Naz MacBook's Link
It's safe to say that many here will not like it. All the talk of a 14-day muzzleloader hunt and no more December antlerless hunt was just talk. The recommendation is for archery, youth, nine-day and muzzleloader to stay the same (except archery gains the Friday before gun season), and to have a four-day antlerless December hunt in the central forest and central farmland only (apparently to appease the snowmobiling interests). The zones were changed; there is no more eastern farmland (now part of central farmland). The holiday gun deer hunt is proposed for antlerless only, southern CWD farmland region only, Dec. 24-Jan. 1.
Not only is bonus buck proposed for 2015, the need to register two antlerless is gone. Now, you only need one antlerless to shoot another buck. Limit two bucks with bow or two with gun; three total combined in all seasons. (However group hunting still is in during firearm deer hunt).
Online/phone registration is recommended, current DMUs are gone and replaced by county borders and metro zones and the Friday-before gun season prohibition against having loaded firearms is gone.
Licenses will come with one buck tag, and in some ag/metro areas, may have one or more antlerless tags as well. The tags may not be valid in areas where the department has established an objective to maintain or increase the deer population. Farmers who are eligible can request one free antlerless permit at the time of purchase (You'll have to read that section to get a better handle on all this; link attached to the entire 59 pages).
DMAP antlerless tags are half-price ($6 vs. $12). Quite a bit more in there. Take a gander, and let's hear what you think.
Also, any predictions? Will NRB pass the entire package or pick and choose, or even recommend delaying implementation for a year?
I am concerned about expanding the DMUs to be County size. Bayfield County is half private farmland and half public woods. Issuing antlerless permits and controlling deer numbers could be a problem. I am encouraged however, by the plan to designate antlerless permits as either private/public land. That is similar to how they do it in Wyoming and it seems to help with the overkill on public land.
Leaving the archery season open the Friday before rifle season is something I may take advantage of. We are usually at the cabin and done scouting by then. Why not spend some time in the stand.
Not good IMO.
I will read it over the next few days to see what else is in there.
Anything on baiting? I'm on my phone and it's to hard to read that much on it.
Last spring and this winter are hard on the deer for sure but they will make a comeback. If we went into this winter with a lot more deer it would only mean more dead deer that would not be there for next year.
I live north of 29 and with the deep snow I still see deer making it around to browse on maple and other foods. Not good every where but it is the north.
Do you really think the majority of hunters won't take an extra buck? With bonus buck the slaughter will really be on with the group slayers, er I mean hunters during gun season.
From what I see, they are trying to wear us down with so much crap in the hope that all or part will go through.
On-line registration, lets put a half way house for sex offenders right next to an all girls school while we are at it!
All the extra hunts, again no rest for an already over-pressured deer population. Why not have moonlight hunting hours so we can kill all the deer we push into a nocturnal pattern.
Loaded firearms on the day before gun season! Public Relations Nightmare! Who are these geniuses?
Public and private land doe tags, long over due.
Bonus Bucks, really! Who came up with that, Bevis and Butt-head?
*dbl, Lung-Once again it will be up to the individual hunter on whether to pull the trigger. Oh they will pull the trigger all right! IT's called GREED! Part of every humans DNA.
Group Hunting, isn't that what drives are. Didn't your mother tell you? You'll shoot your eye out!
If any of you thought you were getting anything more than lip-service from the Governor, his cronies, the DNR, the Texas Deer God, Republicans, and Democrats, how much more proof do you need?
I argue this is war on the bowhunter! None of this favors the bowhunter because we do not kill enough deer. We are too conservation minded. We are too selective, too patient, too dedicated to higher personal goals, standards, and animal quality! They do not like are kind. Wake up, there is a skunk in the woodpile.
Naz MacBook's Link
Rut, I don't think only the gun hunters will be after double bucks. After all, the bow/crossbow user gets the peak pre-rut and rut activity.
I see this as a big step backward.
You have less than a week to let NRB members know your thoughts in writing (or to register to speak at the NRB meeting Jan. 22). Learn how at http://dnr.wi.gov/about/nrb/public.htm
Naz, I agree, we all have to stand up and be counted.
If you are a private land owner/hunter, you can manage your property the way YOU see fit. I could tell you without a doubt that my particular piece of property could withstand several deer shot every year (bucks or does, and one or the other). The difference is, I have it pretty damn good. The flipside to that is, there is public land in the same DMZ that are basically devoid of deer, and quite frankly should be off limits to hunting PERIOD! This would be a difficult task mind you, but we need to manage private land differently than public.
Hunting in a CWD Zone, in my own particular case is pretty awesome (NOW). This year, I had not one, not two, not three, but four buck tags to start out the archery season (I shot three antlerless deer off three different properties 25 miles apart the year prior). I hunt more than 3000 private acres on four different properties. I did shoot two bucks, on two different properties this year. I didn't put a dent in what that land can support. I also understand that we need to manage the herd considering all people involved. I don't like the idea of lumping anything, but if it meant other people were happy, I'm all for taking less deer. I will tell you though that this is not the intent of the managers we currently have. They want less deer, and more hunters, and definitely more revenue. I will also tell you, that I'm not so sure I'm managing the properties any better than the DNR would. They don't have any say (really) over what I do or do not take. I'm probably not taking enough deer, and my neighbors the same. They shot their own foot when the media made the CWD scare what it was. Eradication is what they wanted, and eradication is what they got. Since then, the private land managers woke up and realized they decimated the herd, and have since then, decided to manage how they see fit....whether they do it right or wrong, the herd has certainly bounced back. I'm not sure I'm doing it right, but I can tell you I had at least 75 chip-shot opportunities last archery season, and if that is wrong, I don't mind being wrong. I apologize for not doing my part in the stopping or slowing the spread of CWD, but more people see it my way (who hunt in CWD Zones), than those worried people that hunt those units where it does not exist. Selfish? Perhaps....perhaps not?
I guess you need to think about what your neck of the woods can support. If you are hunting private land, you certainly have more liberties. If you hunt public land, I'm sorry, because you are not the only one with an opinion on that piece of land, and we all know that we don't all agree on what the best decision is.
This will be interesting. I could see registering a doe and getting # 2 buck tag but not calling in to do it?
Most people I know group deer hunt and seldom fill all their buck tags now. The only significant change I see is with xbow and bow hunters. I do know a bunch who fill their wives tags so who knows if this will be significant at all?
Public and private land is managed differently under this plan.
I have a new neighbor on one of the farms I hunt, who just bought 40 acres. He says he's going to shoot 6 does a year, and will only shoot four year old bucks. This is the type of impact I have no control over, but will have to make changes to what I'm willing to harvest additionally. The likelihood that he takes 6 doe a year (for very long) is a tall order, but he is certainly affecting my neighboring property because of his attempt to do so. This might seem like a brilliant idea to him....as well as others, but it doesn't fit my mold. I have to individually look at every place I hunt and try my best to do what's right to suit my needs/desires. This is a formula the DNR cannot compute (no matter how hard they may try). So we are our worst enemies or our best friends.....depending on your own individual values or viewpoint lol.
I don't claim to know how to mend what's broken, but I do know that quite often one group gets blamed for what is wrong, but people still refuse to look at their individual deer pocket, and actually determine if they should be pulling the trigger/release or not?
Great idea, to hell with it if you have sentimental ties to the land. Just sell it and move on, let the DNR off the hook.
My problem with the county boundaries is that now one unit could have some deer and another within the same county not have many. I'm sure the people in the area where there are few deer won't be happy when they issue antlerless permits for the whole county.
Well said Pete-pec.
My thoughts on these recommendations are that just like every other year for several now, the DNR is bent on continuing to reduce the deer herd until almost every hunter says screw it and throws in the towel. If it wasn't for private landowners doing the right thing the majority of Wisconsin would be managed as ignorantly as the DNR manages public lands, and no one wants that.
My predictions are that landowners will continue denying hunters access to their lands while they continue rebuilding the deer population to combat the excessive and ignorant slaughter that the DNR still is pushing. I also predict that nothing will change as long as people keep buying licenses. Anyone notice how the "new DNR" smells a lot like the "old DNR"? If I didn't have decent private land to hunt (and this is only because the DNR doesn't manage it) and could only hunt public, I'd think hard about not donating any more license money to the DNR. A guy doesn't need a deer hunting license to watch trees grow and I'm pretty sure on public land that activity is free. ;-)
"Public and private land is managed differently under this plan."
What differences are there that will make anything different? Public land has always been managed differently than private, which I believe is why most people find a bit more enjoyment hunting private rather than public. I'm missing the "different" part, unless this "difference" you talk of is like the "difference" between "crossbow full inclusion" and what we have now, "crossbow full inclusion that people have to buy a separate license for."
This happened because of the Deer Trustee Report. Had the legislature not taken away a mid-Oct. antlerless gun deer hunt, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about other ways to encourage folks in overpopulated units to shoot more does. I'd take earn-a-buck every four or five years over bonus buck, any day. One (EAB) leads to older bucks while another could lead to fewer bucks of all ages.
I'm not a fan of opening up even more buck tags — and free at that. If enough archers/crossbow users take advantage, the buck kill will jump and more trophies will be tagged during rut, perhaps enough to get the gun-only crowd pushing for more restrictions on archers.
The gun buck kill could certainly jump some, too, but they already can legally group hunt. I'm thinking bonus buck would affect archers more than gun hunters; while initially some might look at it as a win, in the end the flurry will only last so long.
Private vs public antlerless tags.
Bonus buck was not part of the Kroll plan, it was a carrot to lead hunters to shoot more antlerless much like EAB.
As for your tirade on crossbows.... you have to understand "full inclusion", which ever definition you choose, was going to happen in WI. No one was going to stop this advancement as no one was going to stop the NRA.
Now that you understand this, which definition would you rather have? Crossbow included in archery, forever tethered together which the only way to restrict one would be to restrict the other. Or separating the two weapons which each can be managed independently.
Are crossbows "fully included", yes for about 4 years. If crossbow supporters are correct and there is no change in harvests, then crossbows will continue to run concurrent to the archery season. If their harvest negatively impact other user groups with sginificantly higher success rates, they can have their season adjusted.
But understanding the difference in the two options are irrelevant if you simply cannot comprehend the fact crossbows would have been considered archery equipment for the 2013 if it wasn't for a few organization and politicians.
"I think no matter what 80% of the people on this site will never be happy with the choice of dnr, or the deer herd size."
Yep...
And people will be continiously misled because they don't understand the new management plan. Wether it is smokey who is a retired USFS and is concerned about forest regeneration or Naz who's concerned about game biologist losing the ability to manage hunters vs. the hunters managing the resource.
In 2013, only about 800 hunters harvested a bonus buck where bonus buck was available. Naz even posted on another thread that 1 out of 5 hunters harvest a buck( 1 out of 4 in a good year). He stated this has been the average for a long time. So why is he so against the bonus buck where buck harvest per hunter appear to be a low average? He's preying on your emotions to pursued you to hate the entire plan. Or he is just a DNR basher as they are the ones who refuse to remove bonus buck.
Is the green sheet the new management plan? Not yet. It is continiously being tweeked and revised.
That is good!
I would like to know what the statement Deer Management assistance for owners and managers of both private and public land means? I get the private land but manager of public land?
“the excessive and ignorant slaughter that the DNR still is pushing.”
The truth of the matter is that WDNR has little if anything to do with deer management anymore. They can voice an opinion but in the final analysis it’s all decided by the legislature.
Elected officials have done away with the early October hunt and the December hunt for HRZ. They’ve eliminated EAB too.
Ending baiting? Don’t hold your breath. The legislature calls the shots.
The policy now is to manage for higher deer numbers regardless of the distribution of the deer population.
If you’re not happy with the situation you should call the Governor and your state legislators.
I know a guy who could go on and on, and on, ad-nauseum on this site extolling the virtues of having the legislature in charge for a change. Maybe you should ask him.
"So why is he so against the bonus buck where buck harvest per hunter appear to be a low average?"
Because I'm opposed to any strategy that increases buck harvest over one per bow and one per gun, and because the guys using bonus bucks are the guys already shooting one of the bucks. They're the "one" in the "one in five" already. Should they be taking another buck off the landscape? I don't know, am just throwing that out there. Studies show bucks in the rut can vastly extend their travels beyond their normal home range. "Your" buck could have been someone else's tomorrow, next week or next year.
We pay less than a dollar less for a turkey application, stamp and permit, and get to shoot ONE turkey. For nearly the same price, we're giving someone the ability to shoot two bucks and a doe or fawn! That's INSANITY.
"Nope not me. I never said I was disappointed that the baiting issue was ignored (mainly because it wasnt ignored) Baiting is a legislative matter. Its not for the DTR or the DNR or the NRB. We should have known better than to get involved with the baiting topic at all."
Now do you want to hear the balance to my way of thinking? I have a neighbor with 40 acres who has intentions of shooting 6 doe a year, and will only harvest 4 year old bucks. I shot a three year old seven pointer off a farm we manage pretty darned good adjacent to this forty acres. I passed up the majority of my antlerless deer off this same farm, and witnessed him kill 2 does that had triplets and twins. I'm not sure if he killed any during the other endless remaining days of hunting or not, but I would guess, yes. The second buck I shot, was a two year old buck shot from a farm where a two year old is an ancient deer. It is not managed (at all) and put a buck in the freezer versus a doe. This same farm will have groups of thirty deer drivers hit every woodlot in the area, so they will do their part and shoot what is remaining. Again, no regrets. I've seen what the mentality is of harvesting the deer that make more deer. I like the idea of deer on the landscape, and don't like the goals that have been set concerning deer densities, and sorry, I'm not doing what someone wants me to do concerning eradication of CWD deer. I've had friends who have killed and ate them. I have never personally killed one, but I also do not wait for results when I do kill a deer before consuming some of it. There are plenty people however, doing their part in killing whatever moves. That's the balance.
See Kevin, no one single person sees it exactly the same way. I could be criticized on so many levels by so many people, but really, does it matter what they think? I hunt for me. I don't think I'm greedy. I certainly could have passed the 2nd deer and let someone else get a crack at it. I could have killed a doe (or forty) and reduced the deer population, but I didn't. Personal choice. The same reason I don't get all riled up about what people do with what legal means, with what legal weapon. Call in, baiting, dogs, crossbow, gun, does, bucks, young, old, big, small, etc. The list goes on. I have tried to get my point across several times, but the point I try to make, is that I might not agree with something, or choose to participate, but I don't beat anyone down for what they do. That's why I don't blame the DNR. I think they can mandate whatever idea that seems best for that particular generation, but in all actuality, not everyone will agree.....no matter what new invention they may come up with. They are a business. They do want to make money. They try to please the masses, and they do often fail, but ultimately we as hunters need to take some damn responsibility for what we do. We are the true management tool, and we get sucked into their ideals when we can choose to not participate.
And that's just one guys opinion. I'm a nice guy. I don't want anyone to think I expect them to have my same values, because I might change my mind tomorrow? ;-)
My concerns actually run deeper than any one-year blip in harvest.
Wisconsin appears to be dumping a majority of the foundation stones that put our state as a model for deer management in North America. Was it perfect? No, but tell me who does it better, and why? Don't point to our neighboring states, as only Michigan has anywhere close to our number of hunters (and isn't anywhere close when it comes to trophy bucks). If I didn't know better, I'd have to say the Administration is trying to snow the NRB with 59 pages of fluff. Am hoping some are smart enough to wade through the snow.
If overwinter goals were the problem in some areas, then deal with that. If it's a public/private land issue, then deal with that. If feeding is luring deer into sanctuaries in urban/suburban areas up north, then deal with that. But don't throw everything away.
A "do over" would be great if we were in the bottom five in harvest and No. 50 in trophy bucks. But we're No. 1 in trophies and a perennial top five in harvest year after year (and from '98-'07 were No. 1 in the nation in average annual harvest).
And the deer trustee never recommended "bonus buck". It was the committee process who gave this recommendation which, at times, went outside the scope of the Kroll report.
Also, "bonus buck" is not automatic. It is a herd control option given to the deer management advisory committee in each county, along with issuing extra antlerless permits, free tags with license sold, Oct T-zone and instituting a holiday hunt.
I do not support "bonus buck" either. I believe hunters can/will reduce antlerless numbers with the issuance of added antlerless tags. Hopefully, through the process, this can be fixed.
The problem with a broad-based plan, is it opens up the potential for what happened here to begin with. That was eradication, and once again, our property has rebounded very nice, because many private landowners pulled their heads out of the sand and stopped the slaughter. So I actually do not support bonus buck either, and I actually filled a second tag with one this year? I look at this similarly as you buddy. It's because all the other people using perhaps less restraint, (even knowing I didn't put a dent in our herd).....like my neighbor's lofty goals of six does a year, when his 40 acres of land could not support five deer, and ours will support plenty. So next season, I have one buck tag, and baldies are safe! Hence micro-managing!
Whether a recommendation from the Kroll report or not, all of this came about because of the Kroll report as well as the legislature getting rid of the mid-October antlerless gun hunt (because some individuals didn't want "more" gun hunts during "bow" season).
Not sure why the muzzleloader wasn't rolled into 14 days and the antlerless season gone? Perhaps due to snowmobile concern up north? That's a joke if so. Not many years in the past 20 where snowmobile trails were open that early.
I support a buck tag for an archery license and one for gun license.
I have earned a bonus buck for two years(in past 8) in the CWD zone. I have not shot a buck in WI for the past 8. I've had opportunities but chose not to.
"The problem with a broad-based plan, is it opens up the potential for what happened here to begin with."
Actually, I do not feel it is a broad based plan. We will allow for different antlerless quotas for public and private lands which I believe many on here were concerned about. With DMAP, it allows for independent management of private lands. A county as a whole could be at a lower population but a few large owners could have large populations. DMAP would allow tag issuance to reduce those areas without affecting the county as a whole. This would be decided at a local area, not someone behind a desk in Madison.
"How do you know how much power each county committee will have?"
They will recommend a increase, decrease or maintain deer populations. Considering this, I would imagine their recommendation would be what the Dept would do.
I have to give a lot of credit to the DNR for working on this new plan with us. The plan a month ago was much different and probably would have many hunters unhappy. They listen to concerns and made changes.
Again, this management plan is still being tweeked but they had to move it along so the green sheet was put out.
Here's what it all boils down to, things were great but figure heads and politicians stuck their noses into it. Now it's pretty much fu^&ed, as are most things that politicians are going to make "better". White tail hunting USED to be great in this state, but the DNR and politicians have ruined it. I sure hope they don't get it in their heads to "fix" the turkey hunting in WI.
The same thing that happen under Deer 2000 except you have a voice.
I'm not understanding your argument. You have a small parcel and have no deer because the large landowners have them all. If they shoot 3 doe on their property which never go on yours, how are you affected? Either you benefit from their large population or you don't.
Or the area your parcel is over populated and needs reduction.
"Here's what it all boils down to, things were great but figure heads and politicians stuck their noses into it. Now it's pretty much fu^&ed, as are most things that politicians are going to make "better". White tail hunting USED to be great in this state, but the DNR and politicians have ruined it."
Depends when you considered "things were great". Was it when we were over populated prior to 2000? Or was it 2005-2012 when goals were drastically reduced to the numbers we have today?
Large land owners have always had more say in harvest of deer. They always had the ability to have more hunters and tags to harvest more deer.
As I stated, if the county is over populated, then your not going to stop additional herd reduction. If the large land owner is over populated and the rest of the county is not, if the landowner is enrolled in DMAP, he/she may have the opportunity to have additional tags to reduce the population. Otherwise, he will have the opportunity for antlerless tags like every other hunter in that county.
Unless you are satisfied with managing deer populations by herd estimates no one believes to a specific number no one understands by someone behind a desk in Madison.
"Boy Geitz it hasn't taken you long rubbing shoulders with the DNR and politicians for your WBH duties to see they've rubbed off on you."
I have been active well before my duties with WBH. I was critical of the Dept for years and am still on some issues. But I have to give credit when it is do. I had stated they don't listen to hunters, well, they are listening and working with us on this but it takes both sides to have a working relationship.
I suggest reviewing both management plans, side by side, and understanding them.
I'd be happy to explain what I can about the new management plan but I'm not going to argue, name call, etc...
Naz MacBook's Link
"Or was it 2005-2012 when goals were drastically reduced to the numbers we have today?"
Actually, the overwinter population goals in many units were actually increased in that time span (2010 to be exact) and have increased 80 percent since originally set in 1962.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/popgoal.html (linked)
Yes, you are correct on the small increase in 2010. I should have remembered as I was at the hearing. The increase was very minimal.
The question I had for Rut was when does he feel deer hunting was "great" before the DNR and politicians ruined it. Was it before Deer 2000 or after. I probably could have worded the question different.
Really??
"Public and private land is managed differently under this plan."
Apparently the deer on public land do not know that they are supposed to stay on their side of the road?
Who is managing the public land for deer??? They are managing the tags that allowed to harvest deer off of public land. Until they start pouring money into proper land managemnet practices to increase the holding capacity of public land we will still have issues between the private land hunters and public land hunters.
What happens when all the deer get pushed off the public land onto private land?? Yup that's right, property owners and land managers get calls wondering when the corn is going to get cut and we are going to let others hunt the property.
Guess what! That's not going to happen! The only non-family members that get to hunt the property are kids that are learning to hunt and a select few vets! To everyone else it is off limits!
Will we partake in bonus bucks? No. Will we try and do our part in building the herd to what we would like to see it at? Yes. Who benefits from self control and selective harvest? Everyone including all those "Brown is Down" hunters.
HunterR -
You hit the nail on the head!
Hat's off to those who show some self control in what they harvest and pass on some deer to make sure there are a few left for future hunts.
Do I like the proposal? Some of it I do, some I don't. They can stick the holiday hunt where the sun doesn't shine.
Like many other government run things they have to try and make everyone happy. With this set up there are plenty of hunts for everyone, so everyone should be happy. But in the long run I am betting that there will be more unhappy hunters, becasue they expect more deer on the landscape than there really are.
In the long run it will cost me a few more dolars to harvest the does, but the 1 buck I do harvest every decade is still worth the wait.
It's what we do, it's who we are. No one can change that even through regulation.
Well I have been deer hunting since"53" and I really believe its always been great,outside of a few years when we had harsh winters. The DNR has and is doing a credible job. Predator control being the exception. In Central Wi. where I live and bowhunt there has never been a bad year. Its just great every year. Now in Northern Wi. we have had 4 hard winters in the last 5. A person cannot expect large deer herds with these conditions. Again the large predators have to be taken into account and I don't believe that is happening. The predator take has to be taken out of the hunters portion and managed that way. In Northern Wi. there really is not a lot of hunters on public land actually more on private. But that is where the food is and bellies rule. Any way DNR keep up the good work.
IMO the hunting was great from 2000 until about 09 on our land in West Central WI. Where I hunt up north it was great from about 97 until about 2006, that is in Bayfield county. The decline has been very noticeable in these areas, especially up north. But the DNR is very slow to react. Why should we trust that the agency that over used and abused a great tool like EAB, won't do the same with bonus buck? Our dnr is not proactive, they are barely reactive.
Geitz, I answered your question, will you answer mine? Who exactly will be on these county boards? I really hope they don't limit input to county residents, as many of us live in different counties than we hunt, own land in.
"IMO the hunting was great from 2000 until about 09 on our land in West Central WI. Where I hunt up north it was great from about 97 until about 2006, that is in Bayfield county."
Yes because the deer population has been managed close to over winter goals....and according to this management plan, the population will continue to be at or below these levels for the future. It is not that the Dept isn't being proactive or reactive, they are managing population to what is required by law.
So what you see is what your going to get under the current management plan. The current management plan is based on SAK estimates(accurate or not) to set antlerless quotas in an area. Please keep in mind these estimates will continue to be inaccurate as SAK is not meant to create a population estimate with specialty hunts and small units. So your unit will be managed to a number which has little scientific reason by issuing antlerless permits based on inaccurate population estimates.
What you see post 09 in west central and 06 in Bayfield is what you will get in the future without changes to our management plan.
Mike, public land is not all managed by the state and it also has more stakeholders to consider than hunters. Prior threads have had post on what is the new management plan going to do for public land hunters. In fact, seperate quota were something several pointed out as a need.
But thanks for you insight on the issue. I'm sure the public land bowsiters appreciate your comments. I am sure if the current management plan would continue things would be different....deer on public would be pushed to private, calls on corn harvest and I'm sure your not opening the flood gates to allow hunting opportunity on your thousands of locked lands.
What you fail to see is how the proposed management plan resembles how you are managing your land.
So since SAK works without special seasons then get rid of the special seasons. It works with small units but can some times work with large ones too.
Naz MacBook's Link
Here's the "second link" I posted (was missing the "l) on the "html" part) on how to comment on the 2014 deer management plan by Friday.
Interesting, harvest success with gun in 1966 was 25.5% and 2012 43.2%. Archery 1966 7.0% 2012 43.2%.
Sure, let's throw out what's working and let the politicians run it :-(
Smokey, please review the SAK audit as it has been stated several times on here. A big flaw with SAK is trying to use it in our small units.
"Not only who will be on the committees but what will they use to determine growing/stable/declining herd?"
Membership may vary by county based on interest with potential membership to include: -WCC - Agricultural - Forestry -Tourism -Transportation - Urban Representative - Tribal Rep(where applies)
Whatthey could use is: deer health indicators, impacts on other NR, social impacts, hunter information, population estimates.
No doubt things have changed through the years. Populations go up and down, often winter and habitat dependent in the north. Mild winters and young forest habitat increases sightings; moderate to severe winters and mature habitat reduces sightings. Then there's the bait debate.
Here's an excerpt from a friend this week in northern Wisconsin:
"Up north the norm was that if you hunted hard for 9 days you would likely see a legal buck. Habitat quality is declining there as trees mature and aspen and openings are replaced. Where we hunt, it was normal to average about 1-2 deer sighting per person per day. Since baiting has come on the scene, our sighting rates are far fewer. 4 guys at camp for 5 days had 8 sightings this year (but each of us shot a deer opening day for the first time in memory!). We saw about the same last year. But, my brother saw 95 deer on two fields just east of our cabin when grouse hunting in October. My tree is within sight of the nearest field and I saw 2 deer in 5 days."
Even in the farm country, it's not unusual to see fewer deer during the gun season then the old days. Hunting practices have changed in many areas from big groups pushing big areas to individuals sitting on a corn pile. It makes a huge difference in sightings for everyone within a mile of the drive. Pushed deer often keep on the move — whether running to escape, getting shot at or sneaking around trying to figure out how to get back to an area they're used to. When we did large group drives decades ago, it was not uncommon to flush 10-20 deer from some swamps. They ran in just about every direction, often across multiple properties in the fragmented farm country. There were many other groups and actually competition to "get to" spots where it was allowed each day.
Of course there are exceptions. Some tracts of private land, owned or leased for hunting, still produce plenty of sightings as they're only lightly pressured and well managed with timber cuts, ag lands, food plots, etc. And, it can still be great opening weekend of gun at many spots, esp. if it wasn't overhunted with bow. In my younger years, there were 100,000 less archers than today and as recently as '90, 50,000 fewer hunters than we had this bow season — about 700 more archers per county on average (if it was equal, which I'm sure it's not). Either way, whether hundreds more in a county or thousands more, that's a lot more focused early season pressure on deer. It does make a difference!
That's what I said when Geitz got his panties in a bunch. The politicians won't be happy until they figure out a way to suck every dollar out of WI deer hunting. By that time deer hunting as we know it will be, dead, dead, dead!!!
Please give it up. I am familiar with how it works, what can and cannot work.
"Whatthey could use is: deer health indicators, impacts on other NR, social impacts, hunter information, population estimates."
Grasping at straws? What is the standard? What tool will measure any of that? The last two are only opinion. A bad day or if someone expected a high scoring buck some hunters would say it's all screwed up, no deer, blame it on the DNR as usual. Still not anything that measure deer or deer range health or deer density, rising falling whatever.
Geitz's Link
"Grasping at straws? What is the standard? What tool will measure any of that? The last two are only opinion. A bad day or if someone expected a high scoring buck some hunters would say it's all screwed up, no deer, blame it on the DNR as usual. Still not anything that measure deer or deer range health or deer density, rising falling whatever."
Didn't come from me, it came from the DNR. What I believe you have a difficult time comprehending is the same information will be used which is currently being used. The exception is that it will be localized input rather than from some desk in Madison. It management plan also assists in a working relationship between hunters, other stakeholder and the DNR.
And popluation estimates are only opinion? Actually, overwinter goals are opinion.
Deer hunting and hunters have changed. Days of grandpa gutting out a nub in an excited sweat are gone. Sad but true. With changes in hunter's attitudes, many variables used in SAK change which cause SAK to be inaccurate, along with added antlerless seasons and small units. SAK has become outdated to use under the curreent management plan.
Would it make you feel better to think of goals to be in a range vs. increase, stabilize or decrease? If the benchmark for a county was "stabilize" or 20-23 DPSM and increase/decrease was over/under that mark, would this be more acceptable to you? Or do you need to have a set figure?
Naz said: "The biggest change I notice here is we can finally debate these things without it getting so ugly. That's the way it should be!"
Thanks smokey. I attempted to shed light on some questions about the deer management plan in an informational way w/o an attempt...as Naz stated, "getting so ugly".
Do you honestly believe we will throw away 50 years of deer management and shoot from the hip? I could have easily argued some posting on SAK, goals and science but I chose not to. But if you'd enjoy to discuss them, feel free to email me.
Naz, there may never be an agreement between stakeholders but at least the new plan allows for community input rather than a preset agenda for certain goals which the DNR will get heat.
Of which, I'm surprised the Ag and tree people don't see this as a great opportunity to move their agenda. What better way to influence landowners than to have a forester work with a landowner to maximize their lands potential while protecting the other natural resources. And rather than having a shake at a WCC hearing, now they are part of the equation.
IMO, everything needs to come on common ground. Pre Deer 2000, deer were manage to an over population. After Deer 2000, they were managed to a level low enough which lack scientific reasoning.
And hopefully it still will be
Speaking as a tree people (and a hunter) most of us tree huggers already use a forester. Either WDNR or a private consulting forester. I've used both.
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association and Tree Farm routinely weigh-in with their testimoney whenever they have the opportunity to make their opinion known.
Anecdotally, as I've spoken to my legislators about deer management, forest regeneration and the like their eyes sort of glaze-over.
None of them have ever done any sustainable forestry and few of them hunt. Yet they're the ones now charged with deer managment decisions. It's a sad day when someone with a time horizon as long as a 2 to 4 year election cycle makes decisions that impact forests and hunting traditions decades down the road.
Ultimately this will boil down to hunter self discipline. The DNR can enact bonus bucks and issue antlerless tags but the hunter doesn't have to participate. Very difficult on public ground I know. All the more reason to have a camp plan and chit chat with the neighbors.
Please don't take offense and this is not made towards WI Woodland Owners, but I have seen first hand some testimony on behalf of some groups. Whether it be name calling when a point is debunked or storming out of a hearing, mumbling and excitedly angry, they state their point but lack factual data to support it.
It is not Dems or Rep issue, they all see it. Lobbying by emotion is not effective.
It comes down to science or the lack of. Tell me the exact maximum number of DPSM in Door County which causes little to no regeneration issues. Forget the studies of fencing in trees and pointing deer browse. The only thing they are proving is deer eat trees. Problem is, there is no study in Door or Marinette or Sawyer....counties. We know deer congregate over winter in "hot spots" and whether there is 5 or 20 DPSM, there will be overbrowse. Fact is, there is not enough scientific studies on different woodland landscapes on overbrowse. MI DNR acknowledges it, why should we?
To some, one browsed tree is one too many. In reality, browse is an essential part of the forest.
Remember, DMAP is not just how many deer but how to effectively manage your forest to maximize resources. I've saw first hand on our family property when a forest is too old and limits the ability to hold deer. We selected a logger who others had great luck with. It was hard to give up the forest I grew up with but in the long term, it was best. Our land now can hold more deer and we probably could do better.
Even a highly respected(by some) UW biologiist made this concession to me when I asked if regeneration issue were primarily a browse issue or a lack of proper forest management. All people love their big tree but in reality, we must manage forest better. But some choose to control a lessor problem rather than the problem at hand. Large canapy forest kill the undergrowth and promote plant species not wanted.
I agree that fencing only proves deer eat trees, well sometimes a bit more than that but still. As for browse studies there are plenty out there so why do another one to show a need to maintain a safe level. Not only for tree regen but a point where deer do not set themselves up for a crash when they have over browsed and have not enough to sustain a herd at a certain level? Either starvation or disease.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/forum/62B.pdf
How many people do you allow to hunt on your property?
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/winterpopperdr.pdf
Sounds like you have a population problem, to the extreme that you are very concerned with regeneration problems. 24 deer a year is not going to control your population. Have you accepted other hunters on your land to harvest doe? Or maybe contact the DNR to get some sharp shooters out there, shooting some over corn.
According to your post on another thread: "The proper Dpsm goal should be 1/2 of carrying capacity. CC is where the birth rate=death rate (which will cause severe crop damage and permanent browse damage btw)"
Considering statement on deer range, even the best case scenerio of scientific data would show your DPSM should be 30 w/little or no regeneration issues. This means you need to harvest over 120 next year.
Let me know, I'll bring up my 4 tags next year to do my part. Anyone else want to donate to the cause?
Point being....either you truly care about the issues on your land and will allow enough hunters on it to control your population....
Or you enjoy to talk regeneration problem while still keeping your deer Xanadu.
Unless your allowing access to your land, you are not allowing it. 40 deer with 12 being bucks(maybe) is not herd control. Even with a 50/50 buck/doe ratio, your still looking at the same population, if not more, next year.
It surely isn't doing anything for your tree or the farmers who surround you. It's not others wanting more deer, it the lack of you harvesting more on your land which is your problem.
Out of 265000 bow hunters in WI, i find it hard pressed for you to find 100 who you would trust coming in and shooting a doe. Heck, even the DNR would do it for you.
Are you telling me the farmers don't want the deer population reduced when their crops are being destroyed by the over population? Maybe Naz can weigh in as he states farmers don't want high populations. Honestly, I see what you do.....Most farmers want deer as they hunt.
As I said, I would be happy to hunt your land and I'm sure the DNR coulod assist in herd control. As a landowner who is concerned about their forest, I'd imagine you want to do your best to protect it.
Your 300+ acres, along with your neighbors(I'm guessing), attempt to manage together. This is a significant amount of land.
The point I've tried to make and, IMO, your a great example is that managing to a number doesn't make sense anymore. 10+years ago, most landowners would not manage their lands like you and other are doing now. You have attempted to manage your land to maximize population potential and enjoy doing so. Your property and surrounding area should not be managed to a quota like the other properties on the other side of your unit.
With current management, your and the surrounding property would skew the rest of the unit and quotas could be inflated for others. Under the new plan, local people could see this and adjust quotas so other areas are not affected. DMAP could give you the opportunity for more tags to help control your specific area. Whether you use the tags or not is your choice.
In my opinion, those farms or properties that have been reduced to numbers below what people wish to see (as far as deer sightings) have since decided to pass on antlerless deer (unlike in the past). I believe it would be the minority looking to reduce the herd size, even at a reduced cost for those antlerless tags...even if they had more deer than the land could support?
Just like Novemeberforever stated: "We do just fine". I think most private land owners are thinking the same way, even if they don't go through the same work as he does. I believe the secondary management of land (private versus public) only works if people use it. Emphasis should be put on public property so more people can witness the deer hunting the way they would like it. Yes, that might just mean over goal.
This is just what I believe people want to see as a majority. There are very few people on the 'too many deer" bandwagon.
DMAP is not just for the over populated landowners. A forester or biologist could help a landowner with selective cuts, vegetation, etc.. to help increase numbers, better cover and overall better health of the deer on/around their property.
All of which can be done without enrolling in DMAP. DMAP allows the state to give landowners access to extra tags for deer population control ... much like farmers get crop damage tags for deer population control. ;-)
With my money on land I will never be allowed to hunt on.
Naz MacBook's Link
Whether the WSI shows it or not (it doesn't do well with crusty snow, or when snow sits deep enough to cause problems but not enough to trigger a point, or when winter comes late and lasts well into spring like last year), we've had several tougher winters since herds were brought down closer to goal in many areas (roughly 2008). That alone can hurt a strong comeback, esp. in non-ag areas.
Predation is a problem, but always has been. Wolves aside, coyotes and bears have been eating fawns for decades. There are probably 400-500K whitetails in northern Wisconsin and the central forests, and there aren't enough predators (besides man) to take out anywhere close to that. I agree the wolf hunt is a good thing, and I'm in favor of more aggressive bear quotas. And whether or not coyote hunting and trapping helps or if it just stimulates more reproduction (never could quite understand that one), I'm for it.
Hunters are still the biggest killers of deer, including does and fawns, in the northern and central forests BY FAR. We've got to stop blaming predators and start hoping for milder winters, and keep the fingers off the trigger when an antlerless deer is sighted in areas with few whitetails.
Green sheet has been updated with a few corrections, including more registration details on deer and bear.
I don't think there is a super awesome friendly relationship between private land owners and the DNR, and it would surprise me immensely if there was any cooperation that would hold any true value?
We have 80 acres in the WMFL in Sawyer County, but there are not many people following suit around there....and I haven't hunted there in six years just due to how bad it has become. Now add to that, that once people here in the area I hunt here in Southern Wisconsin decided to think for themselves, the hunting has turned around significantly.
Like I said before, I don't blame them like many do, but they led the brigade with the eradication mentality, and unfortunately for them, they have left a very sour taste in many people's mouths.
I do believe a good forester can help someone's property immensely....that means big trees must fall though.....but perhaps a good trapper will help even better? LOL
Maybe...maybe not but at least one side is trying.
I will say it again, this management thing for an entire state as diverse as it is with its terrain just like its people (and opinions) is a tough job indeed.
And I'm not sure anyone doing it on their own has a definitive formula either?
I could look at this completely selfishly, and at times I most certainly do. I have it pretty damn good, I just wish we could make everyone happy, and we both know that won't happen. My feeling is, just like so many others have mentioned, that the private land owner is the guy who typically makes out the best. He can make his own decisions, because he spent/spends his own money, can decide who and how many hunt, and what people get to take. The public land however is at the mercy of everyone with about 1 million different ideas and game plans, and 1/10th the herd to deal with. (the percentage may be off, but it is a realistic number in my opinion).
Or call in a fake doe kill and get a bonus buck tag???
I don't believe a lot of folks will get into DMAP. Most IMO won't want to take the medicine the DNR will suggest once they tell them how to balance the herd to the habitat.
Landowners have always had the option of talking one-on-one with a biologist (phone call, email or visit at the office, or after a DNR hearing/meeting), and some have enlisted the help of local foresters. Groups like QDMA, WTU and more already have volumes of free materials available on properly managing land for quality.
Yes it could fail yet it could become something good. One of the orgs you mentioned has taken the up the opportunity to work on DMAP and after a call today, I expect the other will. If they have shown interest in the program, maybe you should to.
I think it's a fantastic idea and I will do everything I can to to promote it. I talked to a neighbor about the program after the deer gun season, emailed him what info I had and he said he is in. My goal is to get enough neighbors to form a 640 acre Cooperative. I'm at 320 acres with the two of us, 2 more neighbors with 40 acres apiece should be in, another 120 acres in if an adjoining neighbor commits. I'm almost there... BC
Land owners can already have foresters and biologists draw up a management plan for their property. Only difference is that they will have to pay for private contractors themselves not have other hunters pay for the private plan.
I live in the north and hunt public lands. Wouldn't it be crazy if public money was spent on public lands. Sorry, I sort of lost my head with that strange idea ;-)
So if I own a large parcel with a small lake on that parcel the DNR should stock it with fish of my choice and no one will be allowed to fish it unless I say so?
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/dtr/proposals/B7,D4,D7,E4,F1,G1,G2,G5,G8DMAP.pdf
smokey's Link
BTW, I put the hyperlink making it easier for folks to get to. It is a window on the bottom of the submission page.
It says that in the initial phase public lands will not be involved. My big heart burn around here is the history of USFS not being interested in deer over recent years. I will make some contact to see if they are planning on any DMAP participation.
Novemberforever's Link
No need, they have a representative on the DMAP advisory committee.
Public Dmap means land specific antlelrless tags like Necedah. This sounds warm and fuzzy but with gun party hunting this entire public land specific idea is a joke.
So here is an idea, no group hunting on public land.
This might be the year to introduce a pile of those resolutions at county Conservation Congress meetings (even though I know these things are done legislatively).
Illinois banned deer drives years ago.
Naz MacBook's Link
I talked to a guy at a basketball game Friday night who has a camp up north and is in favor of phone-in, even though he admits that it'll lead to less accurate numbers and more cheating. He laughed and said maybe the guys who don't call in will balance out the guys arrowing bucks for others. That's a sad commentary on the whole process.
(Be sure to take a look at the comments on the linked story and see who is taking credit for it ... lol).
I just don't see how this is going to be a help to the over all herd? Let's see....I shot a doe and now I can go out and shoot another spiker?
Just doesn't seem right!
Should the DNR discontinue Deer Registration Stations and force hunters to register harvested deer on-line or by phone?
Yes 33% No 67% Total votes: 150
DNR To Consider Phone Or On-line Deer Registration 1/20/2014 5:00:00 AM By DoorCountyDailyNews.com
Going to the local watering hole or convenience store to register your deer is part of the hunting tradition. But technology could change that.
The DNR Board will consider a plan to register your harvested deer by phone or on line. Governor Walker’s Deer Trustee James Kroll says it would give the DNR a faster tally of deer taken and save money spent on operating Deer Registration Stations.
Business owners say it would reduce their sales during deer season.
You guys argue about reg stations, well what deer are you going to register.......
Many of you have no idea, how bad the northern herd is..........
Its not just this winter, but this winter is the Perfect Storm, from all the failed policies, and not getting those with some clout that could do something about it.......
Many of you have no idea how bad the herd is, and the sad part is, most don't care.......
I have lots of private land to hunt. I can drive down to Waupaca Co and hunt on relatives farms, I can go to Trempeleau Co and hunt on a friends farms anytime, and see alot of nice bucks, so why do I care.....
Because the north belongs to all of us, and we should fight to save it. I believe the north is heading for a crisis point, and we have to get involved......
Yet I never hear the WBH, or the WTA, screaming about the lack of good land management. These are both great organizations, can you imagine if the joined forces.........
George Meyer should be pounding the table, about what is going on in the north, and not complaining about the DNR, because he does not like the govenor....
I have sat in a cabin, now for a long time, writing letters. Maybe the letters from such a little guy will not mean much, but I am trying. Tonite I get to have someone else cook at a friends house, and even get to sound off on this and see TV ha ha
I just talked to one guy, who said, if they come out with doe tags up here, I will not register them, in fact, I will quit doing that......
Spring CC hearings should be interesting.......
Its not just this winter, but this winter is the Perfect Storm, from all the failed policies, and not getting those with some clout that could do something about it.......
Many of you have no idea how bad the herd is, and the sad part is, most don't care."
I have said this for a long time, the dnr says we are looking at doing some things maybe. Well hell, they should have been "looking" into things 5 years or more ago. But the DNR will NEVER be proactive, by looking at their body of work. I am convinced they are made up mostly of idiots.
I agree, this is needed to make change. I do not think the herd is doomed but will remain low if this doesn't happen.
Here is how they did it:
Biologist visits and issues x Free doe tags depending on your population. You get to shoot does from November through January with rifles to fill your tags (like our crop damage tags). You have to live weigh and extract a jaw bone from each deer killed on the property and send them to the biologists. He sends you a detailed report on age and health which is used to determine next years quota. You get to decide what to do with all the deer
Pretty cool. Could easily work in WI
Pretty much, hunters should also take heed. What's happening in the north could be happening anywhere in the state. If you don't believe that, you have your head in the sand. Don't think for a second that the DNR will do what's best for the herd, they will always do what's best for their bottom line. Which you would think would be doing what's best for the herd. But the pencil pushers at the top don't think like that.
There are hunters that hunt in the southern part of the state that would tell you that their hunting has been getting less and less enjoyable as the years pass too, especially guys that are stuck hunting the DNR managed public lands. If it wasn't for private landowners that do their part by not following the DNR's management style (which seems to have the ultimate goal of bringing the herd down to a level that causes hunters to throw in the towel and give up) we'd be completely screwed down here too.
"I thought Walker and his great czar were the holy grail to deer hunting in WI? With Walker pulling strings within the DNR all should be good, right? Did something happen, is Walker not the answer any longer?"
I'm not much of a Walker fan nor a fan of Kroll for that matter, but asking anyone to clean up the mess that the DNR has worked on creating for several years is a tall order, and one that will take a lot of time (if it can actually be accomplished at all.) Besides that, IMO the DNR is still saturated with the wrong type of people for the job, and they (DNR) still has too much authority and input, both of which will continue to derail any attempts at progress. More house cleaning in the DNR is a necessity.
