Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Wisconsin: What are they doing?

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
Just an observation but didn't they eradicate most of their deer herd due to CWD around a half decade or so ago? I know its a rather large state with excellent deer habitat but with nearly a wiped out deer population less than a decade ago look at where they are ranked in taking BC deer since then!

Does anyone have any input or knowledge of how the Wisconsin DNR manages their herd. What are there hunting laws and restrictions as opposed to ours? They must be doing something right!

Trophy Whitetails Up 400 Percent Over 30 Years
Monday, January 30, 2012
Typical whitetail deer harvested by Brian J. Inda in Waushara County, Wisconsin, during the 2010 season. The buck scores 187-5/8 points.

Trophy whitetail entries from 2011 hunting seasons are beginning to pour into Boone and Crockett Club headquarters. But while the sporting world waits to see which states are hot--or not--producers of giant bucks, North America's overall robust trend in whitetail entries is a story for all conservationists to celebrate.

B&C historical records show that trophy whitetails are up 400 percent over the past 30 years.

"It's worth remembering where America's favorite big-game species stood not so long ago--at the brink of extinction," said Ben Wallace, Club president. "In 1900, less than 500,000 whitetails remained. But habitat programs, research, science-based management, regulations and enforcement, all led and funded by hunters, brought this game animal back to extraordinary levels. Today there are more than 32 million whitetails!"

The Boone and Crockett system of scoring big-game trophies originated in 1906 as a means of recording details on species thought to be disappearing. Over time, these records evolved as an effective way to track the success or failure of conservation efforts.

As North America’s whitetail herd has grown, numbers of big bucks also have risen.

For the period 1980-1985, hunters entered 617 trophy whitetails into Boone and Crockett records.

For the period 2005-2010, the total jumped to 3,090, an increase of 400 percent.

During this 30-year span, many states and provinces saw percentage gains much greater than the continental average (see data below). For example, trophy whitetail entries from Wisconsin have risen 857 percent. In Illinois, the increase is 896 percent. Ontario went from a single entry to a whopping 41—a 4,000 percent gain!

Six states and provinces had zero entries in 1980-1985. For 2005-2010, they combined for 48.

Boone and Crockett offers two premier ways to trace and detail historic conservation developments, not just with whitetails but many other species as well.

A book, "Records of North American Big Game," offers detailed tabular listings for trophies in 38 different categories of game. Each entry includes the all-time entry score, date harvested, location of kill, hunter and owner names, and selected measurements. At 768 pages, the book retails for $49.95.

A searchable online database, called "Trophy Search," is another exceptional resource. By buying an annual subscription, users can sort B&C archival data in infinite ways to identify national as well as local trends. An annual subscription is $50.

Boone and Crockett Club Associates receive discounts on both items. Order online at www.boone-crockett.org or by calling 888-840-4868.

The list below includes state-by-state rankings for whitetail entries during the period 2005-2010, plus comparative data from 1980-1985.

B&C Trophy Whitetail Production, 2005-2010
(Typical and non-typical trophies combined)

1. Wisconsin, 383 entries (1980-1985 rank 3rd, 40 entries)
2. Illinois, 299 entries (1980-1985 rank 6th, 30 entries)
3. Iowa, 224 entries (1980-1985 rank 2nd, 59 entries)
4. Ohio, 215 entries (1980-1985 rank 14th, 16 entries)
5. Missouri, 214 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
6. Kentucky, 199 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
7. Indiana, 195 entries (1980-1985 rank 16th, 14 entries)
8. Kansas, 181 entries (1980-1985 rank 4th, 35 entries)
9. Minnesota, 172 entries (1980-1985 rank 1st, 76 entries)
10. Saskatchewan, 147 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)
11. Texas, 132 entries (1980-1985 rank 12th, 19 entries)
12. Alberta, 115 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)
13. Nebraska, 78 entries (1980-1985 rank 18th (tie), 12 entries)
14. Oklahoma, 48 entries (1980-1985 rank 22nd (tie), 7 entries)
15. Ontario, 41 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
16. Arkansas, 40 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
17 (tie). Michigan, 39 entries (1980-1985 rank 17th, 13 entries)
17 (tie). Mississippi, 39 entries (1980-1985 rank 18th, 12 entries)
19. North Dakota, 31 entries (1980-1985 rank 31st (tie), 4 entries)
20. Pennsylvania, 26 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
21. New York, 25 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
22. South Dakota, 24 entries (1980-1985 rank 20th (tie), 8 entries)
23 (tie). Georgia, 23 entries (1980-1985 rank 5th, 31 entries)
23 (tie). Maryland, 23 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
25 (tie). British Columbia, 19 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
25 (tie). Maine, 19 entries (1980-1985 rank 11th, 20 entries)
27. Virginia, 17 entries (1980-1985 rank 22nd (tie), 7 entries)
28. Tennessee, 15 entries (1980-1985 rank 20th, 8 entries)
29. Colorado, 13 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
30. Idaho, 11 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
31 (tie). Massachusetts, 8 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
31 (tie). Quebec, 8 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
33. Delaware, 7 entries (1980-1985 rank 42nd (tie), 1 entry)
34 (tie). Louisiana, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 28th (tie), 5 entries)
34 (tie). Manitoba, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 15th, 15 entries)
34 (tie). Washington, 6 entries (1980-1985 rank 31st (tie), 4 entries)
37 (tie). Montana, 5 entries (1980-1985 rank 13th, 17 entries)
37 (tie). Alabama, 5 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
37 (tie). North Carolina, 5 entries (1980-1985 34th (tie), 3 entries)
40 (tie). Connecticut, 4 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
40 (tie). New Hampshire, 4 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)
42 (tie). New Jersey, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 45th (tie), 0 entries)
42 (tie). New Brunswick, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
42 (tie). West Virginia, 3 entries (1980-1985 rank 34th (tie), 3 entries)
45 (tie). Mexico, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 24th (tie), 6 entries)
45 (tie). Wyoming, 2 entries (1980-1985 rank 38th (tie), 2 entries)


Share17
 

brock ratcliff

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
24,834
247
They only tried to kill em off entirely in a small area. WI is by far my favorite place to deer hunt, though after being in IA this summer, I may change my thought on that. Big deer, nice folks, scandanavian-descendant girls....WI is neat.
 

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
The main purpose of this thread is due to the low numbers of what our deer herd seems to be can't be anything as bad as Wisconsins was back when they basically exterminated many of their herd to eradicate the CWD problem. The question I have is what directives did WDNR enforse to put them and keep them at the top of the BC entries list?
 

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
If my memory serves me correctly I though they had killed hundreds of thousands of deer and buried or burned them in massive pits. I remember NAW had several articles on the subject during this time and I remember saying to myself, "I'm glad I don't have to hunt there during the next several years!" Boy, was I WRONG!lol
 

Jackalope

Dignitary Member
Staff member
38,841
260
I haven't looked in to it or know anything about it.. But I'll look in to it. I guess the first question that begs answering is this. What method and selection did they use in deciding which deer to kill? We're they selective in saying "don't shoot big bucks" if so hitler tried to do the same thing. create a super race of people. Y culling the undesirables. Deer are prolific breeders. If you shoot 66% of them and leave the big boys. It will only be a couple years before you're back at 100% providing you leave the last 33% alone. If you left the big guys what you will have is a massive spreading of very good genetics in a short period of time...

Either way it is irrelevant to Ohio. Ohio will continue to have big deer regardless. We have the genetics and a 1 buck limit.. Now imagine the impact if we had a buck limit of 2 in zone A. 4 in zone B, and 6 in zone C... that would suck and severely impact the herd... Where have I seen those numbers before? Oh, that's right, that's what we're doing to our doe population.
 
Last edited:

jagermeister

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
18,060
223
Ohio
Here's some good info.

This one is a bit dated (1998), but I believe the program has remained the same, at least as far as I can tell.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/deerbook.pdf

A couple more...
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/popgoal.htm
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/DEER/maps.htm

From what I've gathered just briefly, it appears that WI runs a deer management program very similar to Ohio. The over-wintering population estimate models are likely the same, as both are based largely on antlered buck harvest stats. One big difference, though, is that WI has something like 130 different deer management units, whereas Ohio only has 3. Based on WI's trophy stats and harvest numbers over the past decade, it appears to be working rather well... Although, this quote from the 1998 Deer Management Program bulletin pretty much conflicts that...

"It is often popularly believed that smaller units result in more precise management, butthe opposite is more often true. Fragmentation of units reduces the precision of herd monitoring capability because sample sizes for key herd data (age data, hunting pressure, productivity) are smaller and subject to more inaccuracy. A change in any unit boundary also affects adjacent units. So, realignment of boundaries should be a last resort to resolving perceived problems within a unit. The cost in lost information and consistency of herd management is high every time a unit boundary is changed."


An interesting thing to consider, which we haven't really talked about in the other thread, is the effect that habitat changes have on population dynamics. Here's another quote from the management plan...

"Local deer carrying capacity is strongly related to the proportion of the forest that is in aspen and “openings” (meaning grass, upland brush, and clear-cut). Carrying capacity in forested regions continues to decline. The presence of agricultural crops for food is a more important factor for deer carrying capacity in the farmland regions."

I've been hunting SE Ohio for at least a week at a time for the past 9 years in a row. One thing I've noticed is the significant amount of mature timber down there. There are vast areas of nothing but open hardwoods... essentially just a monoculture of habitat. As these state forests mature, the acreage of "brush land" decreases, thereby decreasing the carrying capacity of the land, for deer. It also affords the deer less cover from predators... both natural and human. Obviously maturing timber isn't the only factor affecting our deer population, but in my opinion it probably has a larger effect than most realize. Think about it... The NW areas of Ohio are primarily agricultural, with very small and scattered woodlots. The deer are there, but not very abundant... Too much tilled ground, not enough timber and brush. The SE areas of Ohio are primarily mature forests, with very little tillable land... Too much mature timber, not enough brush and ag. Now think about central Ohio, running from Cleveland toward Cinci... lots of agricultural, and a good balance of timber and brush. It's the perfect mixture of whitetail habitat... And coincidentally, it's where harvest numbers are holding pretty strong.

I'm sure there's been a noticeable habitat transition over the past 15 years down in SE Ohio, as the timber has matured. Funny how this transition coincides with changing attitudes of SE Ohio deer hunters...

Adding extra anterless tags while habitat diversity is on the decline seems like a surefire way to start a snowball effect.
 
Last edited:

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,720
248
Ohio
Going on memory here, but I thought there were only 3-4 counties they tried to wipe them out in. The interesting part would be to find out what percentage of their trophy bucks came from those counties since the eradication.

Maybe more interesting would be to look into MN. They were #1. Now they are #9. Might want to see what factors have caused them to drop? Is it the same factors we are looking at? Good info and conversation starter Ric!
 

Milo

Tatonka guide.
8,184
157
Jb i can tell you when the economy first turned sour it took about 8 months to see the logging business boom down our way. they were rustlin wood outta there like they stole it...hell maybe they did.
 

jagermeister

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
18,060
223
Ohio
Jb i can tell you when the economy first turned sour it took about 8 months to see the logging business boom down our way. they were rustlin wood outta there like they stole it...hell maybe they did.

Well the economy is certainly part of the problem. I highly doubt the logging industry is booming down there right now, right? I mean, timber prices are about as low as ever right now.
 

Milo

Tatonka guide.
8,184
157
Well the economy is certainly part of the problem. I highly doubt the logging industry is booming down there right now, right? I mean, timber prices are about as low as ever right now.

all i know in my corner of the world is that 75% of the timber has been cut in my square mile in less than 5 years.
 

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
Thanks for the input guys, especially JB. I imagine based on the land mass vs. BC deer entries comparing Wisky and Buckeye that Ohio does pretty good considering. Phil said it best though as it would be very interesting seeing how the areas in Wisky that were hit the hardest recovered so well. A point that has yet been looked into by me yet. I bet Joe can dig it up pretty quick....hint hint! Lol

That is if he ain't TOO busy surveying his own thicket tonight! Lmao
 

jagermeister

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
18,060
223
Ohio
all i know in my corner of the world is that 75% of the timber has been cut in my square mile in less than 5 years.

I don't know what's up. My buddy is a consulting forester on the side, and according to him there's virtually nothing going on... at least not like there would be if houses and furniture were being built.

Thanks for the input guys, especially JB. I imagine based on the land mass vs. BC deer entries comparing Wisky and Buckeye that Ohio does pretty good considering. Phil said it best though as it would be very interesting seeing how the areas in Wisky that were hit the hardest recovered so well. A point that has yet been looked into by me yet. I bet Joe can dig it up pretty quick....hint hint! Lol

That is if he ain't TOO busy surveying his own thicket tonight! Lmao

I doubt they did anything special to help the CWD zones bounce back. They probably just reduced bag limits and let the deer recover on their own. Add to that the increase in QDM and trophy hunting during those years, and boom, a bunch of booners hitting the dirt just like everywhere else. I'd be real interested to hear about the strategy if I'm wrong, though.
 
Last edited:

Mountaineer

Banned
661
0
WV
Im putting together a harvest in Washington co. near Whipple. It will be intresting to see what this timber brings. Its my first Ohio Sale.
 

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
There's some big ole bucks that have come from area! Many prolly don't even get scored. My buddies and I used to stop by Highland Park on Saturday nights to drink some brews in the parking lot and check out the babes inside square dancing. That cook in there made the best fuggin hamburgs! After drinking suds all night working on a good buzz his hamburg and fries combo always helped me sober up to drive home. Lol

It ain't but a five to ten minutes from Whipple(lower Salem) area.

Sorry for the side track but Mountaineer sent me down memory lane.lol
 

bowhunter1023

Owner/Operator
Staff member
48,879
274
Appalachia
Well the economy is certainly part of the problem. I highly doubt the logging industry is booming down there right now, right? I mean, timber prices are about as low as ever right now.

Timber prices are in the shitter. We had less than $50K in timber on a 12.5 mile pipeline project. Almost every land owner disputed our state certified appraisal because they didn't realize how bad things were. Some places had appraisals done 5 years ago and they were twice what we paid...
 

finelyshedded

You know what!!!
Supporting Member
31,855
260
SW Ohio
Wow, so much for buying nice timber land and select cutting it to help payoff the property. I hadn't realized the prices dropping like that.