WDNR report card?
Wisconsin
Stunning map. Red is really good. Most book entries the last 20 years, unlike other states, top harvest totals(ask Minnesota what bad dpsm are), still OTC buck tags vs. a draw like Iowa. Sconnie hunters are spoiled rotten vs. other states. Our DNR overall has done a solid job imo.
I agree with November. True there are some big bucks in other states that are not entered but there are some things to think about.
How many hunters/deer are there? I always hear people dreaming of hunting in other states in hopes of bagging a book buck but most never go. Those that do I hear a lot eating tags. I even hear one guy, a very good hunter, said Wisconsin will never be a big buck state. What?
A look at that map pretty much says it all.
Can you provide a link to that map so I can look at it more closely? Hard to read it.
I think that map is awesome and WI is a great place to hunt. That said, is the # of B&C and P&Y deer due to the WDNR or due to the minerals/habitat present in WI? Is it a mindset amongst WI hunters to let smaller bucks walk versus the other states. How about overall number of hunters?
I'd also like to see the link to the map if you don't mind November.
How many were from public land in the last 5 years? It's easy for November to say this when he owns a huge piece of land in probably the most fertile area of the state and can control what's being shot on it. Not jealous of him just stating facts.
Minnesota was #1 in entries 20 years ago, now Wisconsin dominates in most entries. The key is mainly sheer numbers of bucks taken.Look at the buck harvest in adjoining states, it's not even close. I suck at bball but if You give me 80,000 more half court shots then say Lebron gets, I win hands down. Wisconsin ranks 9th in book entries per license sold as Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are ranked higher. Good soil/habitat, decent weather all play a role. many more mature buck hunters in Iowa and Illinois then here imo.
I have to disagree. I would give them a failing grade at managing Public land and the White Tail. The map show's it in the areas of large tracs of public land. Just my $0.02
" I would give them a failing grade at managing Public land and the White Tail. The map show's it in the areas of large tracs of public land. Just my $0.02"
1) look at the U.P. entries vs. the adjacent Wisconsin orange colored counties. 2) If Wisconsin's northern 1/3 public land entries= a failing grade then every other state DNR staff nationwide should be fired for ineptness.
Here's a look at BC entries only(no PY) from 5 years earlier. Wisconsin jumped big time in the 00's due to EAB imo.
"The key is mainly sheer numbers of bucks taken" and "Good soil/habitat, decent weather all play a role."
How does this relate to a rating of the WDNR in this success of large bucks?
Here is my take.
- soil/minerals (look at Buffalo County)
- habitat (loads of woods and ag land)
- long seasons (especially true once CWD found)
- large number of hunters (far more overall than most states)
- multi-buck state (can't be said in all other states)
I am a huge fan of the WDNR, but I don't see how this success relates to them at all.
"I am a huge fan of the WDNR, but I don't see how this success relates to them at all." Illinois, Iowa and southern Minnesota have much better winter conditions and at least as good of soil. The Minnesota DNR and to some extent Il. have set their deer hunting back 30 years due to horrible mismanagement. Google MDDI, MDNR has a full scale revolt happening due to pathetically low dpsm goal setting.Parts of southern Minnesota are set at 18 dpsm where Wisconsin in the same terrain is set at 75. It's an interesting discussion to have. 20 years of results are not just luck. Again Minn. was #1 in entries 20 years ago and now they are a non event. Why do the Packers have 3 more SB wins then the Vikings, Lions and Bears combined? Luck?
November, in your opinion, what exactly did our DNR do differently than the other states to cause the disparity?
Of the items I listed above, are they all apples to apples comparisons?
Just curious if you have current stats as those listed are from 9 years ago.
The last 8 years Wisconsin again has dominated entries.Imo, EAB was the main reason for the recent surge and of course sheer numbers of bucks vs. the other states. I still feel soil/habitat and all the private land south of hwy 29 are the biggest factors BUT poor DNR management would have screwed it up fast just look at Minnesota. They were top dog 20 years ago and now they are sucking hind teatI also feel every year more guys are mature buck hunting and are happy to have tag soup if need be. We have 1 hunter who can green light any buck(disabled), 3 take only 3.5yo and up,2 only take net 125 minimum and 2 only take net 150. If a buck can see his 4th birthday he has a solid chance at net 125 for PY.
"EAB was the main reason for the recent surge and of course sheer numbers of bucks vs. the other states. I still feel soil/habitat and all the private land south of hwy 29 are the biggest factors BUT poor DNR management would have screwed it up "
Once again, this has nothing to do with the DNR doing something special versus just not screwing up. So people nowadays should be commended at their jobs just for not screwing up?
I do concur with you that we have it great in WI. However, if everyone were so happy our Governor would not have felt the need to bring in a high fence, baiting happy, self-proclaimed deer czar to right all the perceived wrongs brought about by the WDNR. I contend Dr. Deer and the followup DTR were a complete waste of time and resources, but they had to be brought here for a reason outside of popularity votes.
Good, bad, or ugly, I don't see the correlation between the map of 1996-2005 P&Y and B&C to the WiDNR. -Quite silly, really, at so many various levels it is difficult to even begin to dissect.
Good to hear you have some restraint on the farm where you hunt, NF, but what does this have to do with the management done by the WiDNR?
These buck numbers will really start to dwindle, they already have. EAB is gone, hate it or love it. It had the great unintended side effect of letting young bucks live. Plus we are putting more hunters into the woods with more efficient weapons, yet they are not adjusting the buck tags. Keep withdrawing from your checking account at a rate greater than you deposit and see what happens. I definitely do not give the DNR a fail, but far from high marks either.
" but what does this have to do with the management done by the WiDNR?"
EAB was a big factor in producing book bucks. Specifically for me they have and continue to give me the ability to easily manage the antlerless/herd control component. If the state has a huge advantage with soil/habitat then the DNR is like asking an average QB to simple manage(not lose) the game surrounded by fantastic players. Again, Minnesota was #1 20 years ago and they have been mismanaged into oblivion. What do other states hunter think of their DNR when they see red Wisconsin?
"What do other states hunter think of their DNR when they see red Wisconsin? "
They think Wisconsin has:
- excellent soil/minerals (look at Buffalo County)
- excellent habitat (loads of woods and ag land)
- long seasons (especially true once CWD found)
- large number of hunters (far more overall than most states)
- multi-buck state (can't be said in all other states)
Nothing to do with the WDNR.
MN screwed up the DPSM thing and WI is doing the same thing right now!
If the DNR was doing such a good job we wouldn't be having a buck only season in northern Wi. Those of us that hunt there have been telling them for years the population was going down but they wouldn't listen.
Consider WI has a larger archery kill than almost any state. If you do a comparison to Iowa I an guessing they kill more booners per 100 bucks than WI. Anybody? I agree EAB got us of to a great start on putting age on bucks. It got us to a point that we had enough bucks that passing them was easy. Once landowners had older bucks they became somewhat protective of them and it snowballed. Similar to the plight of the polar bear. Enuits mostly shot them on sight as they were a problem. Once they got control of the hunting concessions and started bringing in #17,000 per tag they were not such a nuisance. What this really came down to is the bucks just needed to age 2 years. I give the DNR little to no credit for this change. It was 95% done on private property. I tried to convince the deer manager Haberland in the 70's to allow just a couple of public land into restricted buck kill and it fell on deaf ears. This change to older bucks was accomplished by landowners. At some point maybe this can be brought to public property. This might be a cc question next spring. EAB could help certain public properties raise the buck age but I guess that is now illegal.
Anyone who thinks the D.N.R. manages for antler size is confused. Trophy bucks exist in spite of the D.N.R's management policy, not because of it.
Shhhhhhhhhh... Take that darn map down. Tell everyone to go hunt MO with some of those T.V. hunters.
We had a lot of deer under Bill Mytton, too many as it turned out. I thought since that point the DNR took this more seriously and did good work. Last couple of years might have gone better. I give QDMA more credit for trophy bucks than our DNR. That said it was never their goal and I do not think they tried to take any credit.
