So you understand nothing about wildlife management. Got it.

okay, I’m a deer hunter, I go to the UW, and, yes, I shot a doe this last weekend. Basically your article is spot on, funny and yes, I’m drunk while writing this.

high life in the veins—

Luke

Wow, sad all the way around…

While a big trophy is a nice “benefit” most good hunters are in it more for the meat. Since, like many humans, deer aren’t exactly monogamous you can shoot every buck but one in an area and you’ll still have even more deer next year. Shooting a doe actually has a chance of providing population control.

Unfortunately, the DNR has the deer population estimates (along with most other critters in the state) so screwed up they couldn’t tell you if the numbers are low or high, especially in the northern part of the state.

All in all, I’d recommend either go sit out with some good hunters (not the buddy that buys a half-barrel and then asks what you’re planning to drink) or find someone who actually knows what their talking about to write next time.

I’d rather shoot a doe than a buck…they taste better.

Oooh, a couple good zingers! My favorite was about the deer humper in Superior.

Actually, culling the doe herd is one of the most effective ways to limit the deer population and reduce deer crop damage and deer-car collisions. Since bucks obviously do not give birth, harvesting them has little effect on population control. I urge you to talk to one of our great Wildlife Ecology professors or contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources to find out more about the ecological benefits of deer hunting. Perhaps then you will be able to write an informed and conscientious article- without biased, not factual, information.

“Maybe we should leave the deer alone too.”

There are more deer now than there were before the Pilgrims arrived.

More people are killed by deer than by any other animal, over a hundred each year.

North America’s Most Dangerous Mammal How best to deal with the menace of Bambi

No, there is another creature roaming America’s woods that is far more dangerous than these big predators. The most dangerous mammal in North America is…Bambi. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that white-tailed deer kill around 130 Americans each year simply by causing car accidents. In 1994, these predator deer had a banner year, causing 211 human deaths in car wrecks.

There are about 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions annually, resulting in 29,000 human injuries and more than $1 billion in insurance claims in addition to the death toll. Deer also carry the ticks that transmit Lyme disease to about 13,000 people each year. Economic damage to agriculture, timber, and landscaping by deer totals more than $1.2 billion a year.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34914.html

I always hear Sconnies bitching about coasties, among everything else. Then I think, why would I hunt to be some inbred, hunting Sconnnie, when I could be a sexually attractive, intelligent coastie?

Thank you, Sconnies, for always perpetuating the stereotype that all of you enjoy killing defenseless animals and being incredibly fat!

The DNR always has a specific reasoning behind the regulations they make, or they wouldn’t make them. They would go out of business pretty fast if they killed off the animals that people pay them money to hunt for. The deer hunt is solely a method of population control to them, nothing more. There will always be an overpopulation of deer in Wisconsin as we have all but eliminated their natural predators and provide an abundant food supply through farm crops. Although you say there are “100,000 less than 2007,” the DNR still wants hunters to shoot 500, 000 this season to bring the population to manageable numbers.

The main reason for the “shoot a doe, earn a buck” regulation is that while there are hunters who hunt for the cheapest and healthiest meat money can buy, myself included, most go for the chance of shooting a nice buck. Hunters just wouldn’t shoot enough deer if this regulation wasn’t in place. And while a buck can mate with numerous does in a season, shooting does is the only guaranteed method to slow their reproduction.

I am glad that you can at least appreciate the reason why deer hunting isn’t just enjoyed by Wisconsinites, but needed, but your idea that the regulations are “sadistic” is very far off the mark. The only sadistic thing about deer hunting is the negative ideas people have about it, while they have no problem eating processed meat from meat farms that would make any animal heaven extremely “ticked off.”

This article is so ignorant and ridiculous. What was BH thinking publishing it?!?!

This shows how little you know about hunting:

“Hunters don’t typically go out to kill female deer. Nobody mounts them — except for that one guy in Superior — and forced regulation feels more like a nuisance than an incentive.”

While no one mounts them, hunters understand the value of eliminating does for the population, as well as the fact that does typically yield great venison.

Every time a hunter walks into the woods, yes, they are looking for the 30 point buck. But every time I walk into a bar, I want a Jack and Coke, but I will settle for a god damn drink that is on special. Every time Bret Bielema coaches a game, he is hoping to win, but he will settled for not getting fired. A doe is still as great of an accomplishment as Bret Bielema not getting fired.

How about you go watch Ted TV and listen to some old Nuge records some more…it appears to be how your hippie self conjured up these foolish, uninformed notions.

You should never write about Wisconsin again, because you apparently have no idea about its most important resources and their regulation.

Interesting piece.

In the late fall of 1991, we poor hunting folks up in northern Wisconsin (and Minnesota and Illinois, etc.) had this little snowstorm called the Halloween Blizzard. Just below Lake Superior here, we got just short of 4 feet of snow in a 2-day period. The DNR, along with a lot of us nasty huners who like to shoot Bambi’s mom, began an effort that lasted all winter to bring food to the deer. In many cases dozers had to be used to move the snow to make trails to the deer yarding areas. Dozen’s of feeding areas were set up and snow moved so Bambi and friends could move around.

If you’ve aver been close to a deer Sean, you may have noted that 4’ of snow comes right up to their head. Makes it hard to get around. Regardless of the effort, when spring finally came, the pine swamps and other yarding areas were literally full of deer who had starved. What a pathetic site. But the effort saved many deer.

Deer are prolific breeders. A light winter can see many does having triplets and most of the rest having twins. The increasing population of deer then causes them to come even more in contact with humans. Either eating your mom and dad’s garden Sean, or jumping in front of them on the highway. Deer are great at survival, but not very smart - they like to jump right into your way.

If the DNR did not put management limits on deer, shortly they would be living in your garage. And even though gool old Al Gore invented global warming, one of these years we are going to have another snow event similar to 1991. Many 100’s of thousands of deer will starve again. Believe me - yes a long time hunter - that it is much more humane to hunt deer and eat the high protein low fat meat, than to eventually have another catestrophic die-off. Course, I understand you would likely never see the carnage of 100’s of deer starved to death and think of the agony they went through. But as a journalist, I’m sure you’d have something to write about.

Problem is how do you control the deer population. Unfortunately, you really can’t do it by eliminating bucks. By hunting season, the does are already pregnant. The bucks have had their fun. Probability says that a very large percentage of the does will have fawns in the spring, and the easier the winter the higher the number of fawns per doe.

So to actually have some impact on the deer population, you really do have to remove more of the does. And, if there were no hunting season, which more that a small number of you city folks would like, we would shortly be naming the ones that lived in our yards.

One bright spot way up here though is that the wolf is coming back. They take the young, old and sick ones. But not fast enough to make a dent in the population.

And if you think the scene of the nasty hunter who killed Bambi’s mom was icky, you should see what a couple of wolves can do. Not very humane..

Sean, Was that an editorial, a work of fiction, or just gibberish? Was there a point or theme to your drivel, other than “I Write Snarky Comments!”?

The point of this repsonse is to emphatically state that deer populations in Wisconsin need to be reduced.

In 2007, 14 people died in 14 fatal motor vehicle-deer crashes. In addition, 100 people suffered incapacitating injuries; less serious injuries totaled 250; and 241 people were possibly injured. ( http://www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motorist/crashfacts/docs/deerfacts.pdf )

Nearly 18,000 car/deer crashes were reported by police to the DOT. Many collisions with deer go unreported, if damage to the vehicle is small or the vehicle is old. Many more crashes, where drivers avoiding deer lost control of their vehicle, are not reported as “deer related” accidents at all. We don’t know how many died there.

A better indicator of motor vehicle/deer crashes is the number of deer carcasses removed from Wisconsin’s roadway system. For Fiscal Year 2007, a total of 35,685 carcasses were reported removed from Wisconsin roads. Conservatively estimating that half of the animals hit were no longer on the road when they expired (they made it into the adjacent fields/woods before expiring or local residents dragged the carcass into the ditch to keep others drivers from hitting it), the annual deer kill due to vehicle accidents approaches 70,000 per year. In Shawano and Green Lake Counties alone, more than half of all police-reported crashes involved deer in 2007.

This is not a trivial problem deserving of belittling commentary. If you care to debate that point, we can arrange for you to discuss it with the families of those that have been killed and incapacitated. I’d like to see the video of that confrontation! “Snarky journalist wannabe beaten by families of deer accident quadrapeligics. Details to follow, film at 11:00.”

Recognizing that the deer population is excessive, what is the most effective way to reduce it? Kill off a significant portion of the breeding females, using the self-financing and fee/tax paying hunter population already in place. Does (female deer) typically have twin fawns each spring. Some have 3, some just 1, but the average is close to 2 offspring each year. An average doe can have young for 7 years, producing 14 offspring by the time she stops breeding. As you can see, unconstrained the deer population expands rapidly. That’s how it achieved a peak population of nearly 2,000,000 a few years ago.

Predation, hunting, and winter starvation are three available methods to limit deer herd populations. Last years deep snow and cold trimmed the herd a bit, by starvation. Given your vaunted position of moral authority, which of these should we rely on? Is slow starvation with a coyote finish morally preferred by journalists, as compared to a quickly administered 165 grain dose of euthanasia with consumption of all of that free range, no hormones added, all natural vension to follow?

This is not “unnecessary killing”. It is essential to regulating an over populated deer herd. Nor is it any more “violent” than ripping a fresh beet out of its native soils, cutting its poor little carcass into bits for your epicurian repast, and licking its lifes blood from your cold cruel blade with avid relish. Every human being must kill to eat. Hunters don’t pretend otherwise.

Invictus Maneo

Every time I see your writings I get a deeper appreciation for how clueless you really are. I’m not going to even bother educating you on why your article isn’t just bad but stupid as well. Do some research.

Chronic Wasting Disease vs. a bullet…. which one is more humane?

“sexually attractive, intelligent coastie”

The amount of Axe you wear suggests otherwise.

Your arrogance is rivaled only by your ignorance, Kittridge.
I am disappointed as a Badger, a hunter, and as an American.

“Hunters don’t typically go out to kill female deer. Nobody mounts them — except for that one guy in Superior — and forced regulation feels more like a nuisance than an incentive. I’d hate to be the marksman who spots the King of The Forest, only to realize he didn’t put a bullet in Mrs. Deer first”

This doesn’t make sense. If you knew anything about hunting or researched it, you would know that you can shoot a doe the year before to get your buck tag for the next year. There are also designated doe seasons prior to opening day in which one can shoot a doe and get their buck tag. If shooting a buck is important to someone, then they can plan ahead a little. Also, where did you come up with this assumption that hunters don’t want to shoot does??

Also, you clearly don’t understand the idea of management and conservation. If hunters only shot bucks, how would this help the overpopulation situation.

Hunters aren’t a bunch of drunk hicks that go like to kill things just because, so everyone should stop assuming that and stop trying to act cool and sophisticated because you don’t hunt. You don’t understand and clearly won’t understand so just stop.

“Hunters aren’t a bunch of drunk hicks that go like to kill things just because”

Yes, ALL of them aren’t, but a whole lot of them are, face it.

“”Hunters aren’t a bunch of drunk hicks that go like to kill things just because”

Yes, ALL of them aren’t, but a whole lot of them are, face it.”

What’s your reasoning behind that statement? What evidence do you have to back it up?