Deer densities in your area?

[solocam88]

How does WI DNR determine their densities?

Asking the magic 8 ball.

Hahaha exactly right!

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Crazinamatese]

How does WI DNR determine their densities?

Asking the magic 8 ball.

Pretty much. No one knows and will never know. We do need to kill more does though

[Bigb]

If deer density is measurable by livable habitat in the winter, I would say we hunt 40 Deer per square mile. The problem is with the terrain, cover and so many hidden ag fields (especially on the land I hunt) you could have every deer on the property feeding in the ag fields and only see one or two in the field that you are hunting. We have 10 ag fields on the 250 acres I hunt and can't see more than two at any given time and usually only one. Lots of valleys and ridges to so plenty of spots to hide. Bad because you don't see a lot of deer at times, good because thats why we have some giants. It would be fun to one day have the technology to be able to personally see how many deer are on the land you hunt at any given time.

[Czabs]

How can they honestly even predict this? Especially by number of deer killed? There are way too many variables involved in this too even be somewhat accurate. All i see is there is more deer shot in this area than that area….

[Dhurtubise]

So a place that doesn't get hunted has no deer?

I like my odds there.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[PK_]

3-5

[bigwoodsmn]

In one area I hunt a lot there are 6 per square mile and .1 to .5 bucks taken. Sometimes I go dark-to-dark for 2-3 days without seeing a single deer. But there are some average-plus bucks around so I think it's worth hunting.

[PLB]

Another issue with the deer density map is that it does not take into account amount of cover which is a big deal in farm country. In the fall winter months deer are concentrated in small amounts of cover - giving a far different appearance than deer per square mile range. As a result, comparing deer per square mile range in farm country to big woods is apples to oranges....because in big woods it IS per square mile cover.

Actually the numbers are deer per square mile of habitat, not total area in the unit.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[hunter_mike]

I have to wonder what the dnr considers "habitat" If you only counted forested lands you cound really inflate the estimate #

[ Post made via Android ]

[Rutnstrut]

I don't know if I've ever hunted in a square mile with 30+ deer in it.

Me either, but according to the DNR's map, the areas I hunt have twice that. Someone should really tell the deer in these areas about this map;)

[JoeRE]

Another issue with the deer density map is that it does not take into account amount of cover which is a big deal in farm country. In the fall winter months deer are concentrated in small amounts of cover - giving a far different appearance than deer per square mile range. As a result, comparing deer per square mile range in farm country to big woods is apples to oranges....because in big woods it IS per square mile cover.

Actually the numbers are deer per square mile of habitat, not total area in the unit.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

Huh, your right - I took range to mean total area but I see on the DNR's web page its suitable habitat. My bad!

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/maps.html

[BassBoysLLP]

Another issue with the deer density map is that it does not take into account amount of cover which is a big deal in farm country. In the fall winter months deer are concentrated in small amounts of cover - giving a far different appearance than deer per square mile range. As a result, comparing deer per square mile range in farm country to big woods is apples to oranges....because in big woods it IS per square mile cover.

Actually the numbers are deer per square mile of habitat, not total area in the unit.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

Huh, your right - I took range to mean total area but I see on the DNR's web page its suitable habitat. My bad!

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/maps.html

Range includes open areas...

[ Post made via Android ]

[nater]

I would think that suitable habitat includes woods, prairie/CRP ground, and marshes/wetlands. My guess is they use the National Land Cover Database and anything that is not Developed/Crop/Road/Open Water counts.

[carl1191]

I have to wonder what the dnr considers "habitat" If you only counted forested lands you cound really inflate the estimate #

[ Post made via Android ]

You can find that answer through the WDNR website. Last I checked it is all permanent cover and a 100 ft buffer extending our into open ground (Ag etc.)

[moondoondude]

There are places here with 200+ deer per square mile. It is terrible, the habitat is absolutely ruined. It is very unhealthy. This year I saw a major swing at the properties that I hunt... the hunting pressure just about tripled in the surrounding areas and I would say that deer are at about 40-50 deer per square mile, although 3 years ago some of these properties would have been at about 80 deer per square mile. I don't typically hunt the high deer density areas, the herd suffers and the quality of bucks crashes. Also of note, the highest density areas are urban/suburban with no agricultural access for the deer. Agricultural areas obviously offer a lot Morehouse for the deer but they are also almost always hunted, which keeps the deer densities lower.

[ Post made via Android ]