As a member of the EAB alternative committee, myself and the other members of the committee were tasked with recommending alternatives to EAB that were both acceptable to hunters and effective in reducing the antlerless population. I think it's a pretty safe bet that moving up the gun opener is not acceptable to a majority of gun hunters and is certainly going to be overwhelmingly opposed by Bowhunters so from an acceptability standpoint, an early opener does meet the standard. EAB was not acceptable but it was effective at reducing antlerless populations. If the early gun opener is not going to be accepted by hunters it had damn well better be effective or it will fail both standards of being an accepted and effective EAB alternative and it would be a pointless change.
Myself and others that made up a minority that opposed an early opener told the members of the EAB alternative committee that an earlier opener would NOT be effective in reducing antlerless numbers and that it would instead kill more bucks for the first few years. The goal of the committee was supposed to be to find ways to harvest more antlerless deer, NOT BUCKS! To validate that theory one has to look at history and the harvest data for the early and late gun opener. The calendar year repeats itself on a regular cycle in which we have the earliest and latest opener back to back every 6 or 7 years. A look at that history will tell us about the natural, 7 day calendar shift in relationship to the tail end of the rut and what it means to the antlerless harvest. This sort of evaluation will tell us a lot about the effectiveness of the proposed 14 day earlier shift that some on the EAB committee have proposed has a way to harvest more does.
I checked the opening day date of the gun season to find the early and late opener years. Next, I looked at the antlerless harvest data for those years. Here is what the DNR data shows by year.
Earliest opener..... Nov. 17, 1984....Buck kill 117,197...Doe kill 138,726
Latest opener....... Nov. 23, 1985....Buck kill 112,701...Doe kill 161,601
The early opener in 84 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year but more importantly, the early opener killed fewer does. The next time this took place was in 1990.
Earliest opener..... Nov. 17, 1990?. Buck kill 140,726...Doe kill 209,005
Latest opener...... Nov. 23, 1991?.Buck kill 120,009...Doe kill 232,330
Again, the early opener in 1990 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year and once again exactly the opposite for antlerless deer. The early opener killed fewer antlerless deer. It appears that out theory about the early opener being bad for increased antlerless harvest is proving itself to be true. The next time this took place was in 1995.
Earliest opener.... Nov. 18, 1995...Buck kill 171,891....Doe kill 225,846
Latest opener..... Nov. 23, 1996....Buck kill 138,622....Doe kill 250,011
Once again, the early opener in 1995 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year and once again exactly the opposite for antlerless deer. It appears that what we thought about the early opener reducing the antlerless harvest is more than just a theory.
The next time this pattern took place was in 2001 (Nov. 17). and 2002 (Nov. 23) The problem with the data for those years is that the discovery of CWD in 2002 and the subsequent hype kept many hunters out of the woods so the total harvest of both bucks and does dropped due to lack or participation. The next years in the cycle was 2007 (Nov. 17) and last year 2008 (Nov. 22). We all know the 2008 harvest was the poorest statewide harvest since the CWD year. We have to go back to 1998 to find a lower total harvest. In 2008, both the buck and doe harvests were down so much that it prompted the formation of the EAB alternative committee. The data from those two cycles does not hold much statistical value.
I did however look back at the doe kills for the early and late opener patterns as far back as the DNR provided data. I checked the pattern for 1967/68 as well as 1973/74 and 1979/80. Each and every time, the early opener resulted in fewer does killed than the late opener the following year. As hunters, we know that during the rut, does seem to go into hiding from bucks while bucks are overly active cruising for those does. This is why the rut makes bucks so vulnerable to harvest and car kills and why the gun opener date falls when it does. Moving the gun season up a week earlier into the full rut will certainly result in more bucks being killed for the first few years and as history has shown, fewer does will be killed but instead of waiting 7 years for this cycle to repeat, moving the gun hunt up 7 additional days will in suppressed antlerless harvests annually when compared to the current system.
Moving the season up a week was supposed to be about killing more antlerless deer but data proves moving the date up would result in just the opposite and fewer antlerless deer would be harvested compared to the current season structure. What this means is that the early opener is neither acceptable nor effective in reducing antlerless populations. It FAILS BOTH standards to be an EAB alternative. If this plan is allowed to pass, Wisconsin will become Michigan in as little as 3 years. We will see a landscape with spikes and forks with lower body weights and late fawning with low birth weights due to the gun hunt taking place during the peak of the rut but all these negatives won?t pay off with an increase in antlerless harvest which some used as the reason for moving the gun opener. As a member of the EAB alternative Committee, It?s clear to me that those advocating moving the gun opener were doing so for no other reason than to get more firearm hunting in the peak of the rut but that is a short sighted plan that will ultimately reduce the quality of the hunt in WI.
In the EAB committee final report, I stated that the rushed deadline to create and EAB alternative caused a lack of time to do the proper verification and a critical evaluation of the recommendations. That was a mistake that could have been avoided and one we should all regret. This evaluation of historical antlerless harvests is exactly the reason for my statement. Making this sort of radical change without doing the homework is irresponsible management.
In October, hearings will be held around the state and the sportsmen and women of WI will have an opportunity to voice their opinion of the proposed early gun opener. It?s understandable that many will oppose moving the opener from a social standpoint because of what it means to tradition, vacation and family time as well as the Thanksgiving holiday. Those are all valid and important reasons on which to base your opinion but now you have a biological reason to oppose an early gun opener. Don?t miss your chance to attend these meetings and voice your concerns.
Ron Kulas
