FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BY,
WISCONSIN WHITE-TAILED DEER TRUSTEE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE
JUNE, 2012
Drs. James C. Kroll (Trustee), David C. Guynn, Jr. (Committee Member), and Gary L
Alt (Committee Member)
Presented to,
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Madison, Wisconsin
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[/size]
For some time, there has been growing public dissatisfaction with various issues related
to white-tailed deer management and hunting in Wisconsin. During his campaign,
Governor Scott Walker made a promise to appoint a “Deer Trustee” to review programs,
activities and efforts by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) related
to deer management, to help resolve these issues. In October, the Department of
Administration (DOA) selected Dr. James C. Kroll to be the Deer Trustee[/i][/size]. A contract for
services (October, 2011) was developed between Dr. Kroll (Dr. Deer, Inc.) and the State
of Wisconsin, through the DOA. This contract specified the following responsibilities:
“Contractor, in consultation with two other recognized deer management experts[/i]
(“Contractor’s Associates”) shall undertake an assessment of Wisconsin’s deer
management plans and policies, hereinafter, “Services”, including, but not limited to: (i)
The methodology and accuracy of population estimates for Wisconsin’s white-tailed deer
herd; (ii) The necessity and effectiveness of Wisconsin’s policies in response to an
infectious disease known as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD); (iii) The significance of the
impact of Wisconsin’s timber wolf population upon the white-tailed deer herd, and its
impact upon white-tailed deer management policies and plans, if any; and (iv) The
structure of Wisconsin’s deer hunting periods, including, but not limited to, the necessity
and efficacy of hunting polices such as “Earn-A-Buck” and other policies and plans
designed to control the size of Wisconsin’s white-tailed deer herd.[/size]” [EAB was removed
from consideration by legislation prior to initiation of this project.
The Deer Trustee Committee conducted an exhaustive study of deer management by the
Department of Natural Resources, beginning in October, 2011 through 30 June, 2012.
Hundreds of documents, data and other materials provided by the WDNR were reviewed
by the committee, as well as conducting meetings with the WDNR, stakeholder groups,
other state agencies associated with natural resources and the general public through six
Town Hall meetings. We also obtained over a thousand comments via the Internet and
numerous letters from professionals and private citizens. We met with biologists and
members of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), representing
11 Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Our Final Report (Appended)
represents our findings and recommendations for re-establishing public trust between the
citizens of Wisconsin, the Ojibwe Tribes and the Department of Natural Resources.
However, before presenting our findings and recommendations, we wish to present our
basic philosophy of deer management. Although there are many issues involved in
evaluating the WDNR white-tailed deer management program, there were three basic
areas to consider. Deer management has been likened to a three-legged stool (Kroll
1991); one leg representing population management, another habitat, and the third human
dimensions (people “management”). The reason for choosing this analogy is each of the
three legs is equally important; and, without one the stool is rendered useless. Giles
(1978) defined wildlife management as “the science and art of making decisions and
taking actions to manipulate the structure, dynamics, and relations of populations,
habitats, and people to achieve specific human objectives by means of the wildlife
resource.” This long and cumbersome definition has many implications, but provides a
meaningful context in which to frame a review of the deer management practices of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Wildlife management is evolving from an art to a science. Despite the many scientific and
technological advances that have occurred during the four decades since Giles wrote this
definition, it is unlikely wildlife management ever will become a pure science. This is
because the factors that affect habitats and deer population responses on the landscape
scale are complex, difficult to define, even harder to measure and constantly changing.
Public views and expectations for management of white-tailed deer populations vary from
those who want more deer (recreational hunting) to those who want less or no deer
(motorists, forest managers, farmers). McKean (2011) identified a number of factors that
may contribute to declining deer harvests in a number of states including Wisconsin: 1)
maturing forests, 2) increasing predator populations, 3) baiting issues,4) habitat loss, 5)
increasing public intolerance of high deer densities, 6) inadequate monitoring, and 7)
unrealistic hunter expectations. Most state wildlife agencies have little if any control over
these factors or lack the resources to monitor much less manage these factors.
Thus, our review of Wisconsin’s deer management practices focused on the density and
structure of white-tailed deer populations and how they are managed by recreational
hunting and other means, white-tailed deer habitats and how they are described and
quantified, and the human dimensions of deer management as it relates to cultural,
economic, political and management concerns of the public. We also considered how
various aspects of these three components (populations, habitat and people) are
monitored and how this information is used in formulation of deer management policies
and regulations similar to the 4-cornerstone approach of The Quality Deer Management
Association (QDMA 2012).
In our Interim Report (March 2012), we concluded public confidence in the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources in regard to deer management issues has seriously
eroded over the last few decades. The reasons are complex and not easily solved, but
revolve primarily around two key issues— the current use of the SAK Population Model
and the ineffectiveness of the CWD eradication program. However, lack of public
involvement, particularly by landowners and Tribes, in goal setting and decision-making
regarding deer management lie at the heart of the problem. As we noted above, these
problems did not arise overnight and hence the solutions will also take time. Our Interim
Report included a number of findings and conclusions. Since March, we are convinced
these findings generally were correct, but came to additional conclusions based on
information acquired since that time. This Executive Summary represents our final
findings and recommendations. However, we would like to interject here we are in no way
questioning the dedication, effort or commitment to deer management by the WDNR staff.
We found these folks to be helpful and generous, in spite of undergoing such an intensive
evaluation; we are grateful for their help. [The Interim Report was read 1,700 times on the
drdeer.com web site.] If these recommendations are implemented, we are convinced they
represent a “reset button” for WDNR-public relationships. If not, the situation will continue
to deteriorate to one in which deer management falls victim to an increasingly political
process.
[/b]
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Population Management
1. Limit the use of SAK/accounting style models to monitoring deer population
size and trends at the state and regional levels[/size].
[/b]
2. Do away with population goals and population estimates at the DMU level.
3. Replace the current DMU population goal definition of comparing the deer
population estimate with the desired population goal for the DMU with a
simplified goal statement of increase, stabilize or decrease population
density.
4. Develop a set of metrics to monitor progress towards the DMU goal of
increasing[/size], stabilizing, or decreasing population density[/b][/size].
[/b]
5. Reduce the number of DMUs and combine the Farmland regions.
6. Revise the Wisconsin Deer Management Plan.
Hunting Regulations, Seasons and Bag Limits
1. Simplify the regulatory process by setting antlerless harvest goals, harvest
regulations and antlerless permit quotas on a 3-5 year cycle[/size].
[/b]
2. Base Antlerless Permit Quotas on DMU historical demand.
3. Increase the cost of all antlerless tags for Regular and Herd Control Units to
$12.
4. Consider charging a fee for antlerless tags in the CWD Zone[/size].
[/size]5. Establish a public lands antlerless permit system[/size].
[/size]6. Limit antlerless deer harvest in Regular and Herd Control Zones.[/i]
[/size]7. Establish a Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) antlerless permit
system.[/i]
[/size]8. Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the October antlerless seasons in the CWD
Zone[/size].
[/b]
9. Maintain the current buck limit of one buck per Deer Gun License (may be
used in muzzleloader season) and one buck per Archery Deer License.[/i]
[/size]10. Maintain the Bonus Buck Regulation in CWD Zone[/size].
[/size]11. Resolve the cross-bow season issue through the public involvement
process[/size].
[/size]12. Resolve the baiting and feeding issue outside CWD affected areas[/size].
[/b]
13. Put the fun back into hunting by simplifying seasons, bag limits and youth
qualifications[/size]!
[/b]
Predator Studies and Management
1. Continue to conduct research on the impacts of predators on the deer herd.
2. Involve the public as much as practical with field-based research projects.
3. Revise the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan to include updated information
and provide current public attitudes to guide management decisions through
the early years of this post-delisting era.
4. Establish a wolf population management program to limit/decrease wolfsocietal
conflicts.
5. Geospatial studies of predator distribution and densities, especially for
wolves, should be encouraged and developed to assess long-term trends
and issues.
Chronic Wasting Disease
1. We believe it is time to consider a more passive approach to CWD in the
DMZ.
2. There is a clear need for a new sampling protocol for CWD in Wisconsin, one
that gives a true picture of the progress of the disease; but more
importantly, one designed to detect spread.
3. Dealing with wildlife diseases is not unlike responding to wild fires, and
response plan should be developed on this model, focusing on early
detection of “break outs” and citizen involvement (active approach).
4. We recommend implementation of a statewide DMAP program; and, nowhere
is such a program needed more than in the DMZ.
5. There is a need to provide more information about concerns for humans
contracting a CWD variant.
6. The time required to receive CWD test results from hunter-killed animals
must be decreased to a few days.
7. An annual meeting of DMAP cooperators would be an excellent venue for
reporting on various aspects of CWD, in addition to the topics discussed
earlier. This would greatly enhance public awareness and WDNR credibility.
8. WDNR should work closely (through the local biologist) with the
Conservation Congress in developing goals and strategies at the county
level. we feel use of human dimensions research to anticipate, rather than
reacting to issues as they arise would be very effective.
9. We feel use of human dimensions research to anticipate, rather than
reacting to issues as they arise would be very effective.
10. Charlotte the Deer should become the “Smokey Bear” of CWD in Wisconsin,
serving as the centerpiece for a public education program developed with
stakeholder organizations such as QDMA, Whitetails of Wisconsin and
Whitetails Unlimited.
Harvest Data, Herd Health and Productivity
1. Involving the public in data collection produces many benefits, including
buy-in on management and harvest strategies and cost-efficiencies of data
collection.
2. Each field biologist should be required to organize and conduct at least one
field necropsy study each year, conducted along with cooperators and
volunteers during late winter.
3. Training should be provided to biologists and technicians to standardize
methodologies and educate them on deer anatomy and basic physiology.
4. An annual report should be prepared for each DMU and Region summarizing
these studies and a Powerpoint/video presentation developed for annual
DMAP workshops and public presentations.
Habitat
1. As both part of DMAP activities and public lands management, local
biologists/technicians should be required to conduct annual range
evaluations to assess habitat health and condition. Foresters also should be
involved in these activities, public and private.
2. Training programs should be developed for state and private resource
managers to standardize habitat/range assessment methodologies.
3. There is a need for modernizing the GIS and GPS capabilities of Wisconsin’s
agencies.
4. A statewide geospatial information system, similar to that used in Texas,
should be developed which provides seamless support to all state resource
managers across agencies, which also supports economic development,
emergency planning and response, and a host of citizen services.
5. Form a Young Forest Initiative Task Force.
6. Funding for these activities should arise from fees assessed by stakeholders
and landowners using these data and services, as well as grants and
contracts for various state agency activities.
7. The WDNR adopt an advocacy role in dealing with the National Forests of
Wisconsin to encourage sustainable forest management, especially for early
and mid-successional species (game and non-game).
People
1. Implement a Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP).
2. Each DMAP cooperator should receive an annual report summarizing
current data and trend data over years to monitor progress toward goals.
3. Develop a public lands antlerless permit system.
4. In addition to providing hunting opportunities, the impacts of deer
depredation on agricultural crops, forest regeneration and biodiversity,
deer/vehicle collisions, the special significance of deer to the Ojibwe people
and other factors also must be considered in management of Wisconsin’s
white-tailed deer resources. This will include strict adherence to all
agreements with the Voight Intertribal Task Force (GLIFWC), the tribes
serving as “co-managers’ where appropriate.
5. Expand public education/outreach efforts to serve landowners whose goals
include management for white-tailed deer and other wildlife species.
DNR Research and Technical Publications
1. We strongly suggest establishment of a research steering committee, with
representation from user groups, stakeholders and regional WDNR
biologists, and Tribal representatives.
2. A significant effort should be developed in Human Dimensions research.
Wisconsin is blessed with two excellent researchers (Holsman at UW-SP and
Petchenik in house), and a plan for long-term monitoring of trends and
issues should be developed between them.
3. We are concerned about long-term contracts for research services. There
need to be milestones and project evaluations.
4. Projects should involve the public whenever practical.
5. There is a need for a long-term research plan (developed through 1), based on
needs assessments, and prioritized for funding.
6. Synergies with other agencies and greater cooperative efforts, particularly with
those in forestry and geospatial disciplines, would help leverage funding and
strengthen projects.
7. Research projects should be of an applied nature, rather than basic research with
clearly defined application to the needs for managing Wisconsin’s deer and
habitat resources.
8. Project results should be extended to the public through media, workshops
and field days, as part of the DMAP program and regional stakeholder
conferences.
9. In the long-term, we recommend developing a wildlife disease unit to: 1) respond
quickly to CWD outbreaks; 2) monitor health and disease of other wildlife species;
and, 2) train and support local biologists/technicians in conducting annual herd
health surveys.
Conservation Congress
1. We feel the Conservation Congress must have a more active role in deer
management decision-making at the local level.
Personnel
1. We strongly suggest addition of a Deer Management Assistance
Coordinator, a highly qualified individual with the following characteristics:
1) considerable experience with DMAP or related programs; 2) wellrespected
in both the scientific and public communities; 3) highly skilled
communicator; and, 4) highly motivated to work with the public.
2. We also recommend development of a “boots-on-the-ground” culture in the
WDNR; and, job descriptions of field biologists be adjusted accordingly.
