course, is only advisory to the leadership team, Pritzl reminded, but he said he would forward on the committee’s support for the Option B map. He said he would also forward on the Conservation Congress’ wish to keep the CDACs in tact in some shape or manner.

Changes going forward

Pritzl also spoke about the revisions in general, saying there was little appetite to make continual changes to these units, which could cause hunter confusion. That said, however, as time went on, there may be more information that could come along that would warrant some minor tweaking of boundaries once they were in place. If it would be the case that there was clear evidence for a boundary change, the department would take that into account at that time.

The Option B map

The new map included here does contain historical deer per square mile goals. Pritzl said that was not to insinuate that those goals were coming back. That, he said, was not on the table. The old goals were included simply to help show which areas were similar and could have the potential to be grouped into a new DMU. This data, he said, was only included on that map in order to help facilitate grouping of units.

Public comment is now open for the proposed DMU revisions. For more information, or to provide public comments, head to the DNR website at dnr.wi.gov and enter keywords “deer management.”

Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].