Between the sound of the alarm clock and the punching of a buck tag, there’s a series of decisions for every deer hunter. Do I go hunting today? Yes. Is that a deer I see? Yes. Do I have a shot opportunity? Yes. Is this a deer I want to shoot? For growing numbers of deer hunters nationwide, the answer to this last question is more often “No.”
For wildlife agencies tasked with managing deer populations, life was easier when they could assume deer harvest opportunities resulted in deer harvests. Back in the day, few hunters passed shots at legal deer. Fewer variables affected the number of deer tags punched. Today, it’s much more complicated, because deer hunters have become more selective for many reasons. Wisconsin DNR wanted to know what factors influence those trigger-finger decisions. For her master’s degree project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Meghan Henry set out to conduct a scientific survey of adult resident firearms hunters in Wisconsin about their decisions to shoot or pass bucks.
In fall 2022, she mailed a questionnaire to 3,000 participating deer hunters prior to the nine-day, November firearms season. Meghan – who now works for the Social Science Research Unit of Wisconsin DNR – asked about a number of personal characteristics, hunting styles, goals and situational variables. She asked for a diary-style hunt report with details like number of hours hunted, deer seen, and shots taken each day. She got back surveys from 1,994 resident firearms hunters and daily reports for 7,668 days afield with a buck tag. Of these, 1,820 daily reports were by deer hunters who had at least one shot opportunity at a buck that day – meaning the buck was in range, the hunter said they had a shot opportunity, and the hunter still held a valid tag.
“On a given day, 33% of hunters with a shot opportunity on a buck decided to take the shot.”
Wisconsin’s firearms season runs nine days in late November, starting on a Saturday and ending on a Sunday, and it includes Thanksgiving Day. During the 2022 season when the study took place, a legal buck was defined as having at least one antler 3 inches long or longer. Licensed hunters held a single buck tag for the nine-day season.
Overall, 28% of the hunters reported seeing a buck on a given day, and 84% of those believed they had a shot opportunity (and these hunters had 1.7 shot opportunities on average). In the end, on a given day, 33% of hunters with a shot opportunity on a buck decided to take the shot. For those who took a shot, 79% recovered a buck.
Meghan’s results and analysis were recently accepted for publication in the Journal of Wildlife Management. Some variables she asked about had no significant effect on a hunter’s decision to shoot or pass a buck. For example, the sex and age of the hunter, their concern for herd management and deer disease issues, use of bait, sightings of coyotes or wolves, and a few other factors had little influence over buck-harvest decisions. But other factors were important.
Portrait of Picky Hunters
Let’s look at the characteristics identified as having a significant relationship to a hunter’s decision to pass or take shot opportunities on bucks.
Scouting Effort: The more effort a hunter reported putting into scouting to prepare for the season, the more likely they were to be selective and pass up shot opportunities. “Each hour spent scouting increased a hunter’s selectivity by 1%,” the researchers wrote. Remember, this doesn’t mean hunters who scouted more were less successful. It means they were more choosy about shooting bucks when they saw them.
Trail-Camera Use: Owning and using a trail-camera was positively associated with passing shots at bucks. Trail-camera users were 23% more likely to pass a buck-harvest opportunity than non-trail-camera users.
Mature Buck Motivation: Hunters were asked to rank the importance of “harvesting a mature buck” on a 1-5 scale from very unimportant to very important. Each increase in importance reduced a hunter’s odds of taking a shot opportunity by 13%. So, a hunter who indicated “very important” was 52% less likely to take a shot than one who chose “very unimportant.”
Archery & Firearms Hunter: The survey separated hunters who only hunted in the firearms season from those who also hunted Wisconsin’s lengthy archery season. A person who also archery hunted was 31% less likely to take a shot opportunity at a buck during the firearms season. Interestingly, participation in the archery season was an influential factor, but harvesting a deer in archery season was not.
Stationary Hunting: Hunters who said they used stationary methods such as fixed stands or ground blinds were 32% less likely to shoot when a buck harvest opportunity came along. These hunters didn’t lack shot opportunities compared to those who used mobile approaches like drives and stalking – they were just more selective.
Private Land: Hunters on private land were 47% more likely to pass a buck harvest opportunity than public-land hunters.
Lifetime Best Buck: The survey asked hunters if they were hunting exclusively for a buck that was larger than the best buck they had previously taken in their lifetime. Hunters who indicated they were on the hunt for a new best buck were 72% less likely to take shot opportunities. This question yielded the biggest difference in selectivity among hunters of any characteristic.
Less Picky Hunters
Of course, hunters who were more likely to take shot opportunities at bucks reflected the opposite of many of the above characteristics. They scouted less or not at all and didn’t use trail-cameras. They hunted public land, didn’t care particularly about tagging a mature buck, or didn’t hunt the archery season. Or they used mobile hunting methods like deer drives or stalking on foot. I say “or” rather than “and” here because there can be a multitude of combinations of all these motivations in different hunters.
Venison: There was an additional motivation that also leaned less selective. As with the “mature buck” goal, hunters were asked to rank the importance of acquiring venison on a 1-5 scale from very unimportant to very important. Each increase in the importance of acquiring venison increased the likelihood of taking a shot by 8%, with a total of 32% higher shot likelihood for someone who ranked venison “very important” compared to someone who ranked it “very unimportant.”
Day of the Season
Two other variables identified by the survey had a significant influence on selectivity, and one of these was day of the season. Hunter selectivity varied depending on which day of the nine-day season they were hunting. Keep in mind that Thursday in this season was the Thanksgiving Day holiday. Days with the most significance were opening day (a Saturday), the fourth day (a Tuesday), and the ninth and final day (a Sunday). To quote from the published research:
“Respondents were the most likely to take an available buck harvest opportunity on opening day, when most (94%) respondents were afield, and respondents were the least likely to take a buck harvest opportunity on the last day of the season, when the fewest respondents (26%) were afield.”
This seemed backward to me. On opening day, with eight more days of hunting to go, I would tend be more selective because I’ve still got plenty of season left and more opportunities for a possibly older buck to come along. By the last day, I would guess more hunters would be less selective because time is running out. Of course, as a Georgia hunter, I’m accustomed to almost three months of firearms hunting. It’s clear Wisconsin firearms hunters had different motivations than me. Meghan said the researchers looked at this not as a function of time remaining but of hunting pressure: How many other hunters are in the woods on the same day?
“If I see one of my target bucks on opening morning, I’m probably gonna shoot it, because the next week is high pressure and bucks are going to seek out heavy cover and disappear.”
“On opening day, they may be more concerned that if they don’t take that shot, another hunter will,” said Meghan. “After that, hunting pressure generally declines as folks go back to work and there are fewer hunters in the field. It may also reflect the types of hunters afield on each day. Folks who have the ability to hunt on Tuesday might have more comfort with passing an opportunity.”
I called my friend Paul Annear, an outdoor writer and deer hunter from southwest Wisconsin. He confirmed what Meghan suggested.
“That all makes sense to me,” said Paul. “If I see one of my target bucks on opening morning, I’m probably gonna shoot it, because the next week is high pressure and bucks are going to seek out heavy cover and disappear. But on the last day, I’m thinking those bucks have already made it that far, and they will probably make it through the rest of the season if I let them go. I would likely be more selective on that last day, especially if it’s a borderline buck that might survive.”
Remember, too, that hunters have one buck tag for the Wisconsin firearms season. If they’re hunting on the last day, they haven’t punched that tag yet, so they may have already passed shot opportunities. “Last-day hunters may just be more selective hunters in general,” said Meghan.
Deer Density Perception
The other variable was a hunter’s perception of deer density. Hunters were asked to rank deer density at their location from very low to very high, again on a 1-5 scale. As you can probably guess, hunters who chose “very low” deer density were significantly more likely to take shot opportunities at bucks. If you see a buck under “very low” density conditions, you might better take the shot because it could be your only shot.
One step up the density scale at “somewhat low” density, however, the effect was insignificant. These hunters were a toss-up on whether they would shoot or pass a buck that presented a shot opportunity. At “moderate” density in the middle of scale, odds began to tip toward being selective. And at “somewhat high” density, hunter selectivity was the opposite of the “very low” hunter.
At “very high” density, something unexpected happened. The odds switched back toward shooting although only slightly, as you can see in this bar chart. Your guess is as good as mine on this.
The researchers saw a contradiction when it comes to deer population management: Hunters were less likely to shoot deer when they perceived deer were abundant. Getting deer hunters to harvest enough deer to keep populations in good health is really the main problem that professional deer managers are struggling with.
What About Does?
In discussing the implications of their findings, the Wisconsin researchers wrote: “Declining hunter participation rates and increased harvest selectivity among remaining hunters may have reached a point where harvest desire is no longer sufficient to manage abundant deer populations.”
However, we’re talking about bucks here. If deer hunters are selective about bucks but quick to take does as needed, we don’t have a problem with deer population management. Unfortunately we don’t live in that world, either. So, I was glad to learn Meghan studied doe harvest for a second chapter of her master’s thesis. The same group of hunters also completed a survey about doe harvest opportunities. Meghan analyzed those results as a separate study, and it’s currently under peer review.
Meghan gave me a sneak preview of the results, though. Some of it is easily predictable. Hunters motivated to acquire venison, either for themselves or to share with others, were more likely to take shot opportunities at does. Hunters motivated to take a mature buck or beat their lifetime best buck were less likely to take does.
Other factors affected doe harvest that were not significant influences in the buck-harvest study. Years of experience, for example. “More experienced hunters are less likely to take the shot at antlerless deer,” said Meghan.
Bait – where legal in Wisconsin – was not a significant factor in buck harvest, but it was for doe harvest. Bait hunters, Meghan said, were less likely to take shot opportunities at does. Also, hunters who sighted a carnivore like a coyote, wolf or bear during their hunt were less likely to take does – again, not true for buck-harvest decisions.
With growing concern over declining doe harvest in many areas where it needs to be increasing, the second chapter of Meghan’s Wisconsin study will be more useful – if not more interesting – than the first chapter on bucks. It may contribute to the ongoing search for solutions to doe-harvest difficulties. I’ll keep you posted.