Bowsiters help draft bill
Wisconsin
I'd still like to know who is wrting the bill.
Ron, the Saturday nearest Sept 10 is not early enough. This year bear season opens Sept 9. If a bait hunter doesn't have his stands up AT LEAST 3 days before the season opens you might as well forget it. Given most would like to put their stands up on a weekend it really needs to start on a Saturday before at least 3 days before the season starts. You might as well make it simple and go with Sept 1. You gotta understand that bait first years are the critical years for this as bait hunters are the ones that need stands up. They only get 7 days to hunt before dogs start so if their stands aren't up before the season starts the proposed law does them very little good.
You forgot to mention that the stands must not damage the tree.
Still don't like it. It gives ownership to public land.
I have hunted public land for the majority of my bowhunting life and will for most of the rest I'm sure. I have never had a problem taking my stand in and out each time I hunt. I see this as causing even more conflicts among public land hunters besides the ones caused by the other practice. I apologize to those older hunters who have difficulty putting up stands all the time but maybe it's time to look at hunting from the ground. I will have no problem doing that when the time comes that treestands are no longer an option due to my inability to put one up. It amazes me how those people that hunt mostly private land are constantly trying to make the life of the public land hunter more difficult under the guise of helping us. I am already talking to my legislators to not back this bill whenever it gets introduced.
Tom
More discussion of this topic here: http://www.wisconsinoutdoorsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1139
Im for it for the most part. Hey if a guy does his homework scouts etc aint nothing wrong with putting up a stand. First come first serve man. Now yes should be limited to only a few stands out, and maybe a one stand per 50 acres or so rule. This is great news for all the lowlife tree stand thieves out there. That is the bad part. You take your chances.
Yep, the tree stand thieves are going to love this and I bet they vote yes as well!
Rance you also hunt private land so you could care less what your doing to the public land hunters! What happened in Rice Lake when some one was found in someones tree stand. Your worng I don't have to cope with this and have contacted the proper people to vote this down and the reasons why. I hope others do the same.
Don't bother asking me who the author of the bill is - I have no idea.
I ask the question but Rancid dodges me better than my chickens.
Though I don't understand the why there is such fear about giving the authors name. Seems to me if someone is going to right a bill they should have the gonads to put their name on it.
Who wrote the bill?
Glad you brought up federal land. The rule there is Sept 1, so it would be nice to be consistent.
One down side of this is that gun hunters could stake out land for 2.5 months before their season even starts. So, maybe say that the stand cannot be erected more than 10 days before the season for which they hold a big game license.
I still like the permit thing in order to issue a 'tag' to affix to the stand. Without that it will be very very hard for wardens to enforce the limit of 4 stands.
I am going to assume the author of this bill does not what his/her name out just yet as bowsite and other hunting boards show so much love to people we don't agree with they don't want the hassle until it is complete.
As for the leaving tree stand on state land I could care less. I hunt with a climber so it comes out with me anyway. the last thing I want is to hike into my stand and find it gone or the tree cut down and the stand destroyed. Criminals are not know for thinking ahead.
WOW all this hand-wringing over a tree-stand. Do any of you guys hunt public land and leave up a trail cam? Oh heavens. How about a ground blind put up a day before Turkey Season? What about a pier or boat lift installed in front of a lake front home or cabin? How about that swim raft anchored out in the lake? Do any of you leave a bear bait out? How about two gallons of the banned topic? What about my permanent Ice Shanty that sits on the same GPS coordinate every year from the time we can pull it on the lake to the close of the game fishing season? Which is about three months each year. How about traps left on federal land? Stands are being left on Federal and some county lands legally for years yet none of the fears that have been listed have come to play out. As to the author or authors I believe Rancid is making you guys work on your own to find out. It is easy if you know where to look. Why would the author matter? don't worry once this is out for circulation and sponsors and co sponsors are solicited lawmakers will be putting there name out on the bill. The law would make perfect sense to me. Lawmakers asking for input is good while drafting a bill and I applaud the lawmaker or lawmakers working on this legislation.
HF43
If the author wants to remain anonymous, they shouldn't allow it to be posted on bowsite.
I can see it now, there is going to be gun hunter after gun hunter coming into the woods during prime time rutting activity to hang all their stands, for 10 days....... fun, fun, fun!
Must be a tree stand manufacturer writing up this bill so they can sell more stands! lol...
"What? Nobody said the author wants to remain anonymous and as far as allowing it on Bowsite, you will have to take that up with the powers here."
If the author doesn't want to remain annonymous then why won't you give out the name? ("they" was referring to the author, not bowsite. "they" is acceptable as replacement for he/she).
I guess one could just pattern the stands left up in the woods and hunt from them then. Anyone with any grey matter between their ears will be able to tell you that this is definately going to cause more conflicts in the woods. But then again I love wizzin on a guys cheerios in the morning when he gets there and i'm hunting within a two foot radius of his tree, and i've got beer and liver sausage from the day before knockin on my door. Know what I mean. Gotta go when you gotta go!
The no author name on it, pure chicken$#!*.
I have no problem with a tree stand being left out hunters with any freaking morals dont sit 10 feet from another hunter to spite tham no matter if they have a stand up or not.
If I'm in that spot first you @#$%*& right i'm sitting there, I don't care if another hunter has a freakin Hilton in a tree. Public is public. Now you tell me is this just going to cause more hassles for the public land hunter? Thats what I thought. I have a feeling thats why nobody wants to put a name to this bill, because its such an ignorant idea.
Overly dramatic would be someone locking a ladderstand to the only tree available in a certain tamarck patch in Black River Falls that I hunt. Yea I could beat him there but it would be a little difficult to run my climber up the tree don't you think? Thats when things might get a little dramatic as you say. Thats the problem with this bill. How do I remedy the above situation? Ask nicely? Another great idea by someone wanting to play politics again.
Ron, yes Page 1, 9b says his name needs to be on the stand, and now maybe their DNR number. But if anyone is going to enforce the limit of 4 stands the wardens might need to search thousands of acres of state woods makeing an inventory of everyones DNR number from the stands that they find. Then when they find someone with 5 stands out they have to go back to the other 4 to see if they are still there.
As for 8a and 2e: It would be pretty hard to prove anything as the person who's name or number is on the stand could be leting a friend hunt it prior to when his license becomes valid.
Issueing tags to place on the stands would be better for really keeping the limit to 4 and the tag sales could be restricted to 10 days before the season for which you have already purchased a big game license.
Just thoughts to consider.
Thanks for going with Sept 1. Much better for bear hunters.
It appears that some want their little piece of the forest as their own. Interesting
Nope, just equal opportunity for the same little piece of the forest. This bill would make things unequal, and when that happens nothing good comes from it.
Or brought up by someone that won't afford private land and wants to stake a claim of public for him or herself. It certainly wasn't brought up for the good of all hunters, just those who want to claim the best spots for themselves. Do you really think that this isn't going to lead to trouble in the woods? Ask some of the guys on here how the golden scrape dam near got them an arse kicking for being too close to an area. This just does the same.
This will ultimately start a terratorial mindset among hunters . It will start slowly and get worse every year . It will be as bad or worse than the baiters . Remember the note on my Jeep last October .
" Sir , I would appreciate it if you would find a new place to hunt . I have been baiting here for 2 weeks and don't want any other hunters in here . I will be very happy if you move ."
Just imagine a deer camp setting up a perimeter in a public woods. This is just not thought out at all. It might look good on paper, but in practice its ignorant.
Can't wait till this fall with all of the new threads starting out ... LOL!
"someone stole my tree stand"
"someone stole my tree stand ... again"
"tree stand gone!"
"tree stand gone ... again!"
"how do you stop trestand thiefs?"
"tried to steal it, now it's wrecked!"
"someone pooped all around my tree stand"
From Rancid Crabtree “I'm looking for hunter input on a new draft bill. It is in the process of finding co-sponsors. Let me know if you have any concerns with the wording.”
This is taken right from the WBH web site posted by you Rancid. Being the Political liaison for WBH I find that you are not keeping your personal agenda out of your position as a board member. Further more I feel you are abusing your status as the political liaison to mislead the elected officials that this is supported by WBH and all the Deer Hunters in the state.
I feel the position of political liaison that you are the go between and a watchdog for things that affect the bow hunters of the state. Not write and draft legislation to suit your personal agenda. As a member of WBH I’m requesting you cease further efforts of getting this Bill through and becoming a State wide Regulation.
District 4
Will Minette
How nice Ron! Are you that much afraid of opposition that you lock the thread at the WBH forums? By doing so leaves me no other avenue other than the other forums to voice my concerns and opposition to this bill. So don’t chastise me for doing so here.
There are plenty of people opposed to this Bill also. Are they to be ignored? If this is not a personal agenda then why are you not writing a Bill or working for lowering the age for cross bows to 55? After all this passed also and as you said “the people have spoken” Are you going to work equally hard to see that this goes through also?
The WBH forum with you as administrator is hardly a fair and unbiased place to express ones views. Everything is fine as long as you agree or the member agrees with you on items brought up there. I’m sorry I’m not one of the boys. When I oppose something I will say so.
This is going to be an enforcement nightmare for the Game Wardens and County Sheriffs Departments. National forests are very large tracts of land. Where state lands can be small and this is where the problems will arise. A couple guys can place stands and take over an entire parcel. Sure you say first come, first served. But who’s going to go into the woods looking for conflicts? Many of us hunt to unwind and get away from life’s hassles even if it’s just a few hours.
I still say that you are abusing your position within WBH to push this bill forward as is gives you doors that otherwise would not be available. Just my two cents!!
Rancid you only accepted the input you wanted, so don't make saintly claims of fairness or neutrality.
I'm a new member to WBH and making it known that I am also against this bill. This is nothing but trouble. I am also starting to think maybe I should of researched the WBH a little better before I joined this year! Bummer!
So why the locked thread and other things I bring up that you fail to address?
Rancid go back to the orignal thread in which you asked for input.
I know I made suggestion relating to keeping the bill in the spirit of the question asked at the spring hearings. It is clear you weren't intersted in keeping with the original proposal and were set to make "overnight" mean four months.
Its a wonder anyone would join the WBH. Of the people for the people. More B.S. Obviously from a guy that must not hunt public land very much!
I have hunted state lands for over 35 years.
I have no problem RC with this bill.
Rusty, what did you think 'overnite' meant? Set it up in the evening for the next mornings hunt and then take it down the next day?
After reading everyones comments, here is what I think.
If we are talking about state lands here I do see a problem, arising, maybe not so much with bowhunters, as there would be with gun hunters.
The part about no more than 4 stands. That makes no sense to me.
The idea behind this, was so someone could leave up a stand overnight, if he or she wanted to come back in the am, and hunt the same spot, or keep the stand up, while ACTIVLEY hunting the area.
The way I read this, your talking about leaving several stands up for the season, would not that be claiming an area?
I have to agree with Ruger and Drop Tine on this one.
Respectfully - Mike
Jeff, well yeah. I mean if you invited me to stay overnight your place would you expect me to stay for four months?
If a hunter was out hunting on saturday, and coming back on sunday he should be able to leave his stand overnight - not really hurting anything.
But putting up four stands for four months is hardly what the resolution stated.
Maybe in the north this won't be much of a problem, but herein the south, I think it will cause some problems. I've seen it first hand here in the south on WPA's for waterfowl hunting. People will try to claim areas as there own. I have mixed feelings about this bill, it will open lands up to me that I normally don't hunt. I hunt many private lands that border state areas and have stayed off the state cause of the tree stand rule. If this new rule goes thru, I guess I will now be able to hang a stand over on state land. As a bonus, now I can cut tresspassers off on the state side before they get to the private.
I like the bill. Like Sharp said, I think it will open up more land that wasn't previously hunted. I think you are still going to have problems in areas that are easily accessible on state land, I've had a few in the Kettle Moraine in the past.
There are many good arguments against the bill on here and I can understand the concern. But it also sounds like some that are voicing their concern already appear to 'own' their favorite spot already and are fearing this bill would possible open up their spot to someone else.
Just my two cents.
One stand, left overnight, even for a weekend, that's common sense. Four stands, left for months? No way it'll fly.
I don't feel like I own the spot I hunt, but if I get to the said spot and I'am not able to climb a tree because someone has a stand locked onto that tree, isn't that hunter screwing me out of that area? Who really is getting the ownership then?
"This same guy called me after his resolution passed at this year's statewide hearing and asked for support"
"Since WBH supports this measure and I will most likely NEVER benefit from this measure"
So you support the measure but won't benefit from it yet you approve of it. Hmmmm, did we bother to think about the ramifications of such a measure or just go with the same old WBH board approved it so I must do the same. Same old attitude that made this "great" organization lose a sh@thouse of members.
I would vote FOR a bill that has a stand removed weekly. That way you can camp out for a long weekend hunt, but should eliminate thoughts of "ownership" of an area. A rule that says something like must be removed between Wednesday dusk and Thursday dawn.
You need to specify the cost of a fine for leaving it up too long, and the same for not labeling it. At a minimum, those fines should pay for the time it takes to enforce the law. I think most DNR fines start about $120 or so.
It should also explicitly say if someone other than the owner can use the stand, and if they need to vacate if the owner wants to use it. I would vote the stand is available to anyone, first come first served. If you put it on public land it is available for public use. I would even include harrassing some guy to get out of your stand as "hunter harrassment".
I put a picnic table down by the water at the resort I have a mobile home at. I would never make someone pack up their picnic cause I wanted to use the table.
Regarding time limitations: What warden is going to keep track of how long a stand has been up or attempt to determine exactly how many stands a hunter has, LOL? These guys are stretched pretty thin as it is. If the stand is relocated...will that start the clock again? If so...how far must it be moved? 100 yards? 1 Mile? The next county?
I can't get too orgasmic about this all-important bill (cough) at any rate. The law as it stands presently has never been a major concern, at least not to me when I have hunted public land.
I've never posted here and would just as soon lurk but this topic has interested me enough to comment. I fully support this plan. For guys like me that tend to get into areas that are less than accessible, it is a pain to haul the climber in and out each time. I have just left it in the woods but buried it in some brush instead of leaving it on the tree because I didn't want it stolen. I was breaking the law. I am aware of that so don't jump all over me (why I don't post here in the first place)
I am also a long time WBH member and I gladly renew my membership knowing that people are working for things that are important to me. While I don't always agree with rancid crabtree or anybody else. I am glad he worked to make this a reality. To those opposed to this, why don't you get involved like others here? I applaud those that give up there personal time to work on these kinds of things when I cant find the time. It does not always work out the way I like but since I did not get off my butt and involve myself, I won't complain when things are done that I disagree with. I really dislike it when people complain but don't get involved beyond commenting on a hunting forum. Im sorry but you just sound sad when you do that. Thank you rancid. Now it's back to the shadows for me.
Matrix i agree with you. I think this would work out better if it where limited or should i say we the hunters where limited to one stand lets say per 40 acres if it is not productive we can move it,we have a long seasonand once a ladder stand is in the woods the hard work is done.I have ethics morals, if a guy put a stand up in a place i would have liked to hunt well hey ill move on to another spot away from him, he got there before me so(screw me i should have been on the ball) i can live with that.
Funny how some do not understand that a bill was going to be written on tree stands on state property regardless of your input Rancid. You could have stayed silent and lawmakers would have done what they wanted any ways and then you would be accused of doing nothing. Whether or not this would pass is another thing. Glad to see that a lawmaker would come to a hunting group like the WBH and ask for input on this legislation before a bill is introduced. Rancid: you could have taken the easy road, buried your head in the sand and said nothing and allow the legislature to set the terms and conditions of the tree stand bill. The result would be undesirable things to hunters on both sides of the issue being imposed on hunters, or you engage yourself in the discussion and help draft the best possible solution. In the end the bill will be open to debate in the hearing process and where it goes no one really knows. Nice job Rancid you provided hunters with important info before things may be imposed on them. Sadly those who do not understand the process are ignorant to your work. Welcome to the club.
HF43
I'm in the same boat as you Matrix. I really do need to get involved more especially for how passionate I am when it comes to bow hunting and the outdoors in general. I to need to bite my tongue at times because I find myself whinning over something that I did nothing initially to voice my concerns or get involved with an organization that is trying to make the sport more enjoyable for those who participate in it.
It is quite disheartening to see someone post a thread on here with something such as this and see it become a method of personal attacks. I think we all share the same passion for this sport and would only like to see the best regulations adopted and implemented to make the sport more enjoyable and less invasive to what we truely enjoy doing.
If this bill, as Rancid indicated, was supported in 69 counties by a margin in the upper 60% range, it is obvious that our fellow Wisconsinites think this would be a good idea. That's not to say that people should just fall into line and automatically support it, but I do not think coming on here and blasting each other for either supporting it or against it is the best possible action.
I think it is next to impossible to see eye to eye when it comes to a sport we are all so passionate about but think there can be more productive ways at implementing change rather than attacking one another.
Just my two cents anyway, like Matrix I will head back into the shaddows and re-appear when I have another sock problem or any other questions that many of you have been so helpful with resolving. Take care.
Sorry but I'm not part of any group or Org. against Rancid Crabtree. I'm my own person and think for my self. If I see something I don't like I will voice my opinion on it such as this bill.
Yes this issue was passed in 69 counties with 69% approval. Of that vote how many were actually Deer Hunters that voted? I bet if you took a vote among WBH members the voting would be much different. On the WBH form before the thread was locked it was 4 to 3 on opinions for the Bill.
Bri it's very hard to get involved if you know nothing of an issue till well after the fact. WBH board voted to support this without any input from the membership. Members of WBH would not even know of this if it were not for the couple threads on this at various forums. Because I and others were not aware that this Bill was so far along I started behind in the process.
But you can bet that I am now involved and working to have this Bill voted down. I have no hatred for Rance and often quite impressed with the skills he has in his hands to create. Those same hands at times will type things on paper that I don't agree with though.
Rance I apologize if I offended you. I still think you were over zealous in working on this Bill but that's me. I think this would not be such a hard pill to swallow if it were only one tree stand rather than four. Or split the difference and go with two!
DT
Bri,
This bill is not what was supported in 69 counties. It does not matter how many times that claim is made it is still not true.
Rancid,
I'm not buying the idea that the dislike for this bill is just because you're involved. Give me an example of a topic that parallels this one started by someone else that generated pleasant responses.
However, let's say that you are correct: people object to this simply because you are involved. You have to take responsibility for creating the situation; that is, you must be doing something to provoke the reaction you receive.
I believe you make a sport of generating a negative reaction from people. This thread is a good example of that.
Though I don't speak for anyone other than myself, this has little to do with you and everything to do with taking the support for one thing and using it to pursue something completely different.
I have been hunting the Chequamegan for 10+ years and leaving stands up for extended periods of time without incident. Until last year when I had one stolen for the first time. I don't know if the guy was just a no good sneak theif, or someone who thought I was claiming teritory and wanted to retaliate.
This year I will be printing the following message on laminated 3x5 cards and attaching to my stands to see if it helps.
" Greetings fellow hunter.
I have hung this treestand here because I am hunting in this area this week and plan on sitting in it and/or several others in the area, off and on, depending on wind direction,and other factors. My name address and cell phone # are listed below. If you feel this stand is interfering with your right to hunt this spot, please call me and I will move it. She is a big woods out there and I am sure I can find another spot to hunt.
Good luck with your hunt!
Mark XXXXX P.O. Box XX Oxford, WI 53952
(608)572-xxxx"
Good thinking orion. Now that sounds like it would help a lot. If i decide to put up a stand on public ill do the same.
I always like to know if someone is hunting near me. Seeing a tree stand in a tree is a pretty good indicator. Lets me know I better find this guy and comunicate or expect to have company.
Rancid,
You weren't letting us know about this bill as some kind of warning or fyi; you were asking for input, but only that which served to meet your end.
Please stop using the support for the "overnight" placement of stands as support for four stands for four months - it lacks integrity.
So what you’re saying Rance is that the WBH board voted on this back in June and failed to let the membership know what they are supporting or that there was even a vote on this? I did not hear anything on this at the annual meeting or see anything in the WBH magazine.
If this is in fact true I can see why so many are looking for other representation when it comes to bow hunting or hunting in general. Too much hidden and kept quiet in WBH.
I'm with Rusty. Some how I don't think the originator of this question/bill intended for people to leave stands (4) out for the entire hunting season as it's worded now.
The question that passed in 69 Counties was for 1 "actively hunted" stand, not 4 stands left all over the State.
"The question that passed in 69 Counties was for 1 "actively hunted" stand, not 4 stands left all over the State."
That's what I thought but didn't have a copy of this years Hearing Booklet to say for a fact.
Now was that last little blurt necessary?
For years now y’all have been complaining about Chum in the woods (Sully brought it up) and how the baiters claim spots on public land and now you give them yet another tool to further their cause by letting them put tree stands at every pile and taking the work even more out of hunting. Why not let them use ATV’s on state land so they can drive to their stands and not have to walk also?
Sorry Sully no offence meant to you. If it were changed to one stand I would not be opposed to that as then the hunter would not be locking up large tracts of land. National Forests are large acreages so there would be less chance of conflict but State Lands can be small and one or two guys by placing 8 stands out can take over an entire piece of State Land to them selves while we all pay for it.
This also gives guides and outfitters a chance to move onto public land even more than they do now as this makes it more doable by being able to leave stands out.
Sounds to me like leaving your stands in the woods all season is the easy way, not really that much hard work involved??
Sully,
If in fact you are the author why did it take so long to come out of the closet?
Did you write the proposal regarding tree stands that was presented at the spring hearings?
Glad to see everyones so chipper even when I've gone hunting. lol
Got your stars back??
Sully-
Why spend the money and time for my own pile when I can hunt off a perfectly good pile left by that un-hunted stand on State land. I'll sit on the ground, they can keep their tree stands.
One actively hunted is fine with me, I have a problem with 4 left out for the entire season.
This bill does nothing but create another hurdle for the small tract public land hunter. Thanks Sully, and thank you WBH for supporting another GREAT idea. (Insert sarcasm).
I note that there is no definiton for what constitutes a "tree stand"?
I am sure the term "not a permanant structure" will see a great deal of creativity.
"I assume whoever wrote it is me.....or someone just like me, who travels very far back into state lands (my average walk is 2 hours) and doesn't want to carry their stands back and forth everyday even though they are leaving after dark and coming back the next day before light. Hell, I'd even like to see it added that you can leave your bow hanging in the tree for that matter - one less thing for me carry back in."
Sully, you don't have to haul your stand back and forth if you hunting the same spot in the morning, you can leave your stand at the base of the tree just not attached. You can also leave you bow right next to your stand if you don't want to carry it back and forth!
"Beyond that, in the last 24 hours, this thing has taken on a life of its own. I think it's safe to say that this bill has moved on and up and no further input from me is or Will Minette is required".
According to this guy its way to late for anymore input.
If you're serious I think you would make more people happy with re-writing it or leaving it status-quo than how this has played out. It would be just too easy for people to lay claim to smaller parcels of land, and if i'm a betting man a larger percentage of hunters are on smaller parcels of public. I can't walk a half mile in some of the spots I hunt without hitting a road, let alone walk in 2 hrs. I see your motive but it just adds a whole host of new problems where we don't need any. I just wish the WBH could've had the foresight to see them before jumping onboard.
BHF is correct on leaving your bow in the woods, there is no law saying you need to carry it in and out as long as there is no arrow attached to the string. You can also leave your stand in the woods at the base of the tree, so I really don't see the actual need for this bill.
The present law needs changing. You can leave them up unocupied during the day when people can see them but can not leave them up in the dark when no one can see them anyway. ??? Makes no sense.
I find it is very disheartening that there is so much fighting amongst bowhunters in WI. About just about any issue that gets brought up. Very sad. What happened to sportsmanship, pride in being among a group of fine hunters, sharing public land with respect to each other, the mere fact of hunting public land is it is for everyone. I know several people that hunt public land and have SEVERAL (50-100) different places to go if one of their favorite places is being used by another hunter and move respectfully to another prescouted spot they know of with no hard feelings or disrespectful behavior.
Yes it is very disheartening,this is a good site here,unfortunatly it has become dominated by a handful of argumentative individuals who have placed themselves in self appointed positions of power here and in other orgs. They recently have become even more empowered lately. Any opposing opinions are promptly attacked and beat down. I do not see things improving in any near future.
I don't have a problem with so much as who the messenger was, but with what message he was bringing. Worst case scenarios are what we have to deal with daily, and with the limited time most of us have to pursue our pastime it sure as hell would be a scenario most of us should'nt have to deal with. Federal land and smaller state parcels are apple and oranges by comparison.
Are state parks to be included in this bill?
Build a ground blind anywhere you want, thats not going to impede a guy who wants to hunt out of a tree. Now put ladderstands locked onto trees it hampers anyone elses ability to hunt that area from those spots.
What is the criteria that has to be met for the WBH to give its endorsement to such ideas? Is there any coherent discussion or does the sponsor just have to know a couple of the good ol' boys?
Where is the respect in asking hunters if they support one thing, then turning it into something perversly different; then claiming they supported it? Where is the sportsmanship in that?
It is a far greater display of respect to your fellow hunters to remove everything you brought into the woods than it is to leave something behind be it trash or tree stands.
There is no honor or virtue in the way this bill has been pursued. Input is asked for, but only if it leads to a pre-determined outcome - all other input is ignored.
Rancid, it wouldn't have mattered who started this thread. If someone deceived me my reaction would be the same, whether it be you or the beautiful Hillary (although my posts would have ended with XXOOXX, or a request for photos of a certain nature if it had been her).
I also do not like the rule of 4 stands. If someone wants to leave A stand up not a big deal. But when you allow 4 stands that is too many.
Rancid -"Lastly, I suggest that if you would have created this thread, rather than me, the replies would look much different than what you see. I fully understand that I have created this situation."
It seems that when you ask for opinions that do not jive with yours, you try to belittle, discredit or ignore the person who does not agree with you. OR, if the person has a good point that you can't defend you just delete the thread or reply.
"beautiful Hillary"
My advice?
Get your eyes checked...
I have flushed better looking growlers down my commode.
I dont believe bowhunters are as argumentive as what is posted on this site.
I make my living working with landowners. I have yet to meet a client/bowhunter that knows of this site.
Received my first response back from the letters and e-mails I sent out.
Will, Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
I agree with you on this issue. There is a real potential for conflicts over hunting spots. The author of the bill has not issued it for cosponsorship or introduction yet, but I will keep my eyes and ears open for it.
Thank you for your input on this and rest assured I have your thoughts in mind should this legislation be placed in front of me for a vote. Sincerely,
Don Friske 35th Assembly District
The managers of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests were considering changing the rules on the Federal to be uniform with the state. They are now standing by to see what the state does with this. Thousands of bowhunters (besides myself )who have been leaving stands up on federal land for years without notable problems are going to be upset if WBH does not fight to protect their traditional bowhunting methods. WBH succsesfully fought to leagalize treestands years ago. If we now loose the ability to leave them up it will be a huge step backwards.
Ah the old game ask for four and hope to get two.
Ron you and I have butted heads on this issue before and I still stand by my comments on the WBH forum. This is a bad idea and will as mentioned before create many hostile confrontations in the woods. I know, I've witnessed it first hand. All this bill will do is creat squaters on state owned land that is SUPPOSED to be for all. And the fact that the WBH ramrodded this through at a Board meeting stinks like sewer water. This bill will not bennefit anyone.
I can see one (maybe two if playing the wind on either side of a trail) per XX number of acres, but not four ... especially when many will have stuff glowing beneath them. And, how do you define "actively being hunted"?
I can just see the general publics opinion of this when they go for a walk through "our" woods and see all these stands up. That should look pretty nice seeing all the crap thats going to be left out there. POS ladder stands built from old 2X4's and blue tarp with no name, who cleans that up? Another black eye for hunters.
This rule change is almost to stupid, even for the state of Wisconsin.
You guys need to stop being negative all the time ... :^)
This is not about results, it is about intentions!
Stop raining on the parade of those that want to indulge themselves ... remember, 2 gal of bait is just okay!
Just another reason for me to NOT gun hunt next year.
I highly doubt this will effect most of us bow hunting. The problems will come during gun season.
Stated before the biggest problem is going to come in the Southern part of the State where public land is only small 40 to a couple hundred acres and you have 200 hunters trying to squeeze stands up.
But a good point was made that most of these guys will be putting their stands up the week before gun season so good rut hunting will be effected for some.
No different than the masses heading up here to real WI. and dumping tons of corn all over the landscape the weekend before also!
Now I dn't know about you guys, but from what I've seen on conservacy lands, and federal lands, I have never seen junk yards in the woods. I don't think that with 99% of all the stands i see in the woods being either aluminum or steel....people are just going to discard them to the junk pile.
I will say one thing...if there is a good amount of stands that all the sudden get left in the woods....the crime rate for stolen stands is going to skyrocket too. More stands...more stuff to steal for some.
I would have limited it to 2 stands, but that wouldn't work either, just like the 4 stands is not going to work. If I hunt, and just buy a tag for my wife...I can put 8 $49.00 cheapy ladderstands in the woods. If I have a buddy or two...I can add 4 stands in the woods for each of them with their names on the stands, even though they are never going to hunt the stands. Why would they care if their names are on stands that I bought and I hunt. It means nothing to them. A guy can have unlimited stands if he just has some friends that don't care if their names are on stands they never bought or placed. Heck....they may even sit one of those stands someday.
The public wanted this...we cannot deny that. 70% is a strong majority. Some are going to hate this...but more people are going to like it. It lets them work less after the initial job of putting the stand in is done.
SERB, four stands for four months was never brought up at the spring hearings, so 70% of the public never voiced an opinion on it let alone want it.
Serb Says "It lets them work less after the initial job of putting the stand in is done."
If that's the case then I guess we should allow ATV's to go where ever they want for hunting because it's less work than walking, I guess we should allow cross bows in the archery season as they are less work once cocked and the bolt put in place. I guess we should allow road hunting with loaded weapons in the trucks because it's less work than going into a woods a 1/2 mile. Do you need more examples?
It was/is a bad idea that needs to go away.
If this passes??? I believe it's a done deal.
Konk, I'm afraid when you say..."That 70% is a very small % of the total hunters in WI that actually attend the spring hearings".
Konk my friend, If you read enough about statistics and poll sampling, you'd understand why you are so wrong. If you do a non-biased poll like something done at a standard cc hearing...you will be within miniscule percentage points of sampling the entire state and every hunter in it. I didn't think thus stuff up you know....some of the worlds best minds figured this out years ago. Elections worjk the same way with a non biased sample of the voters. The only way you skew a sampling is turning it biased ei.asking the gay community in San Francisco If everyone should exept gay marriges. That would be biased because of a very select group choosen out for the poll. If polling at the WBH convention to rid Wisconsin of gun season...you'd have a biased poll. But when you ask gun, bow, both, trappers, fishermen, and every other swingin dink in the crowd a question at the CC hearings, and 70% say the same thing....DON'T think for one second the percentages would change but a point of two if they telepathically asked everyone in WI at that moment back in april.
Now I'm not trying to fight, and I really don't care to much either way. I SUPPOSE, i am in favor of an older man, who has a son, who sets a few stands for the old man to be able to walk into the woods...and hunt them. The old man gets to hunt, he gets to hunt with higher odds being up in a tree, and thats the way i see it.
On a lot of lands you can do this anyway!!!! Leave stands for the season, and many people have multiple stands. They just put family members names on them. I don't think you have to even have a hunting license to be able to put a stand in the woods for the season. Photographers, and Birdwatchers do things like that. So one guy with 16 stands with the names of all the family members he could think of...whats the difference.
You guys are overthinking this a bit to much.
It's not done as much as you think I have been in contact with many state legislators and they are watching for this to come to vote and they are on the same page as I am and understand the problem of giving ownership of that public area to who put's a stand there. I suggest others to do the same if you don't want this to become a reality.
The only way this will fly as written (in my opinion) is if there is some sort of time limit and/or fee attached. Since that would be too difficult to enforce, I'm guessing the whole thing will be tossed or at minimum, revised to fewer stands and better language.
Everything I have heard about this idea shows it was supported by the public and will make state land come up to par with Federal land which already allows this sort of thing. Are all these problems being mentioned here happening on federal land? I dont think so. Stands will have to have DNR customer numbers on them making owners accountable. After seeing who wrote this bill and who supports it, it looks like we have nothing to wory about. A republican won't get a bill to pass in madison which is currently controlled by democrats. They will not allow a Republican to get a bill passed. If a Democrat were to take this bill and run with it, it would actually have a chance but in the current environment, not a chance.
OK....I won't say any more until it happens. But just keep in mind who has the most to gain from this, and who is the most politically active group in the state. Their entire hunter contingiet wants this, and more then half the deer hunters want it too.
DT...No offense, and I would too continue to try to change some minds if I felt as strong as you do...but the writing is on the wall and all but signed sealed and delivered on this one.
I do see it being brought down to two stands, but like i pointed ut clearly...it don't matter. 2, 4, 8, 16...the number don't matter. All you need is names of people on the stands. HOW DO YOU STOP THAT!!!! And the DNR is never going to stand in the way of possibly having a few extra hunters in the woods killing more deer. Good luck with that anglee too.
" Stands will have to have DNR customer numbers on them making owners accountable"
NO THEY DON'T...They need a name and address thats it. Thats why i said you don't have to be a hunter to have your name on a stand in the woods. The stands are not spacific to hunters.
Dont YELL at us until you actually read the bill. Here is what is says.
(a) The person holds all of the approvals required for hunting the game animal.
(b) The person affixes to the tree stand an identifying number assigned by the department.
So they do have to be a hunter and they do need their DNR number. Serb, how are you tied to this and so certain if you don't know what the bill even says?
"Serb, how are you tied to this and so certain if you don't know what the bill even says? "
I'm not. I said already, I could care less. But when looking at the original post, and not going into the issue with the folks that are into this bigtime...I only saw the name and address part that was written.
I like it better if you have to have a hunting license though. I think thats better.
OK serb - so have 5 of your friends who are hunters, have valid licenses, but only hunt private land anyway give you their DNR customer number to put on the stands. Makes no difference to them but once again allows unlimited stands in the woods for one person.
Apearantly all you guys predicting disaster have never hunted the National Forrests in Wisconsin. There has never been any restrictions on the number of stands placed or how long you can keep them up and no ID requirements either. This bill needs to be cleaned up to only apply to State owned land. I see no reason to restrict the national forrests when there is not an existing problem to address. At least it should clearly exempt private lands.
Thanks for the update. Sounds like the legislators had the same concerns many here did.
This is my first post on any forum so bear with me. I used to do a lot of duck & goose hunting on public hunting areas. Before the season started and throughout the entire season guys would build elaborate blinds in prime areas{ those with the best chance for shooting}. Because it was { public} that blind was not your property no matter how much time or money you spent. When the birds were flying you better get your "butt" in that blind first or you got second or third choice. Some guys would send a buddy to gaurd the blind night before, seriously! That is why i USED TO HUNT ducks & geese. If i'm not hunting in a certain spot at that time it is anybody's spot and visa-versa. Just because i put a stand or blind there does not give me ownership of that space unless my "butt" is in that stand. You paid your taxes and licence same as me. Leaving my stand out for any long period of time on public land {whether my name is on it or not}is setting myself up for a big disapointment legal or not. Sorry i think i am rambling. Just my opinion. BTW i met some of you guy's at the bunny hunt last weekend, great fun.
