Just my two cents, I say harvest the yearling does and leave the adult does. If you harvest three Yearling does and leave the adult doe she will survive and you will have three more yearling does to harvest the next year, instead of harvesting the adult does and leaving the yearlings to starve over the harsh winters as of late.

Meant to add that for outside of the CWD zone, season structures won't be out until everything is close to being final, sometime in March.

Spark, yes, winter severity and kill is taken into account when we look at our harvest goals for a given year. There has long been some debate, both internally and externally, whether our method of using the Winter Severity Index, or WSI, is an adequate way of predicting winter kill effects. For example, I would say that we underestimated the effects of the deep snow (not to mention the very wet Spring, but there is no index for that) last year and thus likely overestimated deer population numbers in the North. Numbers are not final yet, but that is what it looks like.

Chief, as for the season structure, in CWD land we should have the same structure for the next 3-5 years. We all like stability in our structures, until we get a season we don't like! The CWD Stakeholders suggested keeping the same season structure in the CWD area for 5 years (the structure we had last season), but there has been considerable pressure from both sides to now review the structure after 3 years. As for the rest of the state, it is mostly population and recent history driven when determining if a unit has a earn-a-buck, herd control, or regular season structure. On that note, we are looking at consolidating units into larger ones which should reduce changes in structures from year to year and enhance our population estimate accuracy in units where we use SAK.

1919, as for the wolves, Wisconsin will never have populations of wolves living in the current CWD area, there are just too many people and it is too fragmented for wolves to persist. We may get a wolf or two now and then, but not a persistent population, so they won't effect our CWD deer as it stands now. It also looks like the wolf population has completed its rebound as their numbers leveled off and even went slightly down in the past couple of years. It looks like they now inhabit every place in Wisconsin that they can and that the population is saturated. Just thought I'd pass that along, even though it is irrelevant to CWD.

The way the wolf population is rebounding in the state we wont have to worry about special CWD hunts. The wolves will naturally hunt the sick and week. And there is definately no change in numbers around Edgerton, I bet I seen 15 to 20 deer every time I was out bow hunting. The little hollow by the interstate in Newville behing Dennys usually has at least 50 deer in it every night.

Davin_Lopez-Thanks for the response. Again, I want to clarify what I meant by the carry capacity. Obviously the DNR's goal is to reduce deer herd numbers. My point to the winter kill over the last two years and the carry capacity was this. Obviously the last two tough winters have had effects on the deer herd. North and South. We all just hope that is seriously being considered when trying to reduce numbers. On top of that the wolf population has had an effect on the population. Myself and many other hunters can tell you that we are not seeing nearly the same amount of deer that we used to. Hence your goals should be working and a change in the season structure should be carefully weighed. I agree with chief. Having the season structure change every year is getting really frustrating.

Kudos to Davin for stepping up to the debate. My opinion of the DNR just went up a notch.

Mr. Lopez has there been anything final on what the season structure will look like. The biggest problem I have had with all this is the changes from year to year. I would like to see it go back to the split season or at least some consistency from year to year. It is virtually impossible to schedule a vacation around the DNR.

Spark, thanks for clarifying. I still think you are overestiamting the insurance companies power over such an important and far-reaching topic as deer management. I'm sure at governmental levels much higher than mine that they (insuracne companies) try to exert an influence, and do have some, small effect (as do farmers, people concerned with human safety, etc. to name a few of those that exert social-tolerance influences), but not to the degree that many think. In relation to carring capacity, I'd like to hear yur thoughts on this: how does lowering deer harvest numbers in the North or South (there are carrying capacity problems in some southern areas), thus, in theory, increasing the size of the deer herd, help to alleviate winter kill? In short, how does having more mouths to feed help reduce starvation-related deaths? Our goals are based upon holding deer well blow AVERAGE carrying capacities for many reasons, one of which is to prevent degradation of the deer's habitat through over population and the resulting starvation. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. I do hear you loud and clear on the tradition item. We all realize that liberal seasons for herd reduction and disease management screw up Wisconsin's long-standing deer hunting traditions, and that many do not like it. My answer to that, however, is that traditional deer seasons are no longer capabale of controlling deer populations at a long-term sustainable level in many parts of the state, let alone manage a disease. I know it stinks to step on the toes of the very same hunters we rely on to help us with deer managemnt, but in my opinion, to not do so would have long-term negative impacts on the deer and their ecosystem, and would be a dereliction of our responsibilities. I think that the main problem in this subject is related to time-scale. We are trying to manage deer not only for the next few years, but for 50 years down the road, while most hunters are much more interested in only the near future that will directly affect them. It is a hard balancing act to incorporate these often-confliciting sides into our decisions. I can only hope that we can continue to work towards a more common and mutual understanding of each others needs and motivations, but I'll tell you, it is not easy. Thanks again for all of your thoughts on this, and I look forward to your response on my last question.

Davin- I just want to clarify a few things. I don't think your ecologists are getting checks from insurance companies. That's not what I meant. I just know how large of an issue deer vs car collisions are in this state and how much money it costs the insurance companies. After speaking to insurance companies, many of us believe this also has to do with the government side of eradicating more deer. As far as the winter effect the last two years. I and many others have found young carcasses come spring, that obviously didn't make it through the winter. That is mother nature doing it's job. My point to that is, next year that should seriously be considered when the deer population numbers are put out and the rules are made. Prior to the last two years, our winters were mild for many years, not having the same impact. We all understand hunting is primarily funded through license sales and that's why we are all concerned. Concerned that the tradition is going to be destroyed because of a disease that carries a 2% ratio. We all want it managed, but eradicating a herd is hurting the sport. Carrying capacities are a concern in the North for the state, that is where people are seeing the least amount of deer.

And so much for not getting in to a chat-room debate! Again, I encourage anyone to call me to share your concerns. I can talk deer all day.

The fact that they are starving, if that is indeed the case, indicates one HUGE ecological thing, that the deer populations are very near carrying capacity. I will say that carrying capacity has little to do with our populaition goals in the CWD areas as disease management is our driving force there, but carrying capacity is the main factor determining our goals in the rest of the state, particularly the north. Social tolerance to things such as car-deer collisons and crop damage are a small part of what we consider in setting our goals in populated and agricultural areas where carrying capacities are often greatly altered by human activites, but if you think the DNR deer ecologists who set these goals are getting checks from insurance companies, then you are misinformed. You state there is research to indcate your statement? I and others would be very interested in hearing how this research indicated this, can you provide details on it? Think about it, Wildlife Management is almost entirely funded through license fees, and deer are by far the largest source of income on that front, as well as a 1 billion dollar industry to the state, so if it were about money, we would manage the deer herd like a deer farm with no regard to ecosystems, carrying capacity, and the like, and would promote feeding the deer to raise carrying capacity, thus increasing deer numbers to increase license sales. Truly, if you have evidence that car-deer collisions are the main, driving force behind our goals, please share it. It would allow the many of us who sit around and dliberate and argue over deer carrying capacity and the ecosystem when we are setting our goals to spend our time on other projects. I know I could use the time! I really appreciate your interest Spark and others, but feel that there are serious misconceptions surrounding deer management, not only here, but across the country.

frusion-They are standing there looking at you because they're starving because of our harsh winter. Hence my comment about mother nature taking it's course the last two winters. You can't feed them though because that's illegal.

Davin_Lopez- I appreciate your response and giving out a number to contact you at. After the last few years and especially this past year, many of us are very concerned about the hunting structure and future of sport of this state.

This is Davin Lopez, CWD project leader for WI, who was quoted in the above article. I think Spark has some good points, but is mistaken on a few. For example, the DNR here and in other states has ALWAYS parroted what the CWD and WHO say about the dangers of CWD to humans, and the message has always been that is is not known to affect humans BUT that the CDC and WHO advise against consuming meat from known-infected deer. The DNR has no authority or interest in making our own determinations on human-health risks. I do agree that part of the problem with deer-herd numbers in southern Wisconsin are a direct result of previous management practices, but many of those practices and rules were a direct result of hunter and politcal input. Herd reduction is never a popular topic among many hunters so the DNR has always gotten pressure to not implement it. I do not want to get into a long chat-room debate here but welcome Spark, or anyone, to call me any time to discuss their concerns at 608-267-2948. I will be happy to try to explain our rationale.

I'm not a deer hunter so I am unqualified to speak about what a hunter see's out in the woods. However, I live at the west edge of Janesville and in the summer I have around 5 deer frequenting in my yard. In the winter I have 10-12. I realize this is not a herd, but if it weren't for the DNR trying to reduce the herd, would I have more deer than this? About a week ago I was standing no more than about 75ft from 3 of them and they stood there looking at me. Maybe I should be a deer hunter. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I would also like to add something with regards to the rules and how the DNR helped cause this issue. Populations are obviously a concern and in their minds, part of the reason the disease exists and spreads (which it hasn't spread). We are forced to have earn a buck and shoot does in order to receive a buck tag. An unlimited amount for that matter. Prior to CWD being recognized, the DNR required that you apply for a doe tag in order to shoot a doe. If you didn't get a tag, you couldn't shoot a doe. In the years before that, you couldn't even shoot a doe without a party tag. Everyone knows there are way more does than bucks and this was part of the population problem. Past management skills of the DNR are very questionable and still are. You say you will listen to the hunters and you don't.

janesvillean-Do you hunt? I'm well aware of what CWD is. All of us that hunt know a lot about it. We have to deal with it constantly. Nobody has died from this particular disease. It was first recognized in the 60's and is in 10 states. Colorado has dealt with this forever in a very well, managed manner. My point is, of course it's a concern, but 2 percent is nothing and doesn't justify ERADICATING "not managing" a deer herd. Conspiracy theory? The farthest thing. The amount of deer/car collisions in this state and the amount of money the insurance companies fork out, has plenty to do with how the DNR wants to reduce the herd. Don't kid yourself. It's all about $$$$$$$. Many of us hunters have done our research on this matter.

spark, I think the concern is real and serious. CWD is a prion disease and the others we know of are deadly to humans. The CDC doesn't think contact with CWD-infected animal flesh is safe. Southern Wisconsin is one of the few areas in the US where CWD is prevalent and disease eradication by population control is an established technique.
.
I don't know where you're getting this conspiracy theory about insurance companies.

Chronic wasting disease. It's been around forever in many states. When it was first found here in WI, the DNR messed up in a big way by scaring the crap out of everyone for something that has never killed a human being for consumed. I understand their concerns on wanting to control the disease, but the fact of the matter is, it's can't be. If they think eliminating a deer herd is going to eliminate the disease, they're crazy. With all the rules they have implemented since this has come up, they have slowly destroyed our deer herd and the tradition of deer hunting in one of the best deer hunting states.

Their deer herd estimates are way off and how they estimate the population is completely inaccurate. Last years winter on top of this years winter has had a huge impact on mother nature taking it's course on the population. DNR, it's time you start listening to the ones that are out there. The ones that spend the time in the woods. The ones that can relay to you what is really happening and what your rules are doing to this sport. THE HUNTERS!!!

It's time you're honest with the public about why you want the herd reduced so greatly. The fact that it's about $$$$ and the insurance companies being involved, etc. We're not stupid and you're destroying a huge revenue source to this state.