Turkeyhunter's Link
I don't have a say in this fight, but I wouldn't be thrilled.
Remember when we had EAB? We had to pass bucks then and harvested an average of over 10,000 deer in those years!
And EAB is not a tool we have available at the moment.
No one is thrilled with the fact that there are 86 deer per sq. mile of habitat, when we can only support 30! What other tools do we have to get the job done?
None.
Time to step up or face the consequences. Would you rather harvest the deer or let Mother Nature kill them with a slow death?
I would rather send an arrow through their lungs than walk through a bunch of their dead bodies in the spring when a bunch of them died from starvation. Not a pretty thing to see.
A tough problem for sure.
Correct, education is the answer. Personally we will be out shooting does, regardless of the tag structure. I do not need to shoot any more bucks, and haven't since 2002.
If this is what it takes to wake the hunters and law makers up, so be it. As you read in the article, it will be interesting to say the least. As far as non-residents and others sitting the season out, so be it.
If you aren't going to help fix the problem, stay out of the way.
I see plenty of opinions here, I hope you forward them to the correct people so the committee can make an informed and legal recommendation at the April meeting. I hope it's a packed house, where ever it is held!
Like I said on the other thread, we are asking to use all of the tools that are legally available at the moment and EAB is not one of them.
Even if the committee sends the recommendation to the NRB as it is currently written I have little faith that they have the "balls" to listen to the hunters and the committee and we will be back to square one.
One thing for sure is that these recommendations have done one thing. They have made the hunters and public aware of the situation. The numbers and overbrowsing that is taking place don't lie. Now it is up to the public to become involved, voice your opinions and take care of the problem we have.
November - what you are asking for is EAB. Not going to happen unless there is legislation changing that. I am all in favor of EAB, but the law makers thought they knew better when they took that tool away from us.
The author of the article says, "From my perspective, the antlerless-only recommendation in Waupaca County hits on all cylinders." From my perspective we have not recovered from earn-a-buck.
"Many of the 10,000 county hunters will go to adjoining counties putting big time pressure on that herd." I agree with that and I suspect with on-line registration that some guys will not pass on a big buck but will shoot it and register as being killed in an adjoining county.
What will I do? I won't violate, I won't shoot a doe on my property, and I won't risk my life hunting on public land in Waupaca County. I haven't missed a hunting season in 52 years. This might be my first.
Not in my book. Once they are skinned they all taste the same! Actually I think does are better eating.
Like it's been said before - If they were able to breed deer so there would be no antlers there would be a lot of people who would give up deer hunting....
I agree, EAB worked in the past in Waupaca County. Unless the legislature pulls a rabbit out of their hat we won't have that tool.
We are in the town of Matteson, on an average day I see 15 to 25 deer. We shoot a heck of a lot of does. The neighbors are always looking down their noses at us when we do. I had a neighbor last year tell me when he wounded a doe and lost it "It's just a doe, now it will be coyote food" Guys like that need to get a life!
There is no such thing as "just a doe" or just a deer in my book.
As far as recovering from EAB, we never went under carrying capacity. I firmly believe that there were people around us registering the same deer numerous times so they could get their buck tags. Heck I remember not filling buck tags some years.
Once implemented, this will have to be complied with or we will continue to see it until the deer numbers get to the the desired numbers. In the meantime guys will try to beat the system.
If they can do it for elk here, I know they can do it for the deer. Seems like a win win
If this passes we will be out hunting, just like before.
It's the right thing to do biologically for the herd.
We are not a "large" farm, but it is managed for wildlife.
Just curious, how many acres of crops were standing last year during deer season? How many acres of "habitat" do you have on your 250 acre farm? Now that does not include crop fields.
You aren't very far from me at all. We have the opposite. There are only 2 landowners who harvest any number of antlerless deer. It sounds like your neighbors are founding members of "If it's brown, it's down" club.
That stinks!
As far as them following QDM, I have to say I doubt it. It sounds like the bought into the idea, bit know little about the managing of the herd properly. If they did you would have plenty of deer around.
Huntcell-
We will never get a yearly buck quota, too many greedy antler hunting people out there. As you probably have read the older bucks are more susceptible to CWD, so that will never fly with the DNR and NRB. It will have to be self imposed.
We allow one buck per year, per hunter, regardless of weapon choice, with a total of 3 off of 120 acres and 3 off of 97 acres.
That should cause some uproar from those who feel the kiddies should not have to follow the big people's rules or they will quit and be home watching Family Guy and playing on their phones. Seeing they are allowed to shoot antlerless deer in bucks only units, I figured they'd be allowed to shoot bucks in antlerless only units. I am glad to hear they need to follow the rules and not be further coddled.
Rancid Crabtree's Link
True dat. We also would not have to suffer another of his dumpster fire threads that blew up in his face last season where he was universally shelled during another of his bragging and boast fests. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------- From: orionsbrother ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 11-Dec-15 Private Reply Edit Your Thread Submission SEND THIS PERSON TO THE EDITORS FOR ATTENTION
Well, Ron. I apologize for showing up late to the edited party and wondering what the fuss is all about. I'm getting the gist of it, I suppose. I should pay closer attention.
Personally, I wish that I could say that I've never expressed myself poorly, never chosen the wrong words, never been excited and come across as bragging, never attempted to come up with transparent excuses for my actions or mistakes...but then I'd be lying.
Though I don't know what the original post was exactly, (I showed up late to the blanket party) I see that November apologized to those he upset, conceded that his critics made good points and wished them safe and happy holidays.
Perhaps the original post would have rubbed me the wrong way. But we're talking about badly chosen words or expressed attitude, not law breaking. The man apologized and made no excuses at all, let alone repeated attempts at excuses. And no sniveling. I respect that.
So, I'm happy to take that for what it is.
I think we'd all be better off if more individuals recognized their mistakes, apologized without excuse and moved on, wishing well to those who called them out.
Have a safe and Merry Christmas, November and everyone else. Enjoy some good venison.
I'll be cutting and packaging tonight with the kids. I think that there's a lot of themes in this "dumpster fire" thread that they can learn from while we're working.
Short bloodtrails. -------------------------------------------------------
And here was November's earlier post:
-------------------------------------------------------
From: Novemberforever ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 10-Dec-15 Private Reply SEND THIS PERSON TO THE EDITORS FOR ATTENTION
All good points, sorry for the post. Have a fun and safe holiday. -------------------------------------------------------
I suppose the question remains; Are there any people here who have made a mistake in the way that they've expressed something poorly, or committed...who've refrained from a succinct apology?
November - I missed your post that got everyone worked up. It appears as though that was not your best moment. From what I gather, I wouldn't have cared for it either.
But you thought twice, removed it and apologized without prolonged excuse. Good enough for me. And I suspect your assessment of what will occur with a doe only season is correct.
Of course, I don't think that you've been sitting up nights worrying about my opinion. I have no illusion that I live rent free in your head 24/7/365. But there it is nonetheless.
-------------------------------------------------------
If everyone who enjoys pissing on each other in almost every thread here would at least be more colorful and creative in their insults and personal vendettas, they'd at least be more enjoyable. I was curious as to what might be going on in Waupaca, but I won't be hunting there. I'm going back to the elk thread.
And, if passed, an big increase in hunter participation can be guaranteed for the CDAC meeting next year. It is a shame that hunters are reactionary instead of proactive but I suppose that is human nature and not limited only to hunters.
And yes, RJN, "The properties with good habitat, food,etc will always have more deer while others will not. It's up to the tax paying landowner to manage their land as they wish." I couldn't agree more. This is nice when you, I and Happy can all agree on something.
Now how does that pot and kettle cliche go again...
I see a lot of loud mouth bashing going on here. I understand that there are some that will not make the trek from out of state or Huckleberry Way. But I encourage all of you who have a personal stake to show up and voice your opinion.
This is a citizen committee willing to listen and do what the majority of the people want to have done. It's not just about killing deer, it's a lot more.
PLEASE DO YOU BEST TO ATTEND!
Here is where the meeting will be held. There will be plenty of room for every one!
4/19/2016 7-9 PM Waupaca High School, E2325 King Road, Waupaca, WI 54981
I hope to see a packed house!
Thank you. Maybe this wil be a wake up call to the hunters in the county.
Yes, comments can be sent in or you can call the people on the CDAC committee.
People -
This is your hunt, not just mine. It's time to voice your opinions, and take a stand for what YOU believe in. Attend the meeting, call the committee members or send in your comments. The survey runs April 4-17, go to the DNR website and take the survey!
Personally, we will hunt what ever the regulations are and will do our best to try and control the herd numbers and get them to where they need to be.
86 deer per square mile of habitat is too many.
You accept this based on what? and at the same time assume that density estimate is correct.
The only hunters that I would feel sorry for are the new hunters if this were to pass. My youngest daughter will be 10 this fall and she is looking forward to being able to pull the trigger on a deer, she has been coming with for 3 years now, but if this passes she won't be able to take a buck if one comes by.
Me, personally, I won't be bothered either way, I've taken nearly every adult doe that I could in the past 10 - 12 years. Some years 5 some 0, the last couple I have been mentoring my older daughter so I wasn't able to handle the firearm since I was trying to help her set up for shots. To me it almost seems like greed if you aren't willing to put the health of the herd in front of your "need" to kill a buck.....especially for 1 year. Be warned though, if this does pass and a high percentage of hunters decide not to hunt and the kill is still too low.......it will probably be back every year until the "quota" is killed in a year. So, I guess, if it does pass, it would probably be best to just take one on the chin this year to have a normal year next year. Plus think of the number of bucks that will be walking around next year if none get shot this year.
The Kroll plan intentionally attempted to get away from managing the herd strictly based on numbers. That is the reason for the additional metrics and the terms increase, decrease or maintain.
Tell the private land owner that is a hunter that 5 deer on his forty is too many and that it should be 2 deer and that's good hunting and good for the habitat and he will laugh in your face.
no faith in the estimate no faith is suggested "proper" density.
Equals no support for management prescription laid out by the department. The department will say, "we have the support of the citizen panel"
But the citizen panel is likely (how do I say this in a kind manner?) not equipped to challenge the DNR so they accept what the DNR is selling and then go on forums telling people that 86 deer per square mile is too many as if it were true (its not) and that the estimate is accurate (it likely not). LOL
these panels are many times populated with yes men or people not qualified so the Dept is able to mold the output to its liking while transferring the blame on the citizen panel members saying these are the wishes of the citizen board. Been there, seen it, tried to stop it more than once. The answer is involving the legislature and tell them what is going on. Its worked in the past and will work again.
No one person or even a dozen has the PERSONAL experience to say what the total population of deer is in that county. It is an educated guess based broad indicators. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY. Heck you likely don't have a good feel for all those properties in your township. You probably don't agree with the guy 1/2 a mile down the road as to the deer population.
Many hunters feel they are better than average hunters, with better then average knowledge of the land they hunt, and the deer on it. That may or may not be true. But their land is not the best indicator of any other piece of land. One 40 may have been hunted for decades as "if its brown its down", another managed for trophies, another for numbers, another "just cause I want to" and another doesn't allow hunting. Habitat and hunting pressure varies immensely. Most forces applied by landowners/hunters on or deer/land/habitat work against the average.
The main problem boils down to a distribution problem, both with deer and hunters. People complaining about too many/too few of one or the other. That distribution problem is getting worse as land gets fragmented and also the hunting rights on them.
Furthermore, I'd wager that there will be blow-back if this recommendation is accepted: lower hunter turnout will result in an insignificant increase in the doe harvest, resulting in higher overall deer densities in 2017.
The doe-only recommendation makes no scientific sense whatsoever. The only logical reason for the proposal is to use it as a threat against hunters: "Kill the number of does that we think you need to kill, or we won't let you kill bucks."
I personally don't like to be treated like a child, or bludgeoned into taking action by people who may or may not have the education/experience to make any sort of intelligent recommendations in the first place. Please take this for what it is: a threat to take away your hunting rights if you don't increase doe harvest. IMHO, a total B.S. move.
Was there even a biologist advising the Waupaca Co CDAC?
Yes, the county Dnr biologist sits on the Cdac committee.
I agree Wak, the total harvest last year was 11,500. I bet this year will be less. As RC pointed out 84 dpsm=5 deer/40 acres. Most guys are just fine with that. What will happen in 2017 if the 2016 proposal flops?
RC is right only if the entire section is suitable deer habitat. In that case, 5 deer per 40 is too high. He is failing to account for fields and other areas that deer may pass through but don't always have deer in them. The number is an average for the entire county except lakes, roads, etc.
Optimum quality deer habitat will be able to sustain 20 to 30 deer per square mile and still have decent forest regeneration, not 80 or even 86.
Yes, you need to take non-deer habitat into consideration also. If your farm has 120 acres and 100 of it is fields, and 3 have buildings and your home and the rest is woods. You only have 17 acres of deer habitat, not 120.
Waupaca county had 481 sq. miles of deer habitat, which is only 62% of the land in the county.
Again, don't shoot the messenger!
I am glad there is finally some conversation.
WAK - The committee's recommendation was to maintain the population at 2014 levels. Which has not been done. In order to get there more deer need to be harvested.
EAB Anlter Restrictions $2 antlerless tags
The only tools the committtee has are
Antlerless only season More free tags with every license (recommending 3) Holiday antlerles hunt
None of the other ideas can even be considered. If you want those other ideas to be considered, pick up the phone and call your elected officials in Madison and let them know how unhappy you are that those tools are not available to us(hunters) to use.
No Skook. You miss the point. If you look you will see I said in the first line "a square mile of habitat is still a square mile". meaning that it might take more actual land to make up a square mile of habitat once you remove bodies of water etc, but when you do that square miles is 640 acres and at the "estimates 86 deer that only 5 deer per 40 and nobody think that's too many or that 2 deer per 40 is the correct number.
Im speaking directly to habitat. Since we both know deer dont live in lakes, Im speaking to 640 square miles of actual deer habitat and the fact that there was a claim made here that 86 deer per square mile of habitat is too many. If a guy owns a 40 and 30 of it is a lake he will not be hunting in the lake.
I didnt think this needed explaining but I guess it did.
And you just accept this and assume that 5 deer per 40 results in overbrowsing???? LOL. this is what I was saying about the people on these citizen panels. "Optimum quality deer habitat will be able to sustain 20 to 30 deer per square mile and still have decent forest regeneration"
Sure 1 1/4 deer per 40 satisfies foresters, Duh! If that is the goal of deer management. You are exactly the guy the DNR wants on a citizen panel. Accepts what they say, can be molded to fit their agenda and then serves as a willing spokesman.
Yup. 1 1/4 deer per forty sounds awesome. You will have awesome plant life. Good luck building a cabin and a hunting camp for that. Guys love to come to a place to see the plant life. LOL
I have never been for overpopulation. I have been for quality and proper land management and managing the herd to those levels. Managing the property for all wildlife.
RC- It is a well know fact among foresters, landowners and biologists that deer prefer certain foods, such as aspen, maple, cedar and it will well know and documented in recent years that there have been areas in Waupaca county(and others) where aspen clear cuts have had to be fenced off on order to keep the deer from over browsing the are and eliminating that species from the area. There are no other animals that roam free that over browse these areas.
When was the last time you witnesses white cedar or aspen regeneration in an area with deer overpopulation?
There has been a lot of Logging by us and we have Aspen growing everywhere. How familiar are you with the river? Our cabin is right on the river and very unique as far as design. You may have seen it if you fish the Wolf. Would like to get together for a beer and pick your brain on deer and hunting sometime...
Mike, we are not buying it. Nobody is. What is the optimum deer density for the regrowth? Certainly 0 deer per square mile would be the perfect number if the primary goal was plant communities. your assertion of 1.25 deer per 40 would be super duper for plant communities (if plants are your goal) you have already stated that 5 deer per forty is too high. LOL
"When was the last time you witnesses white cedar or aspen regeneration in an area with deer overpopulation?"
Farmers themselves, land developers, home builders, food plotters, etc are the absolute worst thing that ever happened to forest regrowth and are far worse than deer for preventing the growth of trees. This group wipes out every single tree species 100% on the land they convert from potential forest stands. Then, with what they leave unmolested, they want that land to be a regrowth bonanza and tell others to kill all the deer so trees will grow. LOL
You are the perfect person for this DNR scripted committee. Willing accomplice were instead a watchdog is needed. You hope to convince people there are too many deer when you are clueless as to the situation so you ingest all the DNR tells you without question. You aid them in advocating for management prescriptions for the entire county even though you are clueless about the entire county and the areas that already have a good balance not in need of your saving.
Any recommendation that drives hunters out of the woods will result in an increase in population. Have you learned nothing from EAB. Hunters will not be told what to do on their land when it comes to which deer to kill if it runs counter to their core values. So should you advocate and the DNR support an antlerless only season you will be blame for the population growing rather than shrinking.
Hunters hold all the cards. They would rather sit out than do what they don't believe in. The sooner the DNR and DNR toadies accept this the better off we will all be. Waupaca county hunters don't just hunt Waupaca county. I and my family will skip hunting in Waupaca county and instead focus on the lands we hunt in Marathon and Portage and the population in Waupaca will grow and you and the DNR will be left scratching your head saying "I don't get it, why did the population not go down?"
While hunters are doing everything they can to increase the population and attract deer to their lands (like you do with your bait plots), you and the DNR think hunters will just say, "yup yup, the DNR knows best, I will do what the DNR thinks is best even if it makes no sense and is exactly opposite of what I know as the owner of this land. I will just comply blindly because the DNR knows whats best for me."
Clueless.
Oh and with phone in registration and no attached carcass tag, bucks will be killed on Waupaca county lands in great volume. They will be taken to the garages and shops and barns and butchered and the phone in registration data will show a spike in buck kills in Portage, Marathon and wood counties. Count on it. Management prescriptions the public objects to and that are easily thwarted, are pointless and dumb and wont accomplish what the DNR wants. The good news is, next year you get to sit on the same committee and try to come up with another winner of a plan when you admit this abortion was a flat out flop right from the drawing board. ;-)
Do yourself a favor. Copy and print this and take it to your next meeting. Try to talk some sense into them and be the citizen watchdog you should have been in the first place rather than the yes man they con'd you into being.
That is basically what I said above and feel it is true.
I agree with the rest of our post as well RC.
This plan for Waupaca County will go down as an epic fail on many accounts.
This is not my first time at the DNR citizen stakeholder rodeo. The members on the panel are getting played and not savvy enough to know it or even what questions to ask or how to properly push back on the DNR. If only hunting advocates populated such panels and knew what they were doing and how to do it.
Pass the koolaid......
Mike is falling for the DNR mantra of estimates are not to be questioned. There are too many deer, kill more or suffer our wrath. You have too many deer on your land Hoyt. You will comply. Central command demands compliance as they know better than you. You are wrong. The DNR is right. Here, drink this. ;-)
Yes, 1+1=2 and so on.
What matters is that the habitat is being destroyed because the aspen, maple and other trees are not being regenerated without having to fence them in.
I am 6'4" and I can walk through the woods and have no branches hit me in the head. I have 7 acres of aspen clear cut that were eaten down to nothing because of over browsing and not regenerating because of too many deer.
I also know that this might not be the case on every square inch of deer habitat in Waupaca county or any other county in Wisconsin.
As a deer hunter who has hunted Waupaca county since 1974, I have seen the ups and downs, the good, the bad. Harvest numbers don't lie. The changes in the way we hunt have changed dramatically over the years.
Heck, even the 41% success rate for crossbow hunters is a big change from what we used to see.
You can mark my words, that I will in no way shape or form bring anything else that is informational in regards to the deer hunting rules to this forum again.
Thanks for shooting the messenger, and when the laws are changed and you don't like the way they are don't come crying to me.
We are all adults here and and you owe it to yourself to stay on top of things. I will continue to attend the meetings and vote for my personal best interests and screw the rest of you. Yup that's what it's going to be.
And if you believe that I have some ocean front property up in Florence County that I want to sell you!
NOPE! Pure BS. The DNR does not census deer. They don’t count deer. They estimate a population based and some assuptions. I have the calculations and spreadsheet right on my computers. How can you not know this by now. You really are the perfect guy to deliver the DNR message. Ill informed but willing to advance an agenda he does not comprehend. Hahahahahaha.
“What matters is that the habitat is being destroyed because the aspen, maple and other trees are not being regenerated without having to fence them in.”
That may be what matters to you and you actually believe it. Don’t assume to know what matters to others. You will fail 100% of the time (like right now)
“I am 6'4" and I can walk through the woods and have no branches hit me in the head. I have 7 acres of aspen clear cut that were eaten down to nothing because of over browsing and not regenerating because of too many deer. “
Then kill more deer on your land. Manage your land as you see fit and stay the hell out of the business of the other guy that manages the population per his goals. Let those bait plots turn back to trees. You are the cause of no regeneration because you killed the trees to put in deer bait. LOL If your neighbors are not killing enough deer, then you kill more and more. Kill em all to save the trees but don't kill any trees to put in a bait plot. We need those trees. ;-)
“I also know that this might not be the case on every square inch of deer habitat in Waupaca county or any other county in Wisconsin.”
Yet you hope to advance a county wide agenda even where its not wanted or needed so you are saying to the guy that is seeing very low deer populations, “you don’t want or need this but I insist you comply” Stupid!
“You can mark my words, that I will in no way shape or form bring anything else that is informational in regards to the deer hunting rules to this forum again.”
Thank Gawd. Can we consider this a promise you won’t break? Don’t ever bring us really stupid ideas and well will all thank you.
“Thanks for shooting the messenger”
You are a willing accomplice and an eager messenger that fell for a line of BS and you hoped to advocate for it here. Fail. Go back and do the right thing and be a watchdog to the DNR, not a lap dog.
“and when the laws are changed and you don't like the way they are don't come crying to me.”
Why the hell would we? You have no power nor authority, I would go to Madison and talk to somebody that matters. LOL Tonight Im meeting with a member of the NRB. I'll get more action in a half hour with him than some chat room post from a DNR toady that is being con'd.
“I will continue to attend the meetings and vote for my personal best interests and screw the rest of you. Yup that's what it's going to be.”
That is already what you have been doing. You don’t have to change a thing. Keep the stupid ideas off this site .
“What matters is that the habitat is being destroyed because the aspen, maple and other trees are not being regenerated without having to fence them in.”
That may be what matters to you and you actually believe it. Don’t assume to know what matters to others. You will fail 100% of the time (like right now)
“I am 6'4" and I can walk through the woods and have no branches hit me in the head. I have 7 acres of aspen clear cut that were eaten down to nothing because of over browsing and not regenerating because of too many deer. “
Then kill more deer on your land. Manage your land as you see fit and stay the hell out of the business of the other guy that manages the population per his goals.
“I also know that this might not be the case on every square inch of deer habitat in Waupaca county or any other county in Wisconsin.”
Yet you hope to advance a county wide agenda even where its not wanted or needed so you are saying, “you don’t want or need this but I insist you comply” Stupid!
I'm not fit to be in this discussion, but I do have family that own 80 in waupaca. And they don't have a lot of deer. Not like they use to anyways. RC makes the most valid point. You can't push something onto someone who doesn't want it. If you own the land, than control it to the way you want it. Not everyone wants what the dnr proposes.
Again, RC says something about the dnr being able to control the public land. Which i agree too.
Understand your frustrations mike. But if you own it, than control it, it's your land.
All in all i just really wanted to come on here and say: if hypothetically, what some of you are saying about the population going up, is true, wouldn't that be amazing??i dont know, maybe i am thinking about it wrong but i sure would love to see more deer and also bigger bucks
Where in any of my posts did I state "A DNR employee, or biologist does our work?
I didn't and that is the truth. So don't call BS on something you know nothing about.
Who we have do our population study is a trained wildlife biologist, just like our forester.
As far as being con'd... Not me, especially when I know what the herd is and what the overbrowsing looks like.
Bow-tech-
How did I get burned?? Not even close!
Nope! Pasq, I reject your premise on its face. There is no mess. There is an erroneous claim by the Dept that they Waupaca county herd is overpopulated (driven by forestry interests) and that error coupled by the population of the CDAC committee made up of the following voices that are forwarding this stupid prescription. When you see who is coming up with this abortion you will understand.
Conservation Congress (DNR accomplice)
Conservation Congress (DNR accomplice)
DNR Forestry (DNR)
DNR law enforcement (DNR)
Transportation interest (DNR Accomplice)
Tourism (DNR Accomplice)
Forestry (DNR Accomplice)
Agriculture (Farmers love and want more deer right?)
DMAP
Hunting interest (hey! at least we got one guy on the panel advocating for hunters, right?)
So, you have a bunch of "authorities" selling bogus numbers without the benefit of the metrics Kroll insisted upon (up to date and current Crop damage, car deer collision data, herd heath) and other indicators instead they are looking at old harvest data using SAK (which no longer works) and will need (Per the DNR) 10 years to trending at the new county level to become statistically accurate. The data set they have is incomplete and in many cases goes only to 2013 some stops at 2010. Why do that?
Look at the meeting minutes. Forestry ruled the meeting despite hunters stating the herd in in decline. Look at the harvest data and then look at the DNR "projection" or estimate where they think the herd is going. Just like with EAB, the system is flawed so garbage in results in garbage out and like EAB the have flopped the estimates upside down and like EAB they will "error" on the side of caution.
Using this bad data they con'd the committee members in the room while the hunters (boots on the ground) attending told them they were flat out wrong. They ignored the hunters who attended (the very land owners the DNR expects to carry out its failed prescription) Hunters will reject the idea and refuse to comply and guess what? The population will increases to a hunter acceptable level. Hunters own the land. Hunters make the rules. Eventually the DNR will have to come to terms with this. Then they will end their adversarial relationship with hunters and try to act as a partner instead of a angry boss.
“RC-Where in any of my posts did I state "A DNR employee, or biologist does our work? “
You didn’t Mike and I never said you did so don’t try to change the subject. You said:
“We have a biologist who does that for us. A trained professional who has studied and knows how to actually count deer. Yes, 1+1=2 and so on.”
LOL And I explained to you that you are wrong. The DNR does not count deer as you hope to invent. They count dead deer, make a whole bunch of assumptions using the SAK spreadsheet (which I have on my computers and can run the same numbers) then they insert several guesses as assumed variables and it spits out a population estimate. Its just an estimate based on variables they get to plug in. THE DNR DOES NOT DO ACTUAL COUNTING. THERE IS NO 1+1=2. I would have thought you knew this by now. I called BS on your post because you expose just how little you know about how this works.
At the top of this thread you exposed how much of the koolaid you have drank. You have a red stained upper lip from over consumption because you actually posted this:
“No one is thrilled with the fact that there are 86 deer per sq. mile of habitat, when we can only support 30! What other tools do we have to get the job done?
None.
Time to step up or face the consequences. Would you rather harvest the deer or let Mother Nature kill them with a slow death?
I would rather send an arrow through their lungs than walk through a bunch of their dead bodies in the spring when a bunch of them died from starvation. Not a pretty thing to see.”
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Drive around Waupaca county, Mike. Stop by every farm you can. Call and talk to land owners. Educate yourself. Find out how many starving deer there are littering their lands. That is why herd health is a metric Kroll insisted be a part of decision making. Waupaca county is Buffalo county 2.0. The herd health is outstanding. Fawn recruitment, Antler growth, body size and weight are not suffering and are not showing any indication of overpopulation.
You have fallen for the DNR’s doom and gloom scenario based on flawed estimates. Now you hope to advance a bogus agenda expecting others to fall for it. Not gonna happen.
Rancid Crabtree's Link
Mike F's comment:
"You and I know it wouldn't work, not enough participation. Just think how quiet the woods would be........"
Yup. Mike F and I agree. This plan would actually result in the deer population in Waupaca county increasing. Now that we have phone in registration and no physical tag on the deer. an anterlerless only season would be an epic fail. ;-)
"Anybody that wants to shoot a doe should come over to my property as I am opening it up to the public. I am overrun with deer and they are eating all my trees. Please help me!"
Problem solved.
If it was "THAT" big of a problem you'd do that, otherwise you have an underlying agenda.
It sounds like Waupaca County is no different than any other county. Deer densities vary a lot, township to township, section to section. So why support a county wide wack and stack. Be smart enough, and honest enough to admit that densities are not the same all over. For the guys who don't have the numbers, they will continue to practice limited antlerless harvest to improve numbers. For the guys that have to many, shoot whats allowable by law and then open it up to the public to trim the rest.
If the DNR was smart, they'd start a list where guys like you could sign up their land for public hunting. kind of like farmers do for crop damage. You could even pic the dates of open hunting say all of muzzle loader season and the late antlerless hunt. That way you'd have it all to yourself for early bow and gun season and than it would go public for 2 weeks then back to private again.
You should be happy, you still be able to privately hunt your land in the better seasons. And your trees will come back
The DNR would be happy, they'd get more antlerless deer shot.
The normally public hunter or maybe even dad and his kid would be happy, they'd have a place to go and have a good chance at shooting a deer or two.
Win! Win! Win! Think about it..
No Rancid that was you posting that a year ago. The sooner you realize that the healthier you will become. I do enjoy watching you call yourself a poacher. So deep under cover you are.
Remember you are on the outside of the site looking in and posting. I am on the inside of the site looking out. So comical watching your multiple handles disagree and fight with one another.
Your lack of respect for others opinions and name calling are bringing out the true Ron Kulas.....Again
"You and I know it wouldn't work, not enough participation. Just think how quiet the woods would be........"
RJN, I am everyone here (even you) Just ask FIP and Zinger. ;-)
Your plan for boosting carrying capacity thus allowing more deer falls flat if you are a forester on the CDAC in Waupaca county. Any more than 1.7 deer per forty is too many because his land is managed for tree growth and not deer so boosting the habitat to allow for more deer does the opposite of what a forester wants. Any more than 1.7 deer per forty will get you antlerless only season.
Those of you that support it need to realize that you're being used by the DNR to create some form of public legitimacy. The plan will not work as intended and a lot of people are going to really pissed if this recommendation goes through.
Your message is clear! If anyone has an opinion other than your, even if it is biologically sound your refer to them as an "idiot"
No one is an idiot and you have lost all respect by using that word.
One of the dangers in any population being above carrying-capacity is a massive population crash. Worst case scenario, if the population is really that far above the carrying-capacity, mother nature will take care of the problem. Nobody wants to see that, but..
Rancid Crabtree's Link
I could have used the age old term "useful fools and silly enthusiasts". which dates back to the 1940's but that was more typing than I cared for.
Knowing now that you are a literalist, unversed in idioms I don't REALLY mean that you actually fell off a real turnip truck or that you were actually born yesterday or that you actually just drank Kool-Aid. like the term "useful Idiot" those too are idioms so please don't rant on how you have never even been on a turnip truck in your entire life so there is no way you could have fallen off. ;-)
Oh and you didn't really just ingest a hook or a line or a sinker. That is just an expression for what you did with the bogus data you were given so don't rush off for an X-ray. Your are going to be ok.
Rancid Crabtree's Link
"Carrying capacity varies greatly across the geographic areas of Wisconsin. In Wisconsin farmlands, there is abundant food in the form of agricultural crops, and the winters are milder and shorter.
Over 100 deer per square mile of deer range could be sustained in much of this region, if the public was willing to tolerate the resulting high damage to crops and landscaping, hazardous driving conditions, and extensive damage to vegetation in the remaining natural communities. In contrast, the northern forest region produces substantially less nutritious foods, and the winters are harsher. Also within the northern forest region there is great local variation in production of food for deer.
For example, forests growing on sandy soils tend to be dominated by oaks, aspen, and jack pine. These tree species allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, so more of the shrubs and herbs favored by deer can grow. These habitats could support up to a maximum of 40-45 deer per square mile."
But Mike F posted that 86 DPSM would result in a landscape littered with dead, starved deer prompting him to post.
"No one is thrilled with the fact that there are 86 deer per sq. mile of habitat, when we can only support 30!......" and
"Time to step up or face the consequences. Would you rather harvest the deer or let Mother Nature kill them with a slow death?"
and
"I would rather send an arrow through their lungs than walk through a bunch of their dead bodies in the spring when a bunch of them died from starvation."
This is when I knew right off, he is not versed in population dynamics nor carrying capacity and that he accepted bogus and agenda driven info and is trying to pass it off as fact to the readers here. Some of us have been at this far too long to fall for that.
Rancid Crabtree's Link
Few claims for deer damage. A healthy population. Good recruitment, large racks. Where is the problem?
Foresters that are driving a CDAC committee. That's where.
I am very well versed in population dynamics, carrying capacity and habitat management.
You bring up carrying capacity and a wild number of 100 deer per square mile. One thing that YOU forgot to think about is the fact that there is NO FOOD in the corn, soy bean and other annual crop fields once they are harvested. Just like at Thanksgiving Dinner, when the turkey and potatoes are gone, you are left with an empty carcass. You also forget that annual crop fields are NOT taken into consideration as part of the deer habitat, as a plowed field is not very helpful when it comes to feeding the deer over winter.
Another thing, I am surprised that you posted a link to such a "new" book. There are a lot more recent books out there. Try heading to the library and checking one out. You will be enlightened when you read and comprehend the information printed in those books
As usual you are bringing outdated information, nonsense and drivel to the forum, nothing you can post will put me down, as I know what is scientifically proven and noted by what has been found. Dead deer from starvation does not lie, over browse from deer does not lie.
Perennial fields, such as clover, alfalfa, winter wheat are considered deer habitat. Corn and beans are not. Food plots are not considered crop fields, so they are included in deer habitat.
Yes there is a regeneration problem of natural forests, not only in Waupaca county.
DMAP doesn't give small landowners the same playing field as big landowners or groups of landowners who formed a co-op. It's got to be changed to give every landowner the same opportunity.
When I wanted to sign up for DMAP the DNR walked the property and said there is nothing they can do to help improve the property and with no other landowners willing to form a co-op I had to stay at Level 1. No landowner tags.
Bow-tech-
If we had EAB this would be a non issue. But we don't until the legislature gets off it's butt and gives it back to us.
Bring back EAB, but only allow it to be used every 3rd year might work. Too many variables with the new tagging and registration system.
I have to agree with you. On line and phone in registration where does are required to get a buck tag is futile.
There would be a record kill and empty freezers.
How do we get more hunters to kill more antlerless deer?
Bring a pair of ears or a does head for a buck tag??
Too many unanswered questions.
Was it a 100 level course at UW Mediocre? Support your contention or stfu.
The easiest way to show you have a failed argument is to have Masterbait side with you. Ding, ding, we have a winner!
Novemberforever's Link
Just saying!
I am in the DMAP program, very happy with it. We had a DNR Wildlife Biologist and Forester spend most of a day on our property. That in and of itself was well worth my time and the $75 fee. Going to the DMAP Workshop in the Dells next weekend. A great opportunity to meet people that truly aren't in it just for themselves.
Just now leaving for the last day of the Expo!
BC
Nice try FIP. You are again exposed. What a dork. hahahha.
Simply stated.... THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH DEER!!!! Unless I and my hunting group and neighbors who hunt around us have THE worst deer habitat around...then that is on us. There are "Pockets" of deer on private land that are sheltered I guess. But the overall heard in the area of Waupaca county where I hunt and scout is horrible! Although I'm not that political, it must be the "Haves and Have Nots"!!! I'm not asking for a handout but it has got to stop somewhere!! Plain and simple...It should be bucks only for at 3 years where I hunt! Yes this is focusing on only me but I know it's as bad in the Bear Creek, Navarino, to where Diemel's used to be through Hwy I to Clintonville. Maybe some of the big farms still have deer but we do not have any!!!
between Marion and Big Falls, I was dodging deer, at night with the truck, during the winter, etc....
I was able to go into several public hunting grounds, in the county, during the week, hunting on the ground. some showed little sign, others showed a lot...... saw a total of 17 does, on the public, 5 could have been shot.......
found one little gem, on a very small parcel of public, by a creek, I am definitely going to hunt, this fall, late october
Novemberforever's Link
Razor- Is that "gem" SW of Marion a few miles? You can pm me if I'm close to right, I trout fished in an area that looked really good a few times...never hunted it though.
Anyone can participate in the meeting. Just show up and let your thoughts be known,
It's still a free country.
Neverbait-
There are too many landowners with the opinion that they own the deer and "God Forbid" that they shoot a doe or 5 to thin the herd!
Brilliant idea, while we are at it let's open up your house to the needy as well.
To date, Masterbait has not shown any ability to post anything of value.
" There aren't even enough deer to consider shooting one doe let alone 5. 90% of the land in our area of Waupaca county is a barren ground of deer." What township? Do you actually have regen? Trust me when MFL contracts come up for renewal the dnr foresters will walk the property and look for regen. No regen, no need for renewal. Pay an extra $49/acre/year(That's $2400/40 acres total) in taxes and suddenly those high dpsm counts wont be so special.
Guys, it's time to get educated about what your woods looks like and get seriuos about resolving this issue.
Decisions have consequences, especially ones that are extremely unpopular and make no sense other than when used as a bludgeon.
Of 730 "early birds" (comments run through this weekend), 434 said they were landowners of five acres or more and as is the case in much of farmland region, most hunt private land. As in most county responses so far, a majority of respondents say they believe there are the same, fewer or many fewer deer than two years ago (some things never change in the world of deer management), and they believe the quota and free permits are too high or much too high.
There are pages upon pages of comments. One Waupaca Co. guy rants about increasing the squirrel quota as “those things are everywhere and taunted me all last season” and then claims the youth gun hunt has ruined bow hunting as "seven of the 10 deer I saw last season were before the youth weekend."
Another Waupaca'er says deer trails have diminished and even with food plots and ag fields, deer sightings are few. Then, he adds, "When the DNR comes out with their annual recommendations I just scratch my head."
You can't make this stuff up. Too many folks still don't understand this isn't the DNR coming out with the recommendations. It's "power to the people" — and a majority in all counties are hunters.
" Forestry - Concern - much forest acreage is at a point where regen needs to occur, concerns over private landowner maintaining eligibility for MFL program with herd at current levels. Future forests depend on reduced deer herbivory."
No aspen regeneration without an electric fence wither. Regardless we will still be shooting does.
Like I said before, even if the hunters recommend using the tools given to us by the DNR and government I don't believe that the NRB has the "balls" to do it.
One of two things will happen. A handful of hunters and landowners will show up and it will be a non issue, or the gym will be standing room only.
I am thinking there aren't enough landowners and hunters who care enough to show up.
I will be there, unless I have something unfortunate come up.
Two things that jump out when I read through these comments. The first is that a guy who prides himself on improving the habitat on his land to attract and hold deer is complaining about too many deer. The second is that same guy who has continuously berated the CDAC idea would go to their page and quote them on something he feels helps make his point. Hypocrite?
0 wild deer found so far in Waupaca County. When they found positives in Marathon, no depopulation occurred.
Someone is "crying wolf" over that....again.
I hope 1000 people show up tomorrow.
Novemberforever's Link
No antlerless only season, 3 free antlerless tags per license, Holiday Hunt Dec. 24-Jan. 1
There were hundreds of people in attendance. Everyone that wanted to speak had their chance.
The biggest thing I noticed was the lack of knowledge on how the seasons are set and what powers the CDAC committee and the DNR have.
Very few people realize that theses 2 entities do not have the power to give us EAB, and many other tools.
All in all, most everyone was civil. I would say that the majority of the people who were against the antlerless only season were small landowners who are seeing very few deer and those who said they hunt "every day" of the season.
The group was also warned that if the number of deer on the landscape was not held in check antlerless only would be on the table next year.
Now the recommendation is being sent to the NRB for approval.
It was good to see a big turnout. Kaz and Terry Hilgenberg from the NRB were in attendance.
Then it is the job of those who concentrate the deer to bring those levels down to an acceptable one. You cannot expect those who said they see few deer to start shooting all they do see.
From listening to those who spoke and taking notes, there is a big area northwest of Clintonville and southwest of Clintonville that do not have the numbers like the other areas.
Large landowners spoke of this and they urged others to harvest more deer where possible.
There are a lot of uninformed hunters also. You can not pressure deer with 3 hunters on 11 acres or 8 on 40 acres and expect to see a lot of deer. There is also the issue of habitat. If one landowner has good habitat and another has poor, of course they one with poor habitat is not going to see the numbers they want to see.
What disappointed me the most was that there was no one there from the Matteson QDMA group near us. No one up in that corner of the county has an issue with too few deer and they don't shot enough does.
The county needs to be managed in smaller sections. There is no need to force EAB, or antlerless only onto the landowners and hunters in the areas where the deer are at or below carrying capacity.
Yes, the free tags need to be utilized in the areas where there are too many deer. The good thing about the 3 free tags is hunters won't have to spend the extra $12 to thin the herd where needed.
There is not a one solution fits all here. Those that take the time and money to improve their land will have more deer than those who don't. This will be a true statement anywhere in Wisconsin and anywhere in the whole USA for that matter. It is a case of the haves and have nots. It is the public land hunters who brunt the worst of it all.
I gotta say, this is a great scenario where EAB could be used. It is too bad it can no longer be used as a temporary tool from the collection of tools. Makes more sense to me than an antlerless only season.
I think a better alternative is to find and use tools that hunters agree with. If they agree with something they will be more willing to do it. As in most instances, education is the key. Far too many hunters still have a healthy suspicion of the DNR, their numbers and their tactics. This is exactly why Dr. Kroll came up with the idea of getting away from numbers and managing towards the general terms of increase, decrease or maintain. To overcome this suspicion of the DNR, hunters need to be given facts, without any spin, regardless the direction it may be. Forcing them to do something they do not want will never be nearly as effective, as is the heavy-handed tactic like EAB.
Mike F, while you may have written this at some point earlier, was your CDAC presented with how many crop damage complaints had been issued or the number of vehicle/deer incidents? I see the vehicle/deer incidents as very telling in that vehicle accidents are very indiscriminate as to the sex/age of deer killed, as well as being reported by a different agency other than the DNR.
As far as crop damage reports, I do not recall the number of reports. The farmers are very tolerant of deer damage but only to an extent. They Agricultural stakeholders were in favor of the antlerless only hunt. There was only one(1) shooting permit issued last year and I believe that was issued to a tree farmer.
The car deer numbers were not available.
On thing I see here as well as last night. There are a lot of pointing fingers at the DNR. They are only there in an advisory role to present the numbers. They make recommendations and the committee makes motions more on what the people in attendance recommend. The quota was recommended at 14,200 and I believe it was set at 7200, which is a far cry from 14,200.
As far as working together with all entities involved did that last night. I know you find it hard to believe, but it was an agreement that all in attendance pretty much agreed upon. People came ti the meeting, listened to the committee, listened to each other and in the end reached an agreement that we all can live with for this year.
You also forgot that the "nuclear option" of an antlerless season was chosen by 8 of the 14 in attendance at the March meeting to draw people out for this meeting and presented to the public.
Oh, I'm over it although I was never under it or next to it for that matter. I just feel it would be a great tool when properly applied for predetermined time periods. I believe far more people would be receptive to EAB than an anterless only season.
A whopping 4 people showed up.
Very sad!
With all the "whiners" out there, one would think the room would have been filled -
Now either were doing a good job as a committee OR very few people give a damn!
I wanted to puke..... you wonder why kids are so screwed up,,,, the adults whined and whined, why the doe hunts have to continue, so the kids stay interested in hunting,,,,,,,
teach conservation, not in the vocabulary,,,, my suggestion, okay, maybe from 12 to 15, and limit that..... not happening.....
the kids have to have the opportunity to shoot something, or they will lose intrest.....
very sad,,,,, one county got it right, Forest Co, at least their board, had a set
our young generation is okay its their whining parents that are the problem
Not a problem.
The people at the meeting were well informed if they could read and comprehend. The mentality of hunter and what they expect are really messed up in some cases. In others they just don't comprehend that good habitat = good deer hunting.
Razor,
We had the opposite, a lot of people were telling us how unfair it is to have their kids pass up a buck and shoot a doe.
Now everyone should be happy, but that will never happen....
I think it's fair to say all of us here have a passion for deer hunting because that's who we are.
We will fight for what we feel is right and then some. If you participated in the process, great. If you felt your voice or concerns didn't matter, that's OK to.
There is NO reason to bash anyone. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but please let's be civil and quit kicking each other in the shin.
Can't we agree to disagree on some things??
Don't be stupid
No, but you would. A stupid question deserves a stupid answer.