Contact Dr. Kroll and
share your thoughts on
issues surounding
Whitetails in Wisconsin.
Read the Wisconsin
Viewer Submissions
Viewer Submissions
1. Inaccurate deer population estimates by the Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources.
2. Complete lack of common sense in issuing anterless tags. How deer management units can have an 80 - 170% increase in tags from one year to another makes no sense whatsoever and is insulting to those that hunt those areas and actually spend time in the woods and know what is happening to their local deer herds!
3. Predation by bears, coyotes, wolves.
Price County, WI
1. The age distribution in the deer herd is unnatural. It is largely populated by young deer. Se should have more older-aged deer in the herd.
2. Population goals that are set by the state of Wisconsin are too low. I am a forest landowner with many oak trees on my property, and do see some deer browse damage on young oak trees, but the trees do survive with no problem. I would prefer to see population goals in my DMU (DMU 25) set at 30 deer per square mile of habitat instead of the current 23.
3. Deer are being lost to wolves in the northern part of the state. Wolves have a right to exhist in Wisconsin, but they are way over the goal of 350 statewide. Somewhow, between the state and federal authorities, the number of wolves need to be brought back down to gaol.
Pierce county, Wisconsin
There are many issues with the way the DNR manages the herd here in Wi. I will keep it at three to save space, plus I hate typing;)
1. Group bagging/party hunting during gun season. This leads to a lot of young bucks being shot. It also leads to people shooting more deer than they need, just because thehave a tag for it.
2. Baiting, this isn't Texas. The only thing baiting does in Wi is drive deer nocturnal and concentrate them in pockets.
3. The way the DNR classifies land as whitetail habitat is useless. They only count timber as habitat and skip areas that are very viable habitat. This results in lower goals when the real habitat could support many more deer.
Thank you for your time and goodluck, there are many challenges with the deer management in Wi. I only hope that hunters, the DNR, and legislators take any advice from you seriously.
Door, Wisconsin
I am a farm land property owner who manages a working tree farm. All of the land in our section is privately owned and hunter access is controlled by individual property owners. We have a burgeoning deer population.
The problems as I see it are among the following:
1. Reducing the deer numbers to suitable level so as to minimize crop damage (including my trees). The elimination of the October anterless hunt was a bad idea.
2. Baiting. A number of private property owners bait deer. This artifically changes natural patterns of deer movement. As soon as the bait piles come out the deer become nocturnal. This reduces hunting opportunities for hunters accustomed to scouting and patterning deer.
Thank you, in-advance, for your consideration of my views. I look forward to communicating with you in the year to come.
Marquette, Wisconsin
Herd goals in agriculture units are way to low, and they dont account for land owners that have improved habitat for wildlife. Public and private ground are different and should be treated as such, we've had our 400 acres in a herd control unit for years, there is no excessive damage to our crops, no browse line what so ever, no damage to new growth.
The need to limit non-resident antlerled permits to one buck a year.
Being on managment unit away from being part of the CWD zone and the potential crash of the local deer herd because of the onset of regulations and pressure to kill everything that it brings with it.
Predator control wolves and bears in the north, and coyotes in the south.
Kewaunee County, WI
Our deer are doing fine, thank you. The same DNR bashers that were complaining 10 and 20 years ago, including when Wisconsin set a national record kill of more than 618,000 registered whitetails in 2000, are whining even louder today. Earn-a-buck was overused, yes, but has been shelved the past two years. Aided by milder winters and no EAB, deer numbers have come back strong in many areas, esp. our agricultural regions. Now we need to get predator numbers down - wolf, bear and coyotes - to help the central and northern forest hunters who bring so much money to the economies of communities in those regions. We need county, state and national forests to be managed better for wildlife, with more select harvest and clearcut areas to get more forest openings and young growth. Encouraging hunters to shoot two adult antlerless deer for each adult buck in areas with high doe numbers should continue, but it shouldn't be forced. If earn-a-buck is needed/used, it should be no more than once every four or five years. It did produce some monster bucks, which was a nice bonus, while better balancing herds, but it is largely unpopular due mainly to its overuse (four times in five years in my hunt area). All that said, three top issues:
1. People. Plain and simple, education is needed on why "a deer behind every tree" is not healthy or desirable (long-term forest damage including winter yarding areas in the north, excessive crop/tree farmer damage, car/deer kills, overall health of the herd) .
2. Places. Public lands should be managed separately from private, with fewer antlerless tags and perhaps even alternating "buck-only" seasons in some extreme cases. Most of the overpopulation problem is on private land. Perhaps an incentive that gives the private land hunter an extra "trophy buck tag" for late season only hunts (muzzleloader and late bow) if he or she harvests at least two female antlerless deer.
3. Politicians. Interference from pandering politicians should be limited to passing legislation that a majority of stakeholders approve. Let professional wildlife managers manage and let the Conservation Congress process work. Instead of anti-DNR groups bypassing the process and giving pet legislation to legislators, convene a volunteer Wisconsin Deer Stakeholders group at least twice a year to consider recommendations.
My post from ArcheryTalk, copied over for you to read here:
Again, I'm highly skeptical of the accuracy of the population numbers of the current deer herd. The rebuttal from the wildlife biologists I have spoken to is " If we don't have the deer, then how is it possible that hunters continue to shoot them?" they have been adamant that SAK works. I believe it does to a degree, but it needs to be refined. Here is a little food for thought for some of you math wizards:
30,000 bears
1 bear kills/eats avg 5 fawns/yr
30,000 X 5 = 150,000 fawns/yr.
2,000 wolves
1 wolf kills 15 deer/yr
2,000 X 15 = 30,000 deer/yr.
Now, take into consideration that the large majority of these particular examples of predation takes place north of Hwy 8 you will quickly understand why our populations are on the decline. If you add in hunter kill numbers, car kill numbers and natural mortality numbers it's amazing that we are able to sustain the deer population that we have.
150,000 bear kills
30,000 wolf kills
400,000 human kills
20,000 car kills
100,000 natural mortality
=700,000 deer killed or deaths annually.
These numbers are estimates, and are open to criticism. But, i'd argue that they are fair. It would be easy to see that we can't continue this trend for any significant amount of time.
Dane, Wisconsin
The biggest issue in facing Wisconsin's deer herd is overhunting. In an 80 acre area during the 2003 season there were 22 deer shot on the property next to the one I hunt. As a result, the deer numbers were drastically reduced for the following 3 years which led me to find a new area to hunt. The DNR gives everyone unlimited tags and many hunters misuse this by routinely shooting 5-10 deer per year and giving the meat away or donating it. This isn't hunting, its just killing. The way that the season structures are set up, deer are subjected to way too much pressure throughout the year as well. Early T-Zone hunts here fall right around the pre-rut which negatively impacts the bowhunters chances. Many hunters here long for the "good ol' days" in the 1990's when there was only the Sept 15- Jan 1 bowhunt and the traditional 9 day gun season during the week of Thanksgiving. Hunters were given only a buck tag and could purchase an optional doe tag. Most would love to see it return to the way it was meant to be because it worked! The DNR here has wasted millions fighting a disease that they can't control and in the process ruined hunting in half of the state. Please help us return to the days where seeing 10 deer per hunt was common. I haven't seen more than 4 in one day for the last 7 years and I spend 50 days per year in the woods. As a fidgetty 12 year old I can remember seeing 29 deer in one day! The numbers just aren't there and it is discouraging. Some hunters that I know, including my grandfather, no longer hunt at all. I am a fan of your TV segments and was extremely excited to hear Wisconsin had hired you as our deer trustee and I cannot wait to see your findings and recommendations.
Bayfield, WI
1. Baiting is a problem. Makes deer nocturnal and changes movement patterns. Vast majority of hunters in NW WI bait.
2. Private vs. Public land, deer populations seem to be different between the two. Lots of deer on private lands fewer on public due to pressure.
3. Social issues. Many different stakeholders who want different and sometimes opposite things. An example would be trophy hunters and meat hunters, they have very different objectives. Holds true with bowhunters and gunhunters also.
Walworth county, WI
I have lived and hunted in wisconsin my entire life and i am not going to say anything negative or bash out natural resourse department. I will say however improvements are needed and was very exited to hear that you will now be involved in our states herd management. I personaly had no problems with the cwd zones and herd reduction process becuse it has given me the opportunity to kill multiple mature bucks a year just by killing extra does. Now that said i have been doing this not because i really think that it is right or the best for our state and area, but mainly because they let us do so. You know better than the rest of us what is right and i cant wait to see what you can do. We have the deer and the potential in this state to be GREAT, now all we need is some guidence. Welcome!!
P.S.- We also need some help with off season feeding and mineral use being legal.
Northern Oconto, WI
In order of importance:
(1) Past overharvest of does. Our area is a completely timbered area with no agriculture. There are not the number of deer per square mile that there are in the ag areas but yet for many years there were doe tags given out like candy. These northern areas cannot withstand a large doe harvest year after year without practically wiping out most of the local populations. I am not against harvesting does but in northern areas with an already low population there should never be more than one year at a time where does may be killed. Since the DNR stopped giving doe tags in our area 2 yrs ago , including no does even during archery, the population has gotten much better but the population is still no where what the land can healthfully hold in my opinion.
(2) Predators. In my opinion the bear population has gotten out of control in our area. 2 yrs ago our group saw a total of 9 bear on opening weekend and a total of 3 deer in the same time period. two of which were small bucks. The other deer was a mature doe that was alone. No wolves have been spotted yet but we are on the edge of a pack territory so I am sure it wont be long before we start seeing them also.
(3) Population goals that are set way too low. Regardless of what the complaints are concerning the DNR's herd estimation process, the goals they have set for most areas are too low in the first place. When doing some calculating a year or so ago it was determined that an 80 acre totally wooded parcel in agricultural rich Door County WI had an over winter goal of somewhere around 1.6 deer. I cant believe that 1.6 deer per wooded 80 acres in this type area is a healthy goal. The land can carry many more deer that that and still be healthy. This sounds more like a car insurance company setting goals than wildlife managers setting goals.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to having you work with the state to manage our deer herd.
Richland County, WI
I grew up bow hunting deer, and have always had a passion for understanding deer and being a conservationist and a hunter. I am also very familiar with your resume and reputation in the area of whitetails. I am glad you are going to be authoring the report to the Wisconsin DNR on their deer management practices. If I and my land (65 acres in in Richland County can be of assistance, let me know.
Here are the top three issues that I think you must consider in your report:
1) Deer hunting in Wisconsin, as it is in the United States overall, is a declining piece of culture and tradition. There are many theories as to why this trend exists, but it does exist, and with it come challenges to local and national economies, a degree of support of 2nd ammendment rights, and certain life and family values. When you craft your report, I think it will be important to reflect on the impact of your recommendations to the fun and accessibility of hunting for our youth.
2) The area known as the CWD area overlaps with some of the most densely populated portions of the state by humans. In other words, the area that is getting the most liberal of harvest limits, is where we have the most hunters. My land is in that portion of the state, and I can tell you from my 30 years in the deer woods, that the population of deer in my area is really hurting as a result of the population of hunters and the ease of getting more tags. In recent years, we really saw an impact on the herd in my area through Earn-A-Buck requirements, coupled with the ability to get up to 4 deer tags per day. The combined impact can be and is significant.
3) The last issue I would call to your attention is continual challenge about where to draw the boundaries of deer management zones, especially the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) management unit. Hunters need confidence in how these zones are mapped. Since the prevalence of CWD is a variable that can shift, it would seem logical that the zone boundaries shift according to data from sampled deer. Of course, it is a logistics and budgetary challenge to test enough deer each year to know where to draw the lines for the next year. The current system is structured like a binary - either in or out of CWD zone. It would seem logical to have a buffer zone wrapped around the core CWD zone, with different limits and regulations. Again, the issue is how to handle the logistics and budget of such a program and still make the hunters feel confident that the program adapts to the changing realities of the CWD problem.
I am a fan of yours, and I truly wish you the best of luck with your endeavor. We need your help. If I can be of assistance, please let me know .
Baraboo, WI 53913
I understand you are consulting for the WI Dept of National Resources and I want to share my near-death experience with deer. A few months ago, I was traveling down US33 toward Baraboo from my first Wisconson School Board Association meeting about 9pm, when three deer (one an enormous buck) darted across the road directly in front of me. I had absolutely no time to response, other than emergency brake, close my eyes, and grip the wheel. I heard a "thud" and then the airbags in the car deployed (thank goodness) and I was able to pull off the road safely. I am one of the lucky ones...more people are killed in deer accidents in Wisconsin than in any other state and it is a serious problem. Certainly there is a way to honor the deer hunters while at the same time making our highways safe. As a newly elected School Board Member of Baraboo, I worry about our children riding in school buses in the early morning and evenings. Please help us avoid that tragedy byefore it happens by recommending the appropriate guidelines to Governor Walker and the legislature.
2. Complete lack of common sense in issuing anterless tags. How deer management units can have an 80 - 170% increase in tags from one year to another makes no sense whatsoever and is insulting to those that hunt those areas and actually spend time in the woods and know what is happening to their local deer herds!
3. Predation by bears, coyotes, wolves.
Price County, WI
1. The age distribution in the deer herd is unnatural. It is largely populated by young deer. Se should have more older-aged deer in the herd.
2. Population goals that are set by the state of Wisconsin are too low. I am a forest landowner with many oak trees on my property, and do see some deer browse damage on young oak trees, but the trees do survive with no problem. I would prefer to see population goals in my DMU (DMU 25) set at 30 deer per square mile of habitat instead of the current 23.
3. Deer are being lost to wolves in the northern part of the state. Wolves have a right to exhist in Wisconsin, but they are way over the goal of 350 statewide. Somewhow, between the state and federal authorities, the number of wolves need to be brought back down to gaol.
Pierce county, Wisconsin
There are many issues with the way the DNR manages the herd here in Wi. I will keep it at three to save space, plus I hate typing;)
1. Group bagging/party hunting during gun season. This leads to a lot of young bucks being shot. It also leads to people shooting more deer than they need, just because thehave a tag for it.
2. Baiting, this isn't Texas. The only thing baiting does in Wi is drive deer nocturnal and concentrate them in pockets.
3. The way the DNR classifies land as whitetail habitat is useless. They only count timber as habitat and skip areas that are very viable habitat. This results in lower goals when the real habitat could support many more deer.
Thank you for your time and goodluck, there are many challenges with the deer management in Wi. I only hope that hunters, the DNR, and legislators take any advice from you seriously.
Door, Wisconsin
I am a farm land property owner who manages a working tree farm. All of the land in our section is privately owned and hunter access is controlled by individual property owners. We have a burgeoning deer population.
The problems as I see it are among the following:
1. Reducing the deer numbers to suitable level so as to minimize crop damage (including my trees). The elimination of the October anterless hunt was a bad idea.
2. Baiting. A number of private property owners bait deer. This artifically changes natural patterns of deer movement. As soon as the bait piles come out the deer become nocturnal. This reduces hunting opportunities for hunters accustomed to scouting and patterning deer.
Thank you, in-advance, for your consideration of my views. I look forward to communicating with you in the year to come.
Marquette, Wisconsin
Herd goals in agriculture units are way to low, and they dont account for land owners that have improved habitat for wildlife. Public and private ground are different and should be treated as such, we've had our 400 acres in a herd control unit for years, there is no excessive damage to our crops, no browse line what so ever, no damage to new growth.
The need to limit non-resident antlerled permits to one buck a year.
Being on managment unit away from being part of the CWD zone and the potential crash of the local deer herd because of the onset of regulations and pressure to kill everything that it brings with it.
Predator control wolves and bears in the north, and coyotes in the south.
Kewaunee County, WI
Our deer are doing fine, thank you. The same DNR bashers that were complaining 10 and 20 years ago, including when Wisconsin set a national record kill of more than 618,000 registered whitetails in 2000, are whining even louder today. Earn-a-buck was overused, yes, but has been shelved the past two years. Aided by milder winters and no EAB, deer numbers have come back strong in many areas, esp. our agricultural regions. Now we need to get predator numbers down - wolf, bear and coyotes - to help the central and northern forest hunters who bring so much money to the economies of communities in those regions. We need county, state and national forests to be managed better for wildlife, with more select harvest and clearcut areas to get more forest openings and young growth. Encouraging hunters to shoot two adult antlerless deer for each adult buck in areas with high doe numbers should continue, but it shouldn't be forced. If earn-a-buck is needed/used, it should be no more than once every four or five years. It did produce some monster bucks, which was a nice bonus, while better balancing herds, but it is largely unpopular due mainly to its overuse (four times in five years in my hunt area). All that said, three top issues:
1. People. Plain and simple, education is needed on why "a deer behind every tree" is not healthy or desirable (long-term forest damage including winter yarding areas in the north, excessive crop/tree farmer damage, car/deer kills, overall health of the herd) .
2. Places. Public lands should be managed separately from private, with fewer antlerless tags and perhaps even alternating "buck-only" seasons in some extreme cases. Most of the overpopulation problem is on private land. Perhaps an incentive that gives the private land hunter an extra "trophy buck tag" for late season only hunts (muzzleloader and late bow) if he or she harvests at least two female antlerless deer.
3. Politicians. Interference from pandering politicians should be limited to passing legislation that a majority of stakeholders approve. Let professional wildlife managers manage and let the Conservation Congress process work. Instead of anti-DNR groups bypassing the process and giving pet legislation to legislators, convene a volunteer Wisconsin Deer Stakeholders group at least twice a year to consider recommendations.
My post from ArcheryTalk, copied over for you to read here:
Again, I'm highly skeptical of the accuracy of the population numbers of the current deer herd. The rebuttal from the wildlife biologists I have spoken to is " If we don't have the deer, then how is it possible that hunters continue to shoot them?" they have been adamant that SAK works. I believe it does to a degree, but it needs to be refined. Here is a little food for thought for some of you math wizards:
30,000 bears
1 bear kills/eats avg 5 fawns/yr
30,000 X 5 = 150,000 fawns/yr.
2,000 wolves
1 wolf kills 15 deer/yr
2,000 X 15 = 30,000 deer/yr.
Now, take into consideration that the large majority of these particular examples of predation takes place north of Hwy 8 you will quickly understand why our populations are on the decline. If you add in hunter kill numbers, car kill numbers and natural mortality numbers it's amazing that we are able to sustain the deer population that we have.
150,000 bear kills
30,000 wolf kills
400,000 human kills
20,000 car kills
100,000 natural mortality
=700,000 deer killed or deaths annually.
These numbers are estimates, and are open to criticism. But, i'd argue that they are fair. It would be easy to see that we can't continue this trend for any significant amount of time.
Dane, Wisconsin
The biggest issue in facing Wisconsin's deer herd is overhunting. In an 80 acre area during the 2003 season there were 22 deer shot on the property next to the one I hunt. As a result, the deer numbers were drastically reduced for the following 3 years which led me to find a new area to hunt. The DNR gives everyone unlimited tags and many hunters misuse this by routinely shooting 5-10 deer per year and giving the meat away or donating it. This isn't hunting, its just killing. The way that the season structures are set up, deer are subjected to way too much pressure throughout the year as well. Early T-Zone hunts here fall right around the pre-rut which negatively impacts the bowhunters chances. Many hunters here long for the "good ol' days" in the 1990's when there was only the Sept 15- Jan 1 bowhunt and the traditional 9 day gun season during the week of Thanksgiving. Hunters were given only a buck tag and could purchase an optional doe tag. Most would love to see it return to the way it was meant to be because it worked! The DNR here has wasted millions fighting a disease that they can't control and in the process ruined hunting in half of the state. Please help us return to the days where seeing 10 deer per hunt was common. I haven't seen more than 4 in one day for the last 7 years and I spend 50 days per year in the woods. As a fidgetty 12 year old I can remember seeing 29 deer in one day! The numbers just aren't there and it is discouraging. Some hunters that I know, including my grandfather, no longer hunt at all. I am a fan of your TV segments and was extremely excited to hear Wisconsin had hired you as our deer trustee and I cannot wait to see your findings and recommendations.
Bayfield, WI
1. Baiting is a problem. Makes deer nocturnal and changes movement patterns. Vast majority of hunters in NW WI bait.
2. Private vs. Public land, deer populations seem to be different between the two. Lots of deer on private lands fewer on public due to pressure.
3. Social issues. Many different stakeholders who want different and sometimes opposite things. An example would be trophy hunters and meat hunters, they have very different objectives. Holds true with bowhunters and gunhunters also.
Walworth county, WI
I have lived and hunted in wisconsin my entire life and i am not going to say anything negative or bash out natural resourse department. I will say however improvements are needed and was very exited to hear that you will now be involved in our states herd management. I personaly had no problems with the cwd zones and herd reduction process becuse it has given me the opportunity to kill multiple mature bucks a year just by killing extra does. Now that said i have been doing this not because i really think that it is right or the best for our state and area, but mainly because they let us do so. You know better than the rest of us what is right and i cant wait to see what you can do. We have the deer and the potential in this state to be GREAT, now all we need is some guidence. Welcome!!
P.S.- We also need some help with off season feeding and mineral use being legal.
Northern Oconto, WI
In order of importance:
(1) Past overharvest of does. Our area is a completely timbered area with no agriculture. There are not the number of deer per square mile that there are in the ag areas but yet for many years there were doe tags given out like candy. These northern areas cannot withstand a large doe harvest year after year without practically wiping out most of the local populations. I am not against harvesting does but in northern areas with an already low population there should never be more than one year at a time where does may be killed. Since the DNR stopped giving doe tags in our area 2 yrs ago , including no does even during archery, the population has gotten much better but the population is still no where what the land can healthfully hold in my opinion.
(2) Predators. In my opinion the bear population has gotten out of control in our area. 2 yrs ago our group saw a total of 9 bear on opening weekend and a total of 3 deer in the same time period. two of which were small bucks. The other deer was a mature doe that was alone. No wolves have been spotted yet but we are on the edge of a pack territory so I am sure it wont be long before we start seeing them also.
(3) Population goals that are set way too low. Regardless of what the complaints are concerning the DNR's herd estimation process, the goals they have set for most areas are too low in the first place. When doing some calculating a year or so ago it was determined that an 80 acre totally wooded parcel in agricultural rich Door County WI had an over winter goal of somewhere around 1.6 deer. I cant believe that 1.6 deer per wooded 80 acres in this type area is a healthy goal. The land can carry many more deer that that and still be healthy. This sounds more like a car insurance company setting goals than wildlife managers setting goals.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to having you work with the state to manage our deer herd.
Richland County, WI
I grew up bow hunting deer, and have always had a passion for understanding deer and being a conservationist and a hunter. I am also very familiar with your resume and reputation in the area of whitetails. I am glad you are going to be authoring the report to the Wisconsin DNR on their deer management practices. If I and my land (65 acres in in Richland County can be of assistance, let me know.
Here are the top three issues that I think you must consider in your report:
1) Deer hunting in Wisconsin, as it is in the United States overall, is a declining piece of culture and tradition. There are many theories as to why this trend exists, but it does exist, and with it come challenges to local and national economies, a degree of support of 2nd ammendment rights, and certain life and family values. When you craft your report, I think it will be important to reflect on the impact of your recommendations to the fun and accessibility of hunting for our youth.
2) The area known as the CWD area overlaps with some of the most densely populated portions of the state by humans. In other words, the area that is getting the most liberal of harvest limits, is where we have the most hunters. My land is in that portion of the state, and I can tell you from my 30 years in the deer woods, that the population of deer in my area is really hurting as a result of the population of hunters and the ease of getting more tags. In recent years, we really saw an impact on the herd in my area through Earn-A-Buck requirements, coupled with the ability to get up to 4 deer tags per day. The combined impact can be and is significant.
3) The last issue I would call to your attention is continual challenge about where to draw the boundaries of deer management zones, especially the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) management unit. Hunters need confidence in how these zones are mapped. Since the prevalence of CWD is a variable that can shift, it would seem logical that the zone boundaries shift according to data from sampled deer. Of course, it is a logistics and budgetary challenge to test enough deer each year to know where to draw the lines for the next year. The current system is structured like a binary - either in or out of CWD zone. It would seem logical to have a buffer zone wrapped around the core CWD zone, with different limits and regulations. Again, the issue is how to handle the logistics and budget of such a program and still make the hunters feel confident that the program adapts to the changing realities of the CWD problem.
I am a fan of yours, and I truly wish you the best of luck with your endeavor. We need your help. If I can be of assistance, please let me know .
Baraboo, WI 53913
I understand you are consulting for the WI Dept of National Resources and I want to share my near-death experience with deer. A few months ago, I was traveling down US33 toward Baraboo from my first Wisconson School Board Association meeting about 9pm, when three deer (one an enormous buck) darted across the road directly in front of me. I had absolutely no time to response, other than emergency brake, close my eyes, and grip the wheel. I heard a "thud" and then the airbags in the car deployed (thank goodness) and I was able to pull off the road safely. I am one of the lucky ones...more people are killed in deer accidents in Wisconsin than in any other state and it is a serious problem. Certainly there is a way to honor the deer hunters while at the same time making our highways safe. As a newly elected School Board Member of Baraboo, I worry about our children riding in school buses in the early morning and evenings. Please help us avoid that tragedy byefore it happens by recommending the appropriate guidelines to Governor Walker and the legislature.
Viewer Submissions
Page
Page