Illinois DNR is smarter than WI DNR
Wisconsin
I would like to see all public lands go to a lottery system. I would rather have a chance at hunting with limited hunters per acre than hunt with tons of hunters walking everywhere. Would definitely be a more quality hunt for everyone.
Sorry but beyond this land, banning deer drives and baiting, the Il. dnr is a dumpster fire second only to Mn. Here's some lite reading from happy Il. hunters
Nov." the Il. dnr is a dumpster fire second only to Mn"
What do you have to back up your statement ?
Sounds like the only limited draw is for non-residents. They allow antlerless deer hunting, or bucks with at least four on a side. Residents get a vehicle pass and hunt whenever they want. Sounds like it could be a zoo?
"The hunter check station, located in a former farmhouse on County Highway 11, handles all hunting administrative functions. All hunters must register at the site office once a year and receive a free vehicle pass which allows access to the site for the entire season.
A lottery drawing is held at the JEPC site office to distribute non-resident archery deer permits for one-week seasons starting the last week of October through the third week of November. Applications must be received by March 31. The specific season dates are listed on the application."
Not saying their couldn't be some positive public ground changes, but agree with November, grass always seems greener across another state line until you talk to the average local without a prime private parcel.
Read the link I posted. Il. and Mn. are pounding the herd into a low dpsm. Go on an Il. forum. Mn. has a small scale revolt going. Here's Mn. version of happy campers
The guys behind the Il deer alliance are top notch life long Il. hunters and they are Pissed.
Nov."The guys behind the Il deer alliance are top notch life long Il. hunters and they are Pissed"
Do you personally know them ?
RJN X1, this is the only answer to public hunting. The hunter/user saturation factor is to high for the deer + the safety issue. Ft.McCoy has a lottery system, Wildcat St. Park used to have a lottery for ML and other states have a drawing also i.e.: S.D. have a slot time for NR to hunt in for pheasants. The Central Forrest zone have been one of the most over abused public lands in the state. Private land hunters should not have an input with the State on Public Land Hunting at all, the only time I have witness private hunters on public was during the T-Zone so they wouldn't screw Their deer up. If the state want to retain hunters they are going to have to change the hunting structure on Public, instead of treating it like leftovers for the trash hunters. The state deer policy makers before they make their recommendations should be hunting public before putting any say in the state deer QM. The ones that I have sat in the past all hunted private and do not understand what or how they affect the St. Deer Resources. I wonder why private even are required to buy a state deer tag since most are being raised on their property like cattle and even have names for the bucks on their property. The deer hunting culture have changed greatly over the yrs and the state is going to have to change the structure with it. Reality, nothing will happen to increase better deer hunting, it has always been structure in killing deer more easier with group bagging, baiting, crossbows, inline scope muzzleloader (rifles) ect; everytime the Spring Conservation Hearings voted on it was always adding another rules to kill deer not to make it a fair chase. The youth hunt was started for 12yr old but some bubba decided that wasn't young enough to kill a deer, squirrel season would have been a more proper hunt, but our society do not want the kids to learn the steps and got to go right to the cream. Sorry for the rant, I could go on but the State is what decides who gets what and of course it is about the revenue. One question, why would Wi have a person from Texas on the State Deer Management, something is wrong there since Texas is the top state for private deer herd management, what does he bring to the table for public hunting?
I successfully archery hunted in ILL. for the first time this year and was very impressed. Of cause coming from northern Wis. that doesn't take much.
IL has some real access issues. Small amounts of public land and private land is being pushed into leases by the exorbitant property taxes.
My buddy and I may be looking for new ground again. The sweat equity and small improvements that we can do to help our friend who owns the property pale in comparison to the offer off a little better than $30 per acre for a lease.
And quite a few IL hunters are less pleased with the state of the ILDNR.
Check the IL forum, you'll see the same personalities as there are here, expressing the same kinds of views, just different handles.
"Do you personally know them ? "
Google Don Higgins, he heads up the Il. effort He is an extreme buck hunter, not trophy bucks. Great habitat knowledge as well
http://www.higginsoutdoors.com/index.php
I have said MANY times on here that WI should set aside some of their public land as experiment land. Bow only with some kind of antler restrictions and practice timber management and also some food plots. You could make these lands draw only and people could draw for specific time slots. Charge a little higher fee for the privilege of hunting on this land. I think there is already something similar on conservancy lands. Where the hunters have to put in a certain amount of labor on the land in the off season. They then apply for certain time slots, of course it isn't a for sure thing you would get the time you wanted.
SURPRISE.... SURPRISE .... LOL... bet the Il. DNR wishes they had that panel of experts we have on our special deer committees ... now those guys get it done....ROFLMAO....
Public lands could be enhanced overnight by banning party hunting deer drives and baiting
Nov. You forgot bait plots also.
Arrow you and the dnr try and define a baitplot wallenfang said its impossible to legally define it
Rut +1 I would be willing to pay a "park fee". if it were somewhere way up north. I hunted my first season in northern Florence cty and that was also my last season up there. I've thought many times about going back up to the "big woods" but with limited time to hunt each season I've chosen to stick with farmland knowing I have a lot more deer, and a better chance at a big buck. Something like this would get me to go spend some of my tourist dollars up there. A DIY public land trophy deer hunt sounds Awsome. It's about time Illinois came up with a good idea.
I will define it.... It's called farmland..
Great aw now write a law to not hunt over " farmland"
There really would be no downside to doing this other than if made archery only some gun only types would whine. But oh well, there are some states that have archery only land and it works quite well. There are even a few draw only hunts in other states that are trad only land.
I don't understand why this hasn't been done here?
Exactly... they are one and the same.. November.. next issue.
In fact many farmers now plant "Food Plots" and don't harvest the insured crop for this or that reason and blame weather... then we pay for their subsidies. ..Now that was genius setting that crap up... LOL
Answer the ? Aw Write the rule as to not hunt near farmland/foodplot I can assure you it cant be written
I agree... that's what I am saying
Cp upset about that? How about an emetgency hunt in all the fatmland zones? Stay tuned
Don't give the dnr any more ideas for more hunts. They should realize that less deer killed is a good thing or else the rest of the state will eventually end up like the north.
Wrong wrong wrong Illinois DNR is the worse they sharp shoot deer every year this years gun season is down 30,000 so far from last year!
Some folks would complain if they were hung with a new rope!
"Some folks would complain if they were hung with a new rope!"
Perhaps some of us just aren't happy with the status quo.
Let me tell you whatmost in IL that hunt would tell you our DNR sucks because they really DO. Public land hunting down here is a nightmare, with so many dumb rules and regulations most wardens don't know what is up and what is down. I Hunt almost 0 here and the small amount I do is on a buddies 60 acre beef farm on the far west side of the central part of the state. Illinois deer herd has been decimated by disease and over killing of doe's. Trust me Wisconsin is 2nd to no one when it comes to the over all health, success, and quality of the herd no matter what anyone says. They have big bucks but no where near the numbers of big bucks, and a lot of areas have just as low deer numbers as the far northern counties in Wisconsin with half as many excuses as to why. (No wolfs, bears, (and the ones they have SUCK) or bad winters in terms of deer survival in Illinois.) GO PACKERS, GO WISCONSIN, BLESS THE HOME LAND FOREVER. (THIS BADGER GAME IS HARD TO WATCH!!!)
Is it reasonable to expect 400,000-500,000K annual harvests? Or a 600K+ harvest such as we had in 2000?
By the time all the gun, bow and crossbow hunts are added up, we should be over 300K whitetails tagged. That's more than double any harvest in the 60s and 70s (and 3-4x larger than some seasons then), and larger than any into the early 80s. That's even more than we shot in '93 after a tough winter — and (depending how many bought in-season tags this year) we had 30-40K more gun hunters in '93, too.
Depending where the final gun license number falls, we could be down as much as 70-80K hunters from the top gun license sales years of 1990 and 2000. We lost 70K gun hunters the year CWD was discovered, and only gained about half back.
Those are fuzzy math numbers Naz... in those older years the hunter densities in the decimated counties were way .. way lower... because of claiming hunting land by lease.. sale... or subdivision and sale.. squeezing out the little guy all over the rest of the state... the 19 decimated counties end up with those refuge hunters .....you can't manage those counties under the same bag limits and rules and expect good results...
Face it.. corporate hunting ..TV hunts. ..have capitalized deer hunting.... when's the last time you could knock on a door and get permission to hunt a farm ??? We all know that don't happen very often ... and it use to... so all these tags need a tree someplace.... and that's what decimated these counties... and you can add a few more for next fall...it's getting worse... not better..the rest of the state carries the states kill numbers ... but these 19 counties will remain crap for decades.. if significant rule changes to either ban baiting ... 1 buck tag.... or closed season takes place... it simply can't recover with all the refuge hunters pouring in these counties from loosing access in other parts of the state.. It's total BS.... and needs to change immediately ...if not sooner
"They should realize that less deer killed is a good thing or else the rest of the state will eventually end up like the north."
Being a hunter/landowner in southern wi, I can say some of the private land is really good and the public land is getting worse and worse every year. It does seems as if the DNR has been and keeps trying to bring the deer population here down to the same levels as the north. Seems as if their goal is to turn deer hunting all over the state into an experience most folks don't/won't enjoy due to lack of sightings/opportunities. If hunters won't kill all the deer (and we won't nor will we try) the DNR's pet wolves will (ever wonder why they constantly report the wolf population ridiculously low?) so in all honesty even though my hunting area is very good as of now(managed by us not the DNR go figure) this is more than likely short-lived if the DNR continues to be allowed to manage this state into the ground. Once the DNR's pet wolves pack in down here like they are in the north the DNR will get what they want(very few deer), and more hunters will drop out and not buy licenses (wonder why the DNR doesn't seem to care about this aspect of their management?) Landowner like myself will find that we are much better off selling to a developer, turning these several hundred acres into another subdivision and buying (or even moving) elsewhere where opportunity still might exist. The blatant disregard for hunter/landowners thoughts/enjoyment apparently means nothing to the WDNR and it's been this way for years. I would think that as hunters keep dropping out less hunters and less license sales hopefully will mean less money flowing to the DNR and less money being flushed down the toilet, and less staffing needed. The less funding available to the DNR means the less damage they can cause. I can't imagine how things will look in 15-20 years if the DNR is allowed to continue managing this state into the ground, only time will tell.
Why would anyone quit buying tags in WI when we post the big numbers of B&C and P&Y numbers.. LOL.... that prolly is the reason.. I know I won't be spending money on deer tags here for some time.. it's just not worth it chasing our tails ... I have better states to hunt with less issues then this one ... and its far more enjoyable... that's the main thing
AW what states did you deer hunt in this year? Any luck?
Nope.. I took this year off as I have little vacation .. But have enough pts to hunt Iowa for next fall.. and a bunch of chunks of public that should be awesome ..plus it's only 2 hrs from home..!! Been out of the loop for a few years building vacation ... so now is the time to make those plans for next fall.... and i don't see anything to plan for in my WI neck of the woods...pretty much shot off again..surprise... surprise
I have hunted out of state for deer since the early 90's .... nothing like figuring out a brand new piece of ground and sending a arrow through a monster that everyone has access too..I love that challenge...
I relied on some of a deer a family member gave us for a little sausage that will be stuffed and smoked soon..but the cupboards are pretty venison free..LOL..not good..
It's all about habitat when it comes to pheasants. Doesn't matter what time you open the hunt if you don't have the vast grasslands. With CRP acreage shrinking, don't expect the bonanza to last there either.
Sounds a lot like European style management to me...in which everybody gets to pay for the fortunate few. Non-residents pick a week and enter the lottery? In Germany you draw lots for 10 square feet of canal space so you can go carp fishing...and don't dare cross the line into another guy's area or else! In a world of limited access why would anybody be for controlling public land so strictly? Public land is where us commoners have to play...and we don't expect a trophy behind every tree, but you nobles have public land to manipulate and grow "monsters", why not be happy with that and leave us public runts be? I'm 100% for management via no does, or lotteries, that sort of thing, but I am not at all for picking straws to see who's lucky enough to hunt land we all paid for...and a specific week to boot. Screw that; I'll use the back door if it ever comes to that!
"Screw that; I'll use the back door if it ever comes to that! "
Southfarm- you would no longer consider yourself a public runt if there was a lottery system. Pressure would be low and less over harvesting on these lands.
South farm, so you are complaining about having to hunt public land. Yet would not want to contribute very little to help make it better? You know if there were a few selected properties like this in the state. No one would force you to hunt those properties.
More than seven million acres of land open to public hunting in Wisconsin, some 11,000 square miles. Obviously it's not all hunted with the same pressure, but if it were, about 176,000 hunters could each have a 40 to themselves. The last survey I saw had the number of public-only hunters in the state somewhere in the 25-30 percent range. In other words, about the same number of hunters who could each have a 40 to themselves, should they be evenly spread across the state. Lottery needed? A lot of private land has two or more hunters on a 40.
Robert, I wasn't complaining, but rather stating that as a Public land hunter I do not expect a trophy behind every tree and I am perfectly fine with that...I'm happy just to have a place to be able to go hunt. My stance is that we all pay for public land and I do not like to see any of us excluded if we choose to use it, because after-all we paid for it. As such I don't expect to be all myself on public land; I expect I will see others, but am happy if I don't obviously. As far as public properties being managed in the way you are for I stand corrected, I misunderstood and thought this would apply to all public lands, not just specific ones. Even then, I believe it starts with one parcel and eventually leads to more and more lands being off limits to the average Joe...much like elk hunting has become out West. I'm not for managing herds, but I don't think restricting access to Public Land is the right method or a road we want to go down. This country needs more access if we hope to keep our hunting heritage alive for the next generation, not less.
That should read I'm not "against" (not "for") managing herds. My bad.
That makes sense south farm. But I really think a bow only property in each region would be a good thing.
Kansas used to be premier destination when they had the NR draw and resident tag restrictions. they basically opened it up and the quality/numbers have declined considerably. I would expect Iowa to be about the same when they finally realize how much $ they can make off NR hunters. What i loved about Kansas when there was a draw were the unpressured deer that would actually do things like make scrapes, spar out in fields, and chase does. You know, like normal deer do. NOt walk through the woods looking up in every tree.
Nice numbers Naz... 176000 forties eh??? At a deer density of 2 or 3 per Sq. Mile or less on much or most of northern public lands ..you have about .188 deer per hunter on WI public lands.. let's go all out and say there are 9 deer per sq Mile on Northern WI public lands... you would have about 1 deer for ever 2 hunters...
Now seeing we all know our antlerless to legal buck ratio is prolly in the 6 or 8 to 1 or worse in these areas...we will say 6 to 1 antlerless to buck ratio ..
That's 16500....Legal bucks for the public land hunters to hunt....(13200) 80% of those are 1.5 yearolds...(1980)12% are 2.5 year olds..(825)5% are 3.5 year olds and that leaves (495)3% are older than 3.5 years old on 176,000 forties.
Those my bowhunting friends are out right pathetic numbers for public lands any place in the country... and these numbers are rather generous....LOL
Your "generous" numbers are way, way off.
A density of two or three deer per square mile? Many units see annual buck kills in excess of that. Seeing "we all know" that the antlerless to buck ratio is "prolly in the 6 or 8 to 1 or worse" … that would mean that there are a few more than 9 deer per square mile on many lands.
Take unit 2, for example. About 511 square miles of deer range in the heart of bear and wolf country. The buck kill in 2013 was more than 1,300 gun and bow combined. Now we know all the bucks weren't killed, but just using the ones that were, and figuring 6 antlerless per buck (your "low end" figure), that's another 8,000 or so baldies. Pretty soon you're up to more than 10,000 whitetails, or 20/sq. This isn't even the best example, just an average one.
Yearling buck percentage of antlered bucks harvested in the northern region have ranged from 42 to 59 percent the past five years, with a 5-year mean of 51.9 percent. Only the southern farmland has been lower during that period.
Long-term, the northern forest's 56.9 percent yearlings in the antlered buck harvest is the lowest of any region.
Hunt the USFW islands on the Mississippi(Il.) with a boat. Public land, no competition, big bucks.
Set aside public land? lottery? No, I disagree with that one. That is one thing I love about this state. Its access to forest for everyone. I may bitch about a lot, but WI is gifted in that aspect plus lakes, streams etc. No way would I want a lottery to hunt it. I would pay a small fee to use it also. The nice thing about the forest, is if there happens to be someone in one spot, there is always another.
live2huunt, once again it wouldn't be ALL public land. For those that oppose this, no one would force you to hunt this hypothetical land. Also for those opposed to this. Say the inept WI DNR actually did something like this in each region. If it were wildly successful would you apply and if successful hunt it? Especially if it were near your home/hunting area?
"Illinois DNR is smarter than WI DNR"
Um...nope.
The problem I would have with it would be where would it stop? Would I apply? probably. But if they take more and more land to do it, I would have an issue with it.
