Is the Deer Decline Real? A Seven-State County Look

IONE WORD, THREE QUESTIONS

The category mistake behind “the deer decline”

A harvest figure does not tell you how many deer are in the herd. Both herd size and antlerless permit policy can change it. Weather or disease may also influence the harvest that fall. The total by itself cannot separate a real population crash from a state intentionally cutting herd size through doe harvest. Either can move a chart’s line downward. County-level harvest records come from the seven states that require a check or registration. Comparing each with its own past reveals different patterns: two dropped steeply, two slipped a little, and one rose. To ask whether the deer decline is real, first identify whose decline you mean and which of the three questions you want to answer.

IITHE TWO THAT FELL HARD

Wisconsin’s apparent drop is half; Iowa’s is a third

The sharp harvest losses in two of these seven states are clear. The harvest high for Wisconsin was near 615,200 around the year 2000. Its 2025 tally is 294,654, yielding a nominal decline of 52.1%. For Iowa, the comparable reported record opens at its maximum: 150,552 during 2006. Harvest reached 101,216 during 2024, a reduction of 32.8%. Earlier Iowa estimates are higher. However, Iowa DNR says estimates for 2005 or earlier cannot be compared with later years, so our calculation does not cross that reporting break. Beside those losses, the remaining states with long histories appear nearly steady: Michigan’s reduction is 18.7% relative to 2011, and Illinois is 15.4% below its peak in 2005. The central distinction is between a state down 52% and one down 15%. The nation does not follow a common downward curve.

IIITHE WISCONSIN ASTERISK

The 52% calculation leaves eleven counties out

Part of Wisconsin’s 52% reduction comes from recordkeeping, so the figure needs a closer look. During its 2025 rebuild, the state dropped eleven Northern-Forest counties from the live registration record. Our earlier-year figures retain those counties through a separate archival backfill. Thus, the unadjusted peak covers 615,200 harvested deer and ~72 counties, while the latest tally covers 294,654 and ~60 counties. Those totals describe different county sets. Using only counties included at each endpoint in the continuous live registration record produces a Wisconsin decline of about 39%, with harvest going from roughly 486,100 to 294,654, rather than 52%. The reduction remains real and large, and it remains the largest among these seven states. Still, a hunter who reads “Wisconsin lost half its deer” encounters a figure partly shaped by the agency’s choice of counties to retain. We keep the two vintages separate so the reporting break remains visible.

When a harvest total falls over time, the cause may be changes in the herd or changes in harvest management and reporting. That total by itself cannot distinguish among those causes.

IVIOWA IS A DOE STORY

Does saw a larger harvest drop than bucks

Iowa makes the clearest case for looking beyond the total harvest. Separate bucks from does, and their declines differ. Between 2006 and 2024, hunters took fewer bucks: 58,653 at the start and 43,017 at the end, a decrease of 26.7%. The doe total went from 77,946 to 48,905, a fall of 37.3%. From 2013 onward, the annual buck harvest has ranged from 38,555 to 48,696. The ratio of bucks to does in the harvest increased from 0.75 in 2006 to 0.88 in 2024. Bucks therefore account for more of the total even as that total has fallen. This pattern fits a lower antlerless harvest just as well as a shrinking herd. Antlerless take is regulated through permits. Iowa DNR’s population model describes a herd that fell from 2006 to 2013, held steady, grew a little until 2023, and then held steady or declined.

VTHE STATES THAT DIDN’T FALL

Ohio gained, Indiana stayed level, and Missouri has too little history to assess

Neither Ohio nor Indiana has a harvest decline, and Missouri has too few years of records for an overall judgment. Ohio’s county-level figures begin in 2019. Over that period, harvest increased from about 184,500 to 232,200, a gain of roughly a quarter that runs opposite to a decline. Indiana’s figures begin in 2013 and show almost no change, with ~126,000 at each end. Missouri’s record starts in 2015. Its only substantial change is a 7.8% fall from the 2023 high, a two-season swing rather than a trend. Each state’s record begins when mandatory county reporting took effect, so the short time spans do not signal failed data. Those limits affect the headline. Among the seven states with actual county data, two, Ohio and Indiana, have no decline. A third, Missouri, lacks enough years to judge. And two of those states cannot have a “peak-to-latest fall” because no harvest in their modern records was higher than the latest total.

VIWHAT “REAL” MEANS

Two states have real declines; Iowa’s is largely in doe harvest

Is the deer decline real, then? Wisconsin and Iowa did have large harvest declines. Even in those states, saying “the deer are disappearing” goes beyond an honest reading of the evidence. Most of Iowa’s drop comes from doe harvest, and its reported harvest has remained within a steady range since 2013. Wisconsin’s drop reflects both a real decline and a change in which counties were counted. Illinois and Michigan had modest decreases, and Illinois has since recovered. Ohio’s harvest is higher; Indiana’s is level. Calling all seven stories “decline” turns different management histories into a single trend that is false. Herd size, antlerless policy, weather shocks, and disease shocks can each affect harvest totals. The total by itself cannot separate their contributions. When harvest falls and bucks make up a growing share, we suggest looking at trends in antlerless permits.