Permanently eliminating EAB was foolish.
Land owners thinking they can manage the deer in their area and ignore DNR recommendations and or proposals.
An old timer in the deer camp I hunted in back in the day once said to me when we were talking deer numbers. "You can farm deer without a high fence. So when the good lord puts em in front of you, you might as well shoot em."
He went on to say that when prime habitat reaches its capacity and deer start spilling into marginal habitat. That is when disease, predation, and car kills take place because they have to move more to find cover and feed.
"Ya just can't farm em"
lots of people have to be very careful who they let hunt on their land,,,, so many have abused the privledge in the past, that many new owners are reluctant to let you hunt,,,,,,
Bowsite already has you and your son. That covers the idiot allotment and then some ;).
Obviously if no bucks is the rule then all those antlered bucks will be out of the harvest numbers. The number of additional does will not be a one to one replacement, albeit any increase in does harvested will have that impact on fawn production and the population. Total deer harvested will drop. But this is very short term given what likely comes the following years.
Perhaps this a northern/southern door thing that needs to be separated into zones. I am not personally aware of anyone (farmer, hunter, landowner, forest owner, etc) anywhere near me that is complaining of too many deer and in fact I was unable to find any crop damage tags to fill last year for lack of their existence/availability.
Now I can feel it as you read … someone out there is just itchin' to come back with such and such problem does exist [at some specific place – not here]. But imposing lame inappropriate restrictions on me here [and all sorts of others wherever] is no kind of solution to NOT A PROBLEM HERE. Deal more precisely with what and where some sort problem might actually be, if it is even so.
I used to take extra deer for relatives and friends in addition to those for my family consumption. The local blowback was severe. Even though it is my legal right to harvest many more I choose not to, so as to not give ammunition to those opposed. If the population right here ever got to the point where I felt it was too much I wouldn't hesitate to cull more, and make good use of it with people who want it, at my own trouble and expense. But that day is not visible as far as I can foresee. We have plenty of hunters taking plenty of deer. Reducing the population would only reduce everyone's future harvests, cause more conflict/competition/problems among/between hunters and deny the bounty of peoples own land to themselves and the hunters.
Every hunter has a 'poundage point' (how much venison they want). Some want none, just a rack or the experience. Some others range up to several deer to fill their (or someone's) freezer. Any hunter's set poundage point will not change based on any rule changes. The only thing that will change is if they can or cannot take what they want. Wasting deer for ONLY the sake of filling antlerless tags is considered an abhorrence/sin by most hunters.
What are the possibilities in a no bucks season? Some folks simply will not hunt the no bucks zone. Either pass the season or hunt elsewhere. Another number will take whatever they otherwise would have but no more, but those guys would take freezer filler anyway, so ... no gain in herd reduction. The guys who pass younger bucks or otherwise go QDMish will take the same or less. I do not see any huge increase in the antlerless harvest. Most will simply take one less ( the missing buck) resulting in the opposite result on overall population. There seems little likelihood that the antlerless harvest will be increased as envisioned by the proponents.
So, in addition to screwing all the buck hunters this might just backfire regards population manipulation goals.
Then comes the kicker. The year following no bucks will be buck fest, and far fewer does will be taken simply because of the buck contribution to anybody's poundage point. More bucks and bigger bucks will lead to far less antlerless harvest no matter which type of hunter group we look at. What would you suggest then?
The real underlying problem here is the numbers in the management goals coupled with the ill conceived concept that the complainers have some right to take from others for their own failure to manage their place in accordance with the realities of nature.
HOT SPOT CONTROL IS THE ANSWER.
The answer is in what started 2016, hand out free antlerless tags like they are candy. Even create a special $1 license to get just antlerless tags without the requirement to purchase a buck tag, any weapon for the appropriate season. Those predisposed to harvest will do so especially given that tag availability issues will be nonexistent. Possibly special seasons and permits specifically targeting the problem areas would be a more reasonable solution.
There is private land and public land. The public land will continue to get pounded (when accessible) given the numbers of hunters and availability issues. Any public land that is not available for full deer hunting seasons and access has no right to complain about populations or have their situation considered in population goals. They have no right to impose on the surrounding lands and hunters for the sake of their own situation which they refuse to address nor allow others to address.
The idea that DNR/CDAC/whoever should be trying impose their population goals on private land owners is an insult. These landowners are or are not hunters and do or do not allow others - in either case. When owners/stewards decide that the population is too large for THEIR own particular preference of managing THEIR land they can take action (harvest more themselves or allow others to do it). The idea that DNR/CDAC/whoever/neighbors should impose harvest requirements on some other persons land to meet their own personal goals is an insult.
This whole idea that the habitat is suffering is nuts. Consider who owns that habitat. It is nobody else's business unless invited into the conversation by the owner. Consider the rights that come with ownership. ANY OWNER could clear cut their entire place, but for some reason CDAC et. al. wants to interfere with them allowing deer to live and eat there? Would they find some way to screw with you if you grazed goats in there?How do you feel about those pesky farmers who are using land that could otherwise be productive forest habitat? It is up to the landowner to decide what is the best use for his own purpose and that is not anyone else's business.
For any particular parcel the tools already exist for the owner to take care of the situation themselves and there is no shortage of hunters who will line up to help THAT parcel or any hotspot, given access. Those problem/complaining owners have no right to impose something like 'no bucks' on the rest of us and deny us our hunt and the natural bounty of our own land. Set up a special tag system for the complainers. One site visit and a quick assessment by your DNR or county Pro and assign an appropriate number of special free tags and license to use same by anyone they assign on that property or adjacent volunteering/cooperating properties – without regard to season, antlerless only. Put that on a website database if the owner needs help recruiting shooters until owner calls it quits. Problem solved.
In the case of urban areas (and others) they can either fence themselves off from the surrounding (nature) or allow harvest. It is unreasonable for them to have/impose reach into the adjacent/near rural land owners properties to manipulate/infringe (steal) their private rights and the bounty of their own private land. I wonder if there is a big class action law suit buried somewhere in here? What is an irreplaceable buck hunt worth times how many hunters and land owners? Any problem/complainer owner who doesn't allow harvest has no gripe with anyone but themselves and no rights to deny anything to others. Any municipality (park etc) that denies the harvesting by landowners in it's boundaries is solely responsible for the consequences, NOT the rest of us/anyone else. So who does that leave with any standing to be complaining about the populations? NO ONE.
There is no shortage of hunters willing to go and harvest in places that need AND WANT assistance. Somebody doesn't like what is happening in someone else's forest? Too bad. Set up/expand a/the program where owners/managers who want deer reduced can be put in touch with hunters who want to do it.
Imposing some sort of no bucks season rule or anything like it (i.e. EAB) will further degrade the relationship between hunters and regulators and even divide and negatively impact the hunters relations among themselves, in addition to being a failed concept of a 'management tool' whose actual goal seems to be setting up the hunters for blame as scapegoats for it's inevitable failure on top of past management shortcomings. Does anybody really think disenfranchising the all hunters and the hunting landowners is the way to accomplish population reduction? Or that it is reasonable to force reduction in non problem areas against the wishes of all those stakeholders? County wide reduction is not an appropriate solution to hot spot issues.
The answer is to establish realistic goals and focus on reduction ONLY where it is necessary, legitimate AND wanted. Have some respect for land owners and their rights. It is in no way logical/reasonable to reduce herds where it is not necessary, legitimate AND wanted, to accommodate some other area/ideas/peoples. It is in NO WAY legit for someone to build their house/trees/whatever amongst nature and then complain (fully expecting capitulation from others) about the wildlife. Is this different than building along a water front and complaining about water levels? Fault zones? Volcanoes?
CDAC wants to reduce over winter browse on the places of complainers? Fine. Allow Post season until May, strictly regulated feeding at properties with willing stewards ( not the complainers). Perhaps the complainers can contribute funding to protect their land. Develop strict rules as to the specific feed compositions allowed and how it is used – timing & quantities might be weather related for instance – think rolling WSI based adjustments. Now you have a population of even healthier deer NOT damaging complainer's properties. Problem solved.
What does CDAC figure the impact of Global Warming will be on the herd and the ecosystem that supports it? And when? Relative importance of the issues v. what CDAC is doing about it? Gimmie a break. Is this about forcing QDM in a half Azzed fashion? Trying to force the subsequent buck fest ( that idea has been tossed around for many years) at any cost? Or what exactly? The lame notion that the authority exists to force this 'protect' the forest lands idea on private owners of those lands who should actually and rightfully be allowed to manage as they please is abhorrent. Clearly over reach.
Stop screwing me and the rest of us under the guise of maybe addressing an unrelated maybe a problem you think someone far away is having. Go away and leave us be. Feel free to tell your problem complainers to open their land to hunting. If a couple years of that doesn't work, get back to us.
No bucks is a bad bad idea: Ill conceived illogical inappropriate and self defeating. Do not make that obvious mistake.
Really? I have 40 acres in Waupaca County and did not see an antlerless deer in the gun season. I use to see 10 to 20 per day. So you are going to fine me for not shooting something I did not see? By the way I do let people hunt on my land. One of them did get a doe. Not all land is the same. If someone is seeing too many does or has significant deer damage then THEY need to shoot as many does as they need to eradicate the problem. One size, or one law or policy, does not fit all situations.
Several years ago I was fortunate enough to obtain at great trouble and expense some very rare and exotic invasive to this area species of wild Himalayan shrubs from cryptic mystic elders ( sorry I can't be more specific).
They flourished wonderfully in my soils with much pampering by the expensive landscapers I hired.
Problem is, it turns out bald eagles like it and munch the living daylights out of it. Not only that, the condors, egrets, pterodactyls, and Velociraptors love it. I even have a small family of ivory billed wood peckers in there causing problems.
But alas, it is getting out of hand. They are always in the way scratching up the wax job on my golf cart as I peruse around the estate. Not to mention the poop on the Kentucky blue grass.
Therefore, I need to have everyone else on the planet reduce the flocks everywhere else world wide so that I can suffer less damage here. I will not be participating in the reduction effort here. And, I refuse to do anything to detour these cute lil buggers from my place.
(imagine I am wearing my big fury hat for this next part)
To whit: You birders, all of Audubon, and everyone else - may NOT use your binoculars this year: 2017, on the sex of these species you prefer (you know, the ones with all the plumage) but rather MUST reduce the numbers by targeting and killing the females of my problem species. Don't you dare take an adult male either! That could mean fines or even jail. We like to look at them for our viewing pleasure here. There is no promise about how this will work out for you next year, we will get back to you later on that.
Further, you may NOT use your binoculars at all, nor anything else here at my place under any circumstance for anything of any kind. Stay the hell off my property and solve my problem by nuking your own place.
If the situation here somehow miraculously resolves itself despite this asinine approach you might be able to once again use your binoculars for your desired uses on these species at some point in the future maybe.
Door CDAC and DNR have moved away from Wisconsin tradition, history and heritage and are now pandering to mostly wealthy non/anti hunters. They are now in the business of picking winners and losers and guess who they side with? Seems we might not have any use for either organization.
*Or maybe it is still stuck in their collective hinder.
Somebody up there ^ mentioned stakeholders, I recall but am too lazy to go back at look who. I just can't scroll past that long obnoxious post between here and there :)
Remember where that stakeholder animal came from?
That was back from when the notion was brought forth in the beginning of the indoctrination (oooopsie sowwwy my bad ? education) campaign .
This is when growers of shrub and flower species (invasive or not) out in the country side that happen to be yummy to deer, and whoever else almost as equally qualified or even not, were now set a place at the table equal to the license paying sportsman ( not to mention TAX PAYING hunting LANDOWNERS) who by the way are the only ones actually doing the herd control. For some unexplained reason (probably not accidental) that drifted to where it is today. If you don't have landowners who harbor deer, would you have any deer?
So the newly defined stakeholders eventually parlayed that into being in charge of herd management (ownership of public servants should never be under estimated, not to mention it is a wonderful thing – if you are the owner anyway) and sportsmen were relegated to being their management tools. Funny how the trusting sportsmen allowed that to sneak up on them. Nice guys finish last. That is what the gals who call me nice say anyway :)
Now they try to divide and concur us with various diversionary tactics. First they came for some other county and I did nothing … Oh wait !! It is my county already right out the gate! Well … the good news is, yer next.
Right now they want me to buy a buck tag so I can't use it but they want me to then use the “free” doe tags they attach. Let me think about that. Conservation patron? Not this year. Two deer lic at $24 each so I can't hunt buck here at home? No thanks. No completely free doe tags to further their cause? Sowwwy, no deal. Seriously, how many Door County hunters will buy a lic, let alone both bow and gun? You would be nuts to buy both when you already get free tags with just either.
So maybe you will go to the effort to buck hunt some other county. ( Imagine that. You live here, own land here, pay property taxes up the wazoo, have worked your hinder off and invested heavily in improvements and managing for your hunting success, and now if you want to buck hunt you have to find, orchestrate and pay for some remote hunt some where else? Door CDAC:GFYS Don't forget all of this is because some other pin head can't figure things out for his own situation and wants you to take care of it for him at your trouble expense and detriment. Door CDAC:GFYS You are taking a significant slice from peoples lives for the greed of those you shill for. Shame on you. Lousy corrupt cowards. What was your personal cut on the deal?
Fine if you are not anchored here. But then you have to say that other county and get the tags for that county, because why not? You might want to take a doe while hunting. You now want Door tags as well? That will be $12 each please. Want fries with that? Pay here and drive up to the next window. Did they even think about this before they made the rules? Besides the general bumbles laid thing and screw job, they are now making it more expensive and inconvenient for you to help them do what you oppose. Pure genius! Where did the fail engineers who designed this go to school?
The term for their approach is 'collective punishment', which is abhorred worldwide. And in this case NONE of those punished ever did anything wrong. Some even did what the punishers wanted and they get punished just the same. Odd.
Maybe they should look at who took a doe last year and let them hunt a buck. I know that sounds like EAB, but since nobody knew it was coming it is more of a reward for doing as the punishers wanted. But that will never fly. Neither will a landowner allowance, they will have to travel to somewhere else instead of walking out the back door on the perfect setup they have been managing for for decades.
Hey if you need the meat, go ahead. I have no complaint with you. If not, send them a message. Personally I will send a message to the top dogs and ask for free doe tags no need to purchase a buck license. They will say no. I will say enjoy your fail, BTW how does it taste? You prolly should have asked for the special sauce with that. :)
Now that I caught up with reading the thread:
[quote] Sounds like something born in the conservation congress [/quote] In Door some of those guys sit on both and the CDAC guys were at the front table pitching their wares.
[quote] sharp shooters in Feburary
My experience has been that bucks here start dropping antlers before the bow season ends some times week between xmas and NY. The buck at the Kewaunee zoo keeps his until months late, must be diet.
I passed a big on I had been stalking because the day he finally gave me a shot he was sporting flat spots.
For my entire hunting career I can state this fact: of all the bucks I have ever seen that I knew when they dropped, dropped before the end of bow.
I would be afraid that if the season is extended past current norms big flat spot bucks will be lost when mistaken for big does. What a shame that would be. And it is not what CDAC wants :)
How do you register that anyway? Adult antlerless buck? Under the current system you almost can't avoid a lie.
Time to call your representatives! And you all need to get to Door county CDAC meeting Monday at 7 and raise a little stink! We can all go out for a beer after! Well that is if this thing shuts down before bar time. Bring a cooler :)
Funny thing is you can download the 2017 metrics pdf from DNR by county and Door did better overall and looks like maybe in each way in 2016 CDAC wants compared to 2015. So wtf? Punished for good performance?
I doubt that because it is illegal and won't help. DNR would just use the data to claim there was even more deer than they thought and call for even more reduction. Remember EAB when the big gangs were taking one doe and bringing it in over and over so they all could get a buck?
Neverbait, why do you have to be such an angry, jealous landowner hater? If you're mad that you sold your land don't be jealous of those of us who are landowners we didn't force you to make the decisions you made. Damn, calm down hater.
Otherwise just drive the highways and find fresh road kill to fill the freezer.
It's seemed to help, seeing many more young bucks now and I think that helps with pressure on the bigger guys I'm waiting for.
I dunno, I've just started getting picky the last few years so maybe I'm doing it all wrong.
Frequently the hens would get right in front of a tom, stand there and preen, but the toms never responded other than to painfully slowly methodically shuffle itsy bitsy steps to reposition just right seemingly taking into account barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, moon phase and perhaps the farmers almanac as they planned their sneak attack which never materialized. I am not sure how these socially awkward critters manage to sustain a population.
Then there came a moment when I thought there would be some action, this is about 10 am and over 3 pints of coffee later. One of the Toms was by himself and closed his fan and stood there pumping it like a well handle, but he was alone, so why? Meanwhile the other tom has aggressively following a hen who was keeping her distance. And now that red sack under his chin has lost any redness and has turned all white and bright pale blue. So that must be where his testicles are and now I know where the term blue balls comes from! But nothing happened.
At about 11 am the hens moved down a narrow clearing and the toms finally relocated a bit, maybe 50 yards. One hen bedded and the toms circled relentlessly, but for no good. Finished my half gallon of joe as well.
By 11:30 they all cleared around the corner of the woods out of sight with no apparent success nor any justification for all the display effort by the toms, failing to capitalize when it was just about handed to them. And they are big, long dragging on the ground beards, not small young toms or jakes.
So, you may be wondering why I goofed up and place this here in this thread. Because if Door CDAC/DNR actually get away with the lunacy they propose I'll be looking for a buck opportunity near by in Northern Kewaunee County, and I have things like this to trade. Of course there is another solution … we could undertake an ignorant policy requiring the slaughter of these critters elsewhere far away as the solution to me being exposed to them here.
And just who's idea was it anyway to make them the state bird setting us up to be the butt of jokes. Would you want your school mascot to be the turkeys? Your fav sports team? You like being called a turkey? If they get this you will they be a turkey from Wisconsin. Trying soaring with eagles then. Besides we already have a state bird!
...since you like the idea of them practicing this sadistic experiment so much I think it should be undertaken in YOUR county, only. Which county do you deer hunt most? I'll get in touch with your CDAC and recommend this.
Pardon, but what is that supposed to mean?
The CDAC in Door County initially got a great deal of support for the antlerless only season. As more people found out about it and weighed in on it, the more people came out in opposition to it and the CDAC changed their recommendations. Simple as that.
