Among the first things a hunter wonders after a rough year is whether harvest will rebound. Past harvest totals from four Midwestern states offer a qualified answer. Following summer disease during 2012 to 2013 and the severe winters around that period, harvest increased again. Recovery took time, differed across states, and reached different levels. Illinois needed eleven years to regain its former total. Iowa made up some ground, then maintained a lasting plateau below its old level. Michigan’s statewide estimate from hunter surveys had fallen 22% by 2014, then rebounded to at most half a percent away from the 2011 total by 2020. After another drop, it was about 10% below the 2011 figure in 2024. Wisconsin rebounded into a lower range, where it remained. This paper tracks those changes in the series. It examines an earlier pattern and makes no forecast for any coming season.
KEY FINDINGS
- Illinois ultimately regained its earlier harvest, after a long climb. Starting at the 2013 bottom of 128,572, the total rose 21.6%, reaching 156,338 by 2024. That put harvest essentially even with the state’s 2011 figure from before the shocks. The climb spanned eleven seasons.
- Iowa regained some of its lost harvest. Its 2013 bottom was 99,414. During its strongest years, harvest approached 110,000, a gain of roughly +10%. The plateau across the broader period stayed far beneath the earlier peak. The total stabilized below its old level.
- Michigan regained ground before another decline. Statewide harvest estimates from the DNR hunter survey went from 422,014 for 2011 down to 329,040 for 2014. They then rose to 420,071 for 2020, leaving a gap of at most half a percent relative to 2011. The estimate subsequently declined to 345,766 for 2022 and was 380,625 for 2024, about 10% below 2011. Wisconsin does not follow a clear low point followed by a return; instead, harvest rebounds into a lower range.
- Where Illinois, Iowa and Michigan regained harvest, the shared trait was a slow pace. Illinois needed eleven seasons; Michigan needed six, going from its low in 2014 to its level in 2020. Permits govern harvest, which means these records cannot identify what capped each state’s total.
IWHAT THIS PAPER IS, AND IS NOT
Reviewing an earlier harvest pattern
The records examined here all bear the effects of a hemorrhagic disease outbreak in 2012 and severe winters on either side of it: those events caused steep declines into 2013. These totals can answer what came next, including the course and extent of the rebound. This paper keeps that question historical, describing the paths actually taken by four states from 2013 through 2024. It makes no projection for any coming season. None of this should be treated as a prediction. Weather, disease and policy shape deer abundance; past harvest records determine none of those factors. The value of the record lies in the forms recoveries have tended to take, viewed once enough of the rebound had happened to make those forms visible.
IIILLINOIS: ALL THE WAY BACK, SLOWLY
Eleven years to regain the harvest before the shocks
Illinois shows the clearest rebound among these records, and the takeaway is to give it time. Its lowest harvest was 128,572 during 2013. An uneven climb followed: the total reached 140,000 by 2015, fell during 2016, then rose again. It eventually hit 156,338 during 2024, a gain of 21.6% from the bottom. That brought harvest essentially even with the 2011 total recorded before the shocks, 156,297. Regaining the 2011 mark required eleven seasons with starts and setbacks. Anyone dismissing Illinois at its low in 2013 would have misjudged the recovery. Expecting the total to rebound quickly in the next year would also have been a mistake.
IIIIOWA: A NEW, LOWER FLOOR
Some gains, then a lasting lower level
Iowa also hit bottom in 2013 at 99,414. It regained only some of the lost harvest, with policy accounting for as much of that result as biology. Totals moved into a range of about 102,000 to 110,000, reaching 109,544 during 2020 and 109,591 during 2022, then stayed within it. At their best, those years were roughly 10% above the low but still far beneath the previous peak. The state’s harvest leveled off below its old level. Harvest in Iowa depends both on county quotas for antlerless deer and on herd size. Its recovery stopped growing within that range. Readers most often mistake this pattern for “the deer never came back.”
- Illinois
- Iowa
When harvest rebounded in these records, it took time: Michigan and Illinois needed six to eleven seasons. A quick return was absent, and recovery was never assured.
IVWISCONSIN & MICHIGAN: TWO MORE PATHS
A rebound without a single arc
The states with larger harvest totals add two more patterns to the history. Michigan’s statewide harvest estimate from the DNR hunter survey totaled 422,014 in 2011. It dropped 22% to 329,040 in 2014, then recovered to 420,071 in 2020, less than half a percent below 2011. Harvest fell again to 345,766 in 2022 before rising to 380,625 in 2024, roughly 10% below 2011. Michigan began requiring hunters to report harvested deer in 2022. Before that requirement, the DNR calculated harvest from a mail survey. The figures here use that same survey estimate throughout. Wisconsin’s live harvest series fluctuates even more, moving between roughly 265,000 and 310,000 during 2014 to 2025 without reaching its early-2000s highs again. Wisconsin showed no clear recovery curve. Its harvest settled within a lower range and stayed there. The key regional distinction is that shocks from the same era led to different outcomes: Illinois recovered fully over time, Iowa reached a plateau, Michigan recovered and then fell again, and Wisconsin settled into a lower band. These harvest figures do not explain why the states took different paths.
Swipe table to see every column
| State | Trough (yr) | Recent | Off trough | vs pre-shock peak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | 128,572 (2013) | 156,338 (2024) | +21.6% | ~fully recovered |
| Iowa | 99,414 (2013) | 101,216 (2024) | +1.8% | lower plateau |
| Michigan | 329,040 (2014) | 380,625 (2024) | +15.7% | ~10% below 2011 |
| Wisconsin | 265,598 (2019) | 294,654 (2025) | +11.0% | well below 2000s |
VTHE SHAPE THE RECORD SHOWS
State differences in past harvest rebounds
These four histories show that harvest recovery differed from state to state. After the herds were hit by shocks, harvest remained, but recovery took time. The rebound played out over years rather than individual seasons, and its size varied by state. Illinois regained its earlier level over a decade. Michigan’s statewide hunter-survey estimate came back to less than half a percent below its 2011 total by 2020, then declined again. Iowa climbed to a plateau below its earlier level, while Wisconsin settled within a lower band. Antlerless permits and the deer themselves both affect harvest. These series therefore describe changes in harvest without identifying what determined the highest totals possible. That is the history recorded between 2013 and 2024. It provides context for an honest reading of harvest figures. It makes no prediction about any herd’s future, which these data cannot and do not establish.
NOTES AND SOURCES
- FDR calculated the Illinois and Iowa series by adding county harvest records, drawing from a single reporting source for each county in each year; Michigan figures use the DNR’s statewide hunter-survey estimate published in its Deer Harvest Survey Reports, combining sexes and covering all seasons, including DMA permits; Wisconsin figures follow its continuous live registration series. Each state’s index gives its harvest as a percentage of its 2013 total. The underlying public deer harvest data come from the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, Wisconsin DNR and Michigan DNR.
- The term “Trough” means the minimum reported harvest within the modern record available for each state. The timing of the lows varies because the underlying shocks differ: EHD in 2012, severe winters, and a Wisconsin low during 2019. Iowa’s comparison of recent harvest with the low (+1.8%) uses the 2024 total. Its rebound in the middle of the decade was roughly +10%, reached in 2020 and 2022.
- Michigan figures throughout this paper come from the statewide estimate based on DNR hunter surveys. Among Michigan series, only this one covers 2011 through 2024. The 2012 total is omitted because its report was not acquired. Required harvest reports started in 2022; their counts were 12.4% to 22.5% below the survey estimates across 2022 to 2024. Results from these two methods are never mixed. Mail-survey response rates were above 70% early in the 2000s, but fell to 33% during 2021, so comparisons between years carry error from the survey method. Previously, this page added county rows drawn from both methods. It has been changed to use survey estimates for the entire period. Wisconsin’s live record omits eleven Northern-Forest counties dropped during a rebuild in 2025. The information provided does not say whether that omission applies throughout the historical record or just to recent totals. Matching county coverage from year to year has therefore not been established.
- Limits on interpretation: permits control harvest, and the totals are not adjusted for hunting effort. A harvest “recovery” thus reflects decisions about antlerless permits in part, along with herd size. The paper only describes earlier recovery paths. It offers no forecast or prediction for any coming season. Figures are current through the 2024 season, or 2025 when reported.
Fully Drawn Research is an independent data analysis desk, not affiliated with any state wildlife agency, transportation agency, mapping provider or outfitter. Harvest figures are state wildlife agency public records analyzed independently by FDR. All recovery characterizations describe the historical reported series, which is permit-governed, and are not predictions of future harvests or herd sizes. FDR is an independent data analysis desk, not affiliated with any state wildlife agency. Figures current to the 2024–2025 seasons.
Keep reading
FDR Scout puts county harvest history like this on the map of the ground you hunt. Open Scout →