Natural Resources Board sets deer season framework

On June 26 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) deer program specialist Jeff Pritzl spoke to the state’s Natural Resources Board (NRB) about recommendations coming from the County Deer Advisory Councils (CDACs) regarding the 2024 deer hunting season. 

Every spring the CDAC in each county sets quotas for antlerless deer harvest for that county.

Once the CDAC decides on a quota, using average hunter success rates, they determine if antlerless tags should be offered and, if so, how many on public land and how many on private land. Some counties also opt to hold a Holiday Hunt. The CDACs use information from the county wildlife biologist as well as public comments that are provided to them in person (at their meetings) via the mail or through the online public comment form. After setting their recommendations, the decision in each county is taken into consideration by the DNR deer advisory committee with their thoughts on each recommendation being forwarded to the NRB for final approval.

Pritzl told the board that, overall, antlerless quotas were down from 2023, but fairly similar to 2022. Most of that decrease was from the Northern Forest Zone, which was down approximately 25%, mostly with drops in public land tags.

According to Pritzl, only in Iowa County would the DNR deer advisory committee offer up a different look for the coming deer season. 

In the North, he said, the winter was quite mild, with a winter severity index of 10-12 across most of the North. The Winter Severity Index (WSI) is calculated by adding a point for every day that is below zero and a point for every day where there is more than 18 inches of snow on the ground. 

The higher the WSI the more severe the winter. 

Severe winters not only cause mortality, but also decrease success in having fawns, or of those fawns that are born being healthy. Many in the DNR have said in the past that WSI has the largest influence on deer herd numbers, especially in the northern counties.

Pritzl mentioned also that this year’s gun deer season will have the latest possible start date. When putting these two things together, he said, they could work against each other and there was some uncertainty about what the season would bring.

There was, and still is, grave concern across the Northwoods regarding the lack of deer seen in the woods, which some hunters attribute to not only the severity of the winter of 2022-23, but also to the marked increase in predators. 

This concern dominated discussions during both the Vilas and Oneida CDAC meetings this spring. 

Oneida County, in fact, decided to recommend no antlerless harvest for the 2024 season. Some, such as River News and Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker, who is also an Oneida CDAC member, went so far as to say, with the deer herd in the county in crisis, it could be conceivable that having a deer hunt at all was not advisable. 

There was much discussion, not only in the CDAC meeting in Oneida County, but also in a deer listening session in Woodruff last winter, regarding growing the deer herd in at least the western part of the county, about how to help the deer herd rebound and that the deer that were in that part of the county were mostly in town and in certain neighborhoods, rather than on public land.

Rob Bohmann from the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, thanked the CDAC members for their efforts and work on the quota setting and making recommendations for the deer hunting season. He also said the Conservation Congress felt the recommendations of the CDACs should stand, even in Iowa County, where the department itself recommended changes to the CDAC recommendation. It was the department’s position that the archery season in that county should be extended to the end of January 2025. The CDAC recommended a season closure dated for January 5, 2025.

Board member Marcy West said she felt there was an issue with both Bayfield and Oneida County recommending zero antlerless tags on public land and having antlerless tags on private land. Both Ashland and Iron counties have recommended zero antlerless tags for both public and private. She said that seemed more consistent to her. 

West said the hunt itself was one aspect of the deer herd. However, she said, she was not hearing anything about habitat management, which was another big piece of the puzzle. Pritzl said the influences of change were variable, such as the presence of federal and state land, specifically in Bayfield County. The issue was the creation of habitat would be predicated on the ability to harvest timber, and timber harvest differed depending on the manager of those public lands. Pritzl said much of the feedback comes from hunters utilizing public lands that were managed in such a way as to not provide a large deal of optimal habitat for deer.

“The question then becomes, if you provide opportunity for antlerless harvest on public land, where is that harvest going to be carried out?” Pritzl said. “Are the hunters going to go to where the opportunity is probably better on some public land. Or is there a concern that they may go and try to fill those tags in a part of the county where the deer population is challenged. That’s one of the driving concerns.” 

He also talked about the idea behind not harvesting antlerless deer at all. The thought behind that is to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow.

“But, what the science would suggest is, as long as you’re taking less than a certain number of antlerless deer, your influence on the future trajectory is, may be, insignificant.” As an example, he said shooting less than one antlerless deer per square mile would result in a negligble impact on the future of the deer herd. When public input comes in to CDACs that points toward not having an antlerless hunt, it can be a difficult thing for the councils to navigate.

“That begs the question, why didn’t you moderate Bayfield County and use science and balance those social in that decision?”

Pritzl said the department’s deer advisory committee had been in that position with several different counties over the years. While the deer advisory did recommend a “token” number of antlerless permits, as it moved through the process, with the pros and cons weighed, and in doing what they could to support the CDAC recommendations, they decided to keep the zero quota on public land for both Bayfield and Oneida counties.

“Overall, in Bayfield if you’re listening, in Oneida if you’re listening, I hear the concerns that there is reduced harvest and there is people people not seeing deer in specific places where they saw deer years ago,” West said. “But looking at this overall, I have significant concern that we are sending a significant message that antlerless permits are on private land and not on available on public land. And I think this board needs to take it very seriously that we send a message that whether you own land or have access to private land, we are doing what we can to offer opportunity, or some opportunities on public lands as well.”

Board member Robin Schmidt said she agreed with West.

“I find that it’s really pretty disturbing that, it feels to me almost like we are privatizing hunting, and I just feel like that’s not the right direction to go in,” Schmidt said. “I know that’s not the intent here, so I feel like that’s maybe a little extreme of a statement.” 

She asked Pritzl for a “token” number of antlerless tags that could be allowed without negatively influencing a deer population.

Pritzl reiterated that hunting would not be disallowed on public land, only antlerless harvest would be reduced. Turning off antlerless access, he said, seems to be reducing overall hunter effort. He said this is where the CDACs were struggling, weighing the pros and cons of not allowing antlerless harvest in the hopes of a better tomorrow where deer hunting is concerned.

“Oneida only had 500 last year, and you would recommend 800 there as well?” West asked Pritzl. 

“Again, this becomes the social versus the biological,” Pritzl said. “Yes, if you were going to treat it the same way based on past success rates, that would be a number you would come to.”

 Again, he reiterated that the department’s recommendation was to give a nod to the recommendations of the CDACs.

Bohman again took the podium and asked the NRB to go along with the recommendations of the CDACs. 

He said many people in Bayfield County, for instance, had stopped hunting in that county, while several other counties had bolstered their deer herds by holding back on the amount of tags. West countered saying she could see deer driving through Bayfield County or by looking at Snapshot Wisconsin photos from cameras. However, Snapshot Wisconsin trail cameras are largely on private land.

Schmidt said she felt that if taking only a few antlerless deer would not shift the dynamic of the deer herd, then providing that opportunity was something that should be considered. 

“I think the CDAC has made a tremendous move to shift the balance from public to more harvest on private,” Smith said. “I think, in making that to zero, has gone too far for me personally and philosophically I believe there needs to be opportunity there.”

Board member Paul Buhr said that he, too, was not comfortable with no public land harvest. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic several traditions had gone by the wayside, he noted before wondering aloud whether hunters would come back after years of not being able to harvest antlerless deer. 

In Oneida County in the spring, the CDAC voted for a quota of 540, with 2,160 tags on private land and zero on public land, given recent hunter success rates in recent years.

West said she still wanted to see public tags for both Bayfield and Oneida counties. She motioned to add 400 antlerless tags on public lands and to leave private tags as they were. Smith asked if she would be comfortable leaving the harvest number the same but reallocating some of them to public land. Smith said he would like to see some action on some of the things. She also noted that Pritzl had said the harvest level could be higher in Oneida County and stay under the threshold of influence on the deer herd. 

Pritzl said it had been done both ways in the past. They could either add permits and adjust the quota, or they could shift permits from public to private land. 

Smith said he would be comfortable if they stayed with the quotas selected by the CDAC and supported by the department. Deputy secretary Steven Little said he wanted to discuss this with legal counsel to ensure the board fully understood what they were discussing. Board member Doug Cox said, while he understood the concern, he wanted to hear West’s full motion. 

Little once again said he felt conferring with legal counsel would be in the best interest of the board. 

At that point the board took a break to do just that. Upon returning, Paul Buhr moved to increase tags in Oneida County by 400, which was seconded by Cox.

In the end, the board decided to move 400 tags from private to public land in Bayfield County and to add 400 tags to the quota in Oneida County and to have those tags available on public land. In the case of both of these counties, that would mean a harvest of approximately 100 deer.

Other issues

Chair Bill Smith asked Pritzl about several issues that have come up repeatedly, such as splitting deer management units (DMUs) based on habitat type, and how that might be addressed in the future. Pritzl said the department would be willing to facilitate any changes and to provide any information. Smith said he would like to see some of those matters addressed.