Buffalo County Doe only in 2019
Wisconsin
Bet the outfitters just love that! Pretty tough to sell a $5k doe hunt..
not posted yet on the minutes,,,, were you at the meeting?
It was voted on by the CDAC. Essentially a cry for help to force the Legislature to give them a way to control the skyrocketing deer herd there. I applaud them for forcing the issue.
The landowners and outfitters only have themselves to blame if this becomes a reality.
Meeting minutes won't be up until DNR posts them. But Paul Smith at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel already published this article on it:
OHHHH, LOL, I can't wait to hear comments about this!!!
Finally, somebody with a brain makes some sense.
Dumb....is all I can say.
I read the article as well. Two things that stuck out to me as “dumb” were the legislature removing Earn A Buck as a management tool in 2011 and other CDAC members from other counties that received death threats for suggesting similar measures.
But I agree this has about 0 chance of actually happening but I applaud the CDAC members for using the framework given to try and do something.
With all the complaining I hear from folks that there are too many deer and the deer are killing trees as quickly as they're planted, seems like this could/would help these folks out. A person must wonder, do these complainers actually want help with their excessive deer problem or not?
As in Waupaca county, if this were to be the season structure, the outcome could be more deer. The landowners will control the hunting.
The Republican controlled Legislature already gave counties the ability to control their deer herds ... they created County Deer Advisory Councils (CDAC). Only the local County stake holders can vote on the council, the DNR does not have a vote. Once the Walker appointed Natural Resources Board approves the CDAC recommendations, its a done deal. This is what Wisconsin voted for.
Sounds like a great time to allow EAB in that county for one season. Too bad EAB can't be used as a needed tool.
HunterR you bring up an excellent point.... I have asked for permission in that county to harvest does, and doe only, from area farmers around my friends land. Everyone was nice, but I received no permission..... one of the answers I got in that area, was I get ag tags to kill them...... my friend sold and we now have our Vernon County land
Once again, the cry to put the tools needed in the hands of the hunter will go unanswered. It started in Waupaca County , was again on the table in Door County and continues. The legislature won't lift a finger. The current Governor doesn't give 2 flips about the deer herd or continuing the Knowles - Nelson Stewardship fund. To him it's all about raising taxes.
Even though the people have spoken, no one has the balls or brains to implement what needs to be done.....
The sad saga continues.....
Blame politics, blame DNR, blame this and blame that.
IMO the love of antlers and love of massive head gear is the real reason.
Could all this "sky is falling" talk about CWD be a reason for the lack of doe killing. Who the hell wants to kill does for meat when all you hear is "CWD...CWD".
Hunters shoot themselves in their own foot....again.
I think cwd has alot of people afraid to eat venison. Also forcing eab and tons of doe tags in the past made hunters want to take matters in their own hands. Ultimately it's the landowners choice whether how many get killed.
Their minutes are up and posted, just read it,,,, they know it will not go thru, want to get some attention, because they want more tools, they would like to get EAB, at least some do
Bound to happen when you have big parcels in prime habitat with low hunter numbers and what hunters are there, most are going for big bucks. EAb probably wouldn't help much when you got 4,5,6 hundred acre parcels with food plots and only 4 guys hunting it and they only shoot 2 does or less a yr. Its bound to become a problem.
Who will get the blame if we have a major die off from CWD, winter kill, EHD, etc? The DNR will get the blame when their hands are tied. No matter what the DNR does the public and hunters look at them and don't point the blame where it really should be pointed. The NRB and politicians should be held accountable for all of this mess.....
in many ways, after horn porn craze, different qdma ideas, a whole industry on how to raise deer, may not be fenced, but not much difference, ,,,,,,,,,
we may have had the intention of building a better and healthier herd, and that is what may have been sold, but its a score game now
we have lost what deer hunting, should be in many ways................
Great points MF and Ground Hunter , Agree 100%, True meaning of deer hunting has been lost
If the do EaB I would love for them to keep stats on how many of the "antlerless" deer taken are bucks. Years ago EaB was being touted as a way to improve buck numbers and buck quality....which I disagreed with because of the button buck issue.
EaB can be a effective herd reduction tool though.
Franklin I hear what your are saying, but I am also a believer is some of the best deer managers we use to have, like McCaffrey and Ozoga, and they always said, that with that system, a percentage will be button bucks, but will not affect the herd as a whole
wish I had the article on that particular study, its been a lot of years, but I respected those guys, who are now long retired
as for CWD its probably already in the county, just never been found. I am not a fan of county by county deer mgt, on a whole I think its a mistake, but this is what we have now.
Maybe they should have it if you shoot a nubby buck. that's ok and perfectly legal but you will forfeit you coveted buck tag... ??? Would force guys to do a better job of knowing what they 're shooting at. If herd reduction is the really the plan we all realize shooting an adult doe will have way more of an effect than a nubby and even to some extent a doe fawn.
Did anyone check out who the guy is that provided the pictures in the article? He is a Buffalo county outfitter. Guess he got some free advertising. The link is to his web site.
I love the idea, but earn a buck would be better for everyone if it was still a tool to use. Maybe need to shoot 2 doe to get your buck tag. Then again, with no real registration in force most would have their two doe killed on opening day.
I have no idea what you mean by no "real registration",,,, come on you want to go back to the old days of going into some gas station with them.... my warden can easily with the touch of his ipad, check to see, when and if you registered your deer,,,, I would say move on
Eab would be tough without in person registration because people could just call in and say they shot their doe. We're already seeing evidence of how many people are shooting deer and not registering them. Our data will continue to become less accurate and management will get more difficult.
X2 skook….I think it would be impossible. Remember when the check stations were slitting the checked antlerless deer`s ear because the hunters were passing around the same dead doe to be checked....lmao.
Online "check in" is saying...."we don`t care how many deer you kill, just don`t get caught doing illegal sh*t or we will have to bust you".
Face it....our deer management is helter skeltor at best....and I`m being kind.
I think what was meant by “no real registration” is someone doesn’t even need to shoot an antlerless, they would just go register a one online with one of their tags whether they got one or not. While I do like the online registration feature, for EAB it would be ripe for fraud and abuse
The no in-person registration is what would make EAB a complete farce nowadays.
Never understood why the life of a doe is lessened than that of the buck. We deer hunt not buck hunt. Funny to talk with people about what they shot and their ho hum response; "Its just a doe..." they say. Really? Its a darn deer and tell me about the hunt please. How did you get the deer?
Maybe we can start a Pope and Young, Boone and Crocket record book for doe head width from ear tip to ear tip.
I maybe all wet with this theory but it wouldn`t be the 1st time....
When I was a young bowhunter I was a deer killing machine....if it came near me I killed it. As I got older I hunted mostly mature animals, which included old does (impossible lol) and I took my meat doe when given a chance. Now I don`t kill does and only hunt mature bucks and don`t really care if I kill one or not. I just enjoy hunting.
Could this herd problem be due to the lack of young "killers" in our woods? Just a thought.
does need to be taken out, bottom line,,,, if that means a few buttom bucks goes out , so be it, the world will not stop,,,,,,, bottom line is why would you kill something you will not eat, and a lot of so called bowhunters, do not eat deer, or they would not have a problem doing so.....
its so sad a bowhunter will wolf down a hamburger, while donating his venison makes no sense to me
So many living in the past. Everything changes and I get change is hard. But change is inevitable. We are not going backwards. So forget move beyond what hunting used to be, what is the here and now and the future. Registration stations were a joke. They handed out tags with not evening checking or validating, horn stretchers, etc. Move on and look to the future not the past. Hunting is forever evolving just like, all the world, technology etc. We older people may not like but it is here and coming.
"We're already seeing evidence of how many people are shooting deer and not registering them"
That can't be. Those of us that were against online registration were told by the all knowing DNR that would not happen. That the only people that would cheat the system were the ones already doing it...
Compliance rate for geese for several years was around 85%. Why would deer hunters be any different??
Not a fan of EAB and glad it is not a tool the department can use.
If you are willing to shoot more doe than your family and friends can eat there are lots of places that will gladly accept free meat. Veterans clubs are my go to place for giving meat away. They will either pass it on to their members or serve it at their place. The big food shelf places probably won't take it any longer but there are plenty of church associated food shelfs that will gladly take it. So, nobody should hold off shooting an extra doe just because they cannot eat it all. There are even a few processing places that will process a deer for free if the meat is going to a charitable organization.
EAB was the single best tool the state ever used to control the deer herd. It was also one of the few things i disagreed with republicans on when they banned it. It was over used but should never have been banned. No one wants to except the blame for a deer herd growing out of control in many counties. Yet back when EAB was used hunters lined up to get rid of it. You can’t have it both ways. And remember you never totally ban tools. It will be a great day if Buffalo Co has a doe only season. Think there is big bucks there now, wait till 2020! Hopefully more counties follow them.
Years ago when dieticians were clamoring over how healthy venison was for you and how much better it was than beef everyone wanted it. Now with people don`t even want to feed it to their dogs because of possible disease.
Like I said a million times....our messaging sucks.
" some of the best deer managers we use to have, like McCaffrey..." OMG thats hilarious!
People on the Keto or Carnivore diet love venison. My son and some of his buddies cycles these diets as part of his weight training programs and eat a ton of it. They like it as it’s all natural, no hormones, super lean and full of protein. They get the “good” fats from other sources.
Also I got a Sous Vide cooker for my birthday (google it if you don’t know what it is). Absolutely the best way to cook a venison loin...
dll lung, I concur that EAB was a great tool that should have remained a tool that could be used and then suspended as needed. It worked well as designed and seems like it would have been a perfect fit for this Buffalo Cty situation, save for the fact that online registration would make it a farce. I do get why people hated it though, but to me, that was overuse. It should have been suspended long before it was removed from existence. The DNR should have lots of options at their exposure.
The local CDAC's could vote on a EAB option, if the Republican controlled legislature would make it available. The DNR does not have a vote.
This is a great civics lesson for many in an 8th grade kind of way. Its called checks and balances When government agencies over reach, the legislature has the authority to step in. In this case the DNR proved that they could not effectively manage EAB by its overuse. That was admitted by than DNR secretary Matt Frank at a legislative hearing in 2010 on the elimination of EAB. It was then and only then (when the legislature decided to step in) that the DNR relented and agreed suspend EAB. In this case actions had consequences. One tool I don't hear anyone clamoring to bring back are the Early October gun seasons. If you really want tools I believe you are a hypocrite if you are only advocating for EAB. Four guys in Buffalo County wanting to make a political statement has zero chance of success. Rather than pick a fight with the legislature they should engage them. Careful what you wish for boys as the tool box you want opened may contain many more tools you dislike rather than those you favor.
HF 43
The overreach was on the part of the Legislature. They should never have removed any tool from the toolbox. Many of the CDACs have said so, not just in Buffalo County.
And the DNR had already been scaling back its use of EAB starting in 2009 and 2010, when it was used only in CWD management zones. In 2011, if you remember, there was essentially no EAB. It was shoot a buck with your gun or bow license, then earn a second buck. But the Legislature stepped in anyway and took EAB away. We'll see what the future holds.
It can not be argued that EAB was one of the best, most effective tools in the DNR's management toolbox. The problem is the DNR used the BFH(EAB) too often and for jobs that just needed small tools or patience and fine tuning. So because the DNR couldn't responsibly use a tool, it had to be taken away. I disagree with taking it away. Just put an extra lock on the box. But the legislature has never been known for using common sense.
Personally this might not be well received, but some of these guys from cdac, in buffalo county are full of you know what,,,, and I will tell you why,,,, I also own private land so I know what it means to give permission
right now I have 2 turkey hunters,,,,, but let me tell you I have asked for permission to kill does, and only does, on private land in Buffalo County, and not to mention names but one who is on the cdac,,,,, the answer was, no I do not want the land disturbed for the buck hunters coming in....
I have no problem with that, I respect that, but don't start crying about no one willing to kill does, because that is total b....
than you concede to the snowmobilers,,,, really want to snowmobile, come up to where we really have snow,,,, anyway, I can understand you wanting to compromise, but at least you can not have a late season hunt bow only,,, oh my gosh I might kill a buck that's horns have fallen off....
You guys talk out of both sides,,,, if you really want your herd under control, you could do it now, with present mgt, but you will not......
You will blame the dnr and cry about not enough tools,,, here is what I think, guys do not pay to come to your county to shoot does,,, and I have no trouble with that,,,, also locals do not let anyone kill does, during the so called bucks season, and I have no issues with that, but come late seaon, oh my gosh kill a deer, with no horns you act like your gut shot
I know, because I have asked and talked to a lot of owner of property out there for the last 8 years,,,,, anyone with private property should be able to do what they want, but when cdac members are crying the blues,,,, let me ask you this
how many does have you killed in the last 5 years,,, how much permission have you allowed for does to be killed in the last 5 years,,,,,
hmmmm that's what I thought
Not sure how many of you guys are from b.c but the last meeting the cdac had they wanted to extend the archery season to end of January to help with the doe problem. Well the snowmobile clubs got wind of this and took over the meeting and said no way can we give up January snowmobiling. So the only tool left in the box is antlerless season. Now if you guys would read some Facebook posts between hunters and snowmobiler you could get a good laugh. Put it this way been multiple years since trails have been open for a January ride but they always think next year could be the year.
Boone,,,, there was 40 snowmobilers at that meeting,,,, the cave in from the cdac was a joke,,,, many of them have to grow a pair...... the ability to ride after Christmas is a joke and if the snow is there, there is no reason, that they can not ride, and hunters can not hunt....
the cdac is just weak
Let's see, the problem is over population of deer in Buffalo Cty which has large parcels of land with limited hunters ("when you got 4,5,6 hundred acre parcels with food plots and only 4 guys hunting it and they only shoot 2 does or less a yr"). As quoted poster stated, EAB will not work. Four doe will not put a dent in 400-600 acres. Yet the guy who owns a 40 4 miles away, lacks the population and is forced to shoot a doe to EAB when he really shouldn't. . CDACs where suppose identify county "hotspots" and issue tags/implement strategies to manage these areas. Apparently, this is not happening.
Putting EAB back into the toolbox will only let the rich get richer and poor not have venison. As it has happened before, those with large "deer farms" always will have easy opportunity to EAB, public and less fortunate land owners will have to abide by the law, struggle to EAB and eventually hurt future deer number in their area.
Sounds like Buffalo Cty CDAC has the tool they need, go forward with doe only. Maybe then, the landowners will step up and take some responsibility.
Overreach is in the eye of the beholder I guess. From my view you reap what you sew and when the leadership of the agency as well as the congress spends the better part of four decades telling the legislature that they can do what they want, the hunters of the state used "the process" to remedy the wrong. The DNR apology after the fact was too little too late.
What other agency within the state of WI operates without legislative oversight? Go one further what other state in the country allows its Natural Resources Department operate without any oversight from its state legislature.
Great points on pockets of deer and how EAB will not solve that problem. Also a reminder that snowmobilers (many are hunters) are another user group just like hunters. Infringing on their season is the same as infringing on yours. To think they do not deserve a seat at the table is a fallacy.
Since we mentioned that DNR tool box I have not heard a peep about early October gun hunts, did the legislature overreach their as well? I you want to pound antlerless deer off the landscape in sizable #'s you will need the help of the firearms crowd and don't think for a minute that they won't want an early "qualifying" season.
HF43
From what I hear it isn't only Buffalo county with deer overpopulation problems. There are places in Eau Claire county that I know of where there are way to many deer. The owners are Trophy Buck only hunters. These property are scattered all over the Middle to Southern part of the state. This will/is causing a big problem to the property owners and the non-property owners deer heard health. Yet, I still talk to people who will brag about seeing 30-40 deer a sit wanting to kill does on the public lands so they do not screw up there trophy hunting. The bubble will burst someday, CWD or another disease will wipe out a large number of deer down there when they are grouped that close together.
43, if memory serves me there were people advocating for an Oct gun hunt when the there was a fight over antlerless controls? I thought Scott Gunderson and Kaz promoted rather bizarre hunt seasons.
Glunker I am quite sure you are correct as many options were thrown around and debated.
Point # 1 is this isn't just an EAB issue.
Point # 2 Three-guys in Buffalo County trying to make a political statement will solve nothing.
Point # 3- CDAC was never designed as magic bullet, nor a political platform.
Point # 3 There are a number of stakeholders, so it might be prudent to consider all.
Point# 4 If EAB is what is desired that change can only come from the legislature, so take the issue where it belongs. Carping about it in the outdoor media and chat rooms while might give some a "gotcha" moment solves nothing.
HF43
T-zone's were a failure. People who didn't have deer in their area learned not to hunt during them and the deer hoarders refused to use them. . . I say, let them have a full season of T-zone. If they want to hoard, let them have another year of T-zone. If they are responsible, they will thin the population. Imagine the Buffalo Cty bucks after 1-2 years of no hunting......WOW
Huntnfish43. Snowmobile riders would have no trails if it wasn't for the land owners who pay the taxes I think there voice should be hear over snowmobiles
Also the cdac is in a hard place. I heard a great analogy tonight in a meeting. You need to remove a simple bench you have a knife a snips or a cat 50 well the 1st two didn't get the job done and the 3rd is over kill but those are your options. Personally you couldn't pay me enough to be part of b.c cdac
43 Point 5. You missed the fact that Gunderson and Kaz wanted more gun seasons in the bow season. The legislature is bad enough but there are others to consider.
Glunker, you are missing the point that it is the landowners with the control.
Geitz + 1 - Many Great Points made.
Boone - Snowmobilers are a legitimate user group and must be considered. Landowners are under no obligation to allow trails across their land. Snowmobilers are hunters and landowners too.
Glunker - You are correct, however those things never happened so what was your point. That said Gunderson and KAZ were key in the end in eliminating the October Gun seasons. If you want EAB back be prepared to bring back all the tools, that has been my point.
Capt +1- Landowners are and always will be in control.
Putting EAB back into the toolbox will only let the rich get richer and poor not have venison. As it has happened before, those with large "deer farms" always will have easy opportunity to EAB, public and less fortunate land owners will have to abide by the law, struggle to EAB and eventually hurt future deer number in their area.
Sounds like Buffalo Cty CDAC has the tool they need, go forward with doe only. Maybe then, the landowners will step up and take some responsibility.
T-zone's were a failure. People who didn't have deer in their area learned not to hunt during them and the deer hoarders refused to use them. . . I say, let them have a full season of T-zone. If they want to hoard, let them have another year of T-zone. If they are responsible, they will thin the population.
IMHO, there are conflicting statements above. So EAB will not be a cure all because of pockets of deer so that would not be fair to all the hunters. But, let them go to doe only to punish the wealthy land owners yet somehow that is fair to the little guys? No matter what is decided upon, it will not make everyone happy. Hell, it probably won't make 50% of the people happy. I'm still for the DNR having options to pull from which assumes they would know when to make changes.
This may wake up the land owners, and public to participate and get involved with the local County Deer Advisory Councils (CDAC).
I just thought of this. Lots of land in BC is under lease between land owner and deer hunters. (I don't mean land that outfitters control) I bet their lease does not take a possible doe only season into account. They would still have to pay the full lease yet potentially could only shoot doe. Many would be getting what they deserve for not taking enough doe in the first place.
I live in and own land in Buffalo County. In my area we do not have an over population of deer. In fact i would say on my farm there are less deer than 10 years ago. I hunt nearly every day during the early archery, gun, late season Archery season plus the antlerless seasons. I generally take 3 - 5 antlerless every year as we enjoy venison. I have not shot a buck, gun or bow in past 3 years. Good bucks are in my area but i choose not to shoot a buck unless its exceptional. I am lucky to have neighbors who are also selective in the bucks they shoot but they also take several antlerless every year. We did have a winter kill this year as we had 54" of snow in Feb. So far this spring im not seeing those large groups of deer out in the fields. I know that there are some areas in BC that do have population problems. I certainly could live with a doe only season but think its not needed is some areas. Im hoping that those persons who have control of areas with population problems will take this doe only season proposal as a wake up call and start harvesting antlerless deer.
Earn-A-Buck with online and telephone registration? Get ready for a record antlerless "harvest" opening morning.
"Im hoping that those persons who have control of areas with population problems will take this doe only season proposal as a wake up call and start harvesting antlerless deer."
That would be my hope also, and not just in Buffalo county but other counties as well where we keep hearing landowners complaining about too many deer. Waupaca county comes to mind as another one where I hear frequent complaints about too many deer.
Unfortunately though I believe that there are too many landowners that complain but will not get onboard and try to do something about their problem or let others willing to help actually help them, they'd rather complain about having too many deer, and at times some of these same complainers plant food plots/etc to attract deer. Maybe antlerless only statewide for one year would get people's attention.
I honestly think the typical hunter, not the educated/informed hunter, will need two or more years to understand how to deal with a doe only season. Many bubba hunters (yep I said bubba) will either
1. shot a buck and excuse it because they don't agree with the law.
2. shoot a buck and excuse it because their situation is "special".
3. not hunt at all. (hence the need for them to have a second thought with a second season to convince them to "deal with it").
4. prove me wrong and actually shoot doe. Very possible since there will be no need to hold back on a doe hoping or a big buck. Heck shoot a doe and get the season over with. Then spend our time chasing a gobbler.
5. heck a doe only season may open some land for hunting by others.
Landowners complain about too many deer, hunter asks if he can hunt on landowners land with too many deer, landowner denies request for whatever reason (cousin's girlfriends stepdads friend might hunt it late season). Landowner then goes to tavern and complains there's too many "field rats" and wants all them and the land and sky carp gone.
I'd love to be a landowner who complains about too many deer but we simply do not have many. Yet, my next door farmer neighbor not only complains about them but stipulates in his hunting lease agreement that X number of does must be shot. Point being, what is too many? Social carrying capacity, true carrying capacity? Perspective changes from person to person. Some times opinions vary among deer managers so whose opinion do we go with?
Good point CaptMike. I’m a land owner and you will never hear me complain of too many deer. To a farmer a couple of deer in his bean field may be too many.
Spot on Captain. The farm I hunt one week a year hasn't and doesn't shoot does. Langlade cnty. He said he won't shoot three deer with one doe.
It's about 400 acres of AG and woods.
Who's right, who's wrong? I get it, science says this and science says that but in the end, people will kill only what they want of "their" deer.
Will never happen in any of our lifetimes. Funny some believe it though. Way to much $$$ lost to pass.
"We did have a winter kill this year as we had 54" of snow in Feb."
This can't be true. The DNR has said the deer would not be affected by the record snowfalls since the early winter was so easy. We all know they would never try to bullshit people when it comes to deer numbers/management.
Ironic that hunters went to the legislature to get rid of EAB. Maybe it will start to sink in that the DNR deer people know more about deer populations than the legislature and Kaz. This has become a joke, going backwards. Dr. Deer did us no favors. We had the most hunter citizen involvement of any state and he thought we needed hunter involvement which becomes a 5-7 person oversight group by county which adds politics. Units were better, actual registration was better. Alas, but we are regressing. The door is now open to the non-hunter and that hunters will regret that.
The more the CDACs become a pain in the behind to elected officials, the sooner they go the way of EAB.
Lots of good discussion here, but no real answers. This is why many game managers and voters simply prefer to let diseases, starvation, and predators do the bulk of the genetic selection and managing. Hunting has become only one tool, a diminished one. We no longer depend on venison for protein, the horn porn craze and APR's help prove that.
Glunker, you seem all too quick to forget that the deer managers are charged with managing the herd for all people of the state. That includes hunters, non-hunters, farmers, foresters, deer watchers and many and every other person/group in the state. Kaz represents deer hunters, not the general public. Funny how you are such a long-lasting, sore loser from times when Kaz handed you your backside on issues you did not agree with. That said, the CDAC’s give those who want to get involved a much better say in their LOCAL deer management. Did it ever occur to you that there are 5 or 7 people making decisions because most hunters are much too apathetic to get any more involved then spouting on a website?
Agree, managing the deer herd is much more than APR's, let em go, let em grow, and other means of artficially growing a buck for the laziest of hunters. As pointed out, many entities are impacted by the deer herd numbers, not simply the narrow minded hunting forum experts.
"Ironic that hunters went to the legislature to get rid of EAB. Maybe it will start to sink in that the DNR deer people know more about deer populations than the legislature and Kaz"
Actually something had to be done about the DNR's over/misuse of EAB. The DNR would not police themselves, so someone had to. Totally eliminating EAB was going too far though.
Kaz represents deer hunter? Really? I was sure he represented the resource and the State. So farmers are out of luck? Would it be resident or non-residents that he lobbies for?
It looked like an over use of EAB, but not everywhere. My recollection was that the WI deer herd was way over capacity [guess go ahead and make issue with that statement if you diagree] and some emergency measures needed to be taken. As a group hunters wanted to dally around the edges when we had an issue that needed attention. I give the deer biologists credit for their using science to get their decision. Kaz's position was that he could not support EAB. After the herd was quickly brought into balance the cry went out to banish from the tool box rather than put it back in the tool box. So the bar stool hunters that promoted the herd getting way over goal then made sure that science solution could no longer be used in a similar crisis. I will agree that it might have been used too much but won't argue for long. It saved the day when needed but a more balanced herd is hard to swallow after a deer on every car. We were spoiled.
I agree, hunters are spoiled. They have lost their way.
From the numbers of hunters who went to Madison to protest EAB and T Zones, I would say it was not too popular. Particularly in light of the fact that other issues garner virtually no hunter attendance in Madison. Fact is, the legislators saw the numbers of hunters in attendance and compared to other issues, it was huge.
Glunker, I cannot either agree or disagree until you define what being over capacity is.
EAB was a great management tool if used reasonably. That can not be argued, well fools will argue anything. However the DNR did NOT use EAB reasonably in many management zones. Certain people got the gun hunters riled up, who then protested in Madison and brought forth change. The riled up gun hunters have the numbers and will be protesting again soon on another matter.
I've been out of venison for about a month after limited harvest opportunities last year and I'm hungry for Sept!
"After the herd was quickly brought into balance..." This action and too many free doe tags decimated the deer in some northern counties to the point that they have not yet recovered. I would not be so fast to use our deer biologists as the be-all, end-all in management, at least not from a hunter's perspective.
Harvesting didn't decimate the deer herd, two severe winters in a row did.
I was out doing some work on bear bait sites and on the way back to Hayward I saw 84 deer out in a field that probably had hay or alfalfa in it last summer. I didn't think there were 84 deer in the whole county.
Two severe winters decimated the herd in some locales, certainly not the entire state. There are still too many deer in much of Wisconsin and Michigan, and less in certain areas. So many hunters judge the entire state by what they see in nine days out their tower window, or on their habitat deficient 40 acres and surrounding areas.
It is short-sighted and irresponsible to put blame on one factor, just as I did with my EAB comment. The herd is effected by multiple factors and mandatory harvesting most certainly played a part. And still, no one has attempted to explain what “capacity” is. Yet to Skook’s point, EAB targets female deer, severe winters hits all deer yet is still more devastating to adult bucks and fawns as it is to does.
Capt. You have been demoted. That was rambling nonsense. Get a grip!
No thanks, Glunker. I simply realized my statement was partially off base, just as Skook’s was. Now if you’d like to be relevant and since you used the term, explain to us what definition of capacity you refer to in your comment.
From the hot zone in N Iowa county. I loved the EAB the way it was set up so you could earn your buck tag the year before. It was a good tool. It seamed to be working here. Many guys I hunt with thought it was a good thing. We are in need of a tool to get the herd in control. A lot of people just go out looking for a buck. Believe me you don't want to live with what we are dealing with. I have a hard time shooting a deer that doesn't test positive. People need to quit thinking about themselves and start thinking about the future of deer hunting.
I'd agree Capt. All I know is that when the herd was what some call "out of control", we shot way more trophies. I don't understand the idea that fewer deer = better to so many hunters unless you work in the car insurance industry or you see deer dying of starvation during a normal winter. Maybe some here have seen that. I do know that there is a limit, I just haven't witnessed going over that limit in the area I hunt. I'd say we were close in the 2003 to 2010 era, but I didn't see deer dying of starvation, and those years were the best years we had if going by the number of trophy bucks we shot. This is just what I have witnessed somewhere in Burnett County.
Personally I had a terrible experience with EAB. The farmer next to me leased his land and they shot 54 does. What really disturbed me was the so to speak hunters ended up donating most of the deer. Bottom line, they just wanted to kill. Needless to say it changed the population in my area drastically.
Joebuck, your experience was one of many. All the herd control plans play out differently on most every parcel. Public parcels can also be a mess.
The over capacity WI had at the peak was high enough to demolish the northern browse for years, making it hard for a normal smaller herd to survive a normal winter. The rest of WI had units of deer that were c ok sting farmers millions, devestating lanscaping. Not sure what those numbers were but with poor antlerless control you add a fawn crop of 40% more and it becomes uncontrollable. What is problematic are a few here who even ask questions that we all know the answers to. That high deer population cycle was something a hunter had to know and could not have slept through.
"The over capacity WI had at the peak was high enough to demolish the northern browse for years, making it hard for a normal smaller herd to survive a normal winter. The rest of WI had units of deer that were c ok sting farmers millions, devestating lanscaping."
lol good story, made me laugh. Although complete bullshit, still funny.
I'm confused. Why would the farmer in EAB need to shoot 54 doe? Does he have 54 guys hunting his land? If he had 60 landowner tags, then so be it he fills most of them. But a farmer (on anyone for that matter) whacking and stacking does does not imply EAB is the problem. An over-population of deer will impact a farmers crop. If the farmer has to donate most of the meat due to capacity, again, so be it. Too bad the farmer couldn't find more hunters to cull the herd AND consume the meat as is. But again that doesn't seem like a EAB problem. That seems like a plot of land w/ too many doe and not enough hunters.
Shooting all those does had nothing to do with EAB. It's a side effect of unlimited/free tags. Some people will thrill kill just because they can. That's one of the problems with hunters not helping to keep the deer in check when populations start to go up.
I agree, Skook. I started hunting in the hayday of $2 tags up north in Langlade County. We would go out on opening morning. We would get a few deer and head back to camp. The local boys would have 10 deer hanging at our camp by noon. They didn’t want them, but they loved killing. I don’t want to speak for other hunters, or say everybody was like that, but people killed everything that moved during that time period up there. I stopped hunting there maybe 8 years ago. Lots of bear, hearing the wolves howl on the way to the stand and no deer sightings kind of soured the mood.
Is it possible that the 54 deer killed on that farm were from ag tags due to too many deer and too much damage? The camp I hunted at for years neighbored a farm and the farmers received and used many ag tags every year. They hated deer.
"Shooting all those does had nothing to do with EAB."
I think EAB gets thrown in there a lot. It was a tool derived from the need to shoot more antlerless deer. But the cheap antlerless tags and high antlerless harvest goals were already in place well before EAB. I agree with you skook, just quoted you to prove the point.
Yes, totally agree with the 2$ unlimited tags. That messed up a lot of deer herds in the public areas.
Who offered the “cheap, unlimited tags?”
Capt, I'm not sure what or how you are referring to it, but the DNR had unlimited $2 tags at one time and were pushing people to buy as many as possible. Of coarse, some took them up on it to the point of a lust for killing. We had a group by us in the Winter/Clam Lake area that could not figure out what happened the one year. Hell, they said they shot 22 deer the year before, where are they this year. I recall looking at this guy and just saying "Well, they are gone, aren't they?)
The farmer leased his land to 21 hunters who in essence had unlimited tags and covered the property to the point it was unsafe. They weren't after venison they just wanted the thrill to kill. The excuse was I need a buck tag for this year archery and this year gun. I might as well get next years buck tag for archery and gun and ole Bill hasn't got his buck tag yet. When I questioned them about decimating the herd the response was if I don't see any deer next year I'll lease something else. When I suggested the farmer could put limits on the execution he said it's my land and I'll do what I want. Bad taste in my mouth for EAB, but the good news is the farmer only had 5 or 6 hunters last year and the herd is coming back. Despite owning 50 acres in Wisconsin I do the majority of my bowhunting in other States (Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas).
Live2, thanks for clarifying but I was asking to show a point of hypocrisy. Glunker, Skook and others are very quick to want to put it all in the hands of the deer managers. But, as I have pointed out in the past, the managers are charged with managing for all people of the state, not just hunters. They are quick to want to give managers EAB as a tool yet the mismanagement the managers allowed with unlimited tags is quickly forgotten. EAB might have been a useful tool but our managers have not shown the ability to use it judiciously.
Capt, before he was representing hunters now he is representing WI. Your focus is questionable, there are remedies available. Hard to debate a irrational discussion so we are wasting our time.
Acting like it was just 3 it 4 guys in BC probably isn't correct. My counties CDAC has quite a few members and all of our input seems to get some attention before the voting. I have a hard time believing this is 3 people just blindly making decisions. I also hope they stick to their plan and don't let the big money change the outcome. Otherwise the validity of the CDAC system will be ruined.
I didn't throw anything on managers. Most of the blame for deer management problems falls on the hunters, NRB, and Legislature.
What I don't understand is why they aren't shooting does. What a great target rich environment! Shoot a couple does or three for meat and be picky on what buck you shoot. I can't imagine a better scenario.
Glunker, you drinking? Who is “he?”
Skook, I said that you want to put it in the hands of managers, I did not saythat you threw anything on them.
The DNR did not support the antlerless only season when they sent their recommendations to the NRB last week.
to be honest for cwd concerns I would be killing more bucks in the SW, but that will never fly,,,
That is one of the approaches that has been proposed as a way to try and restrict transmission but you are right, hunters would not buy in.
So it appears that the DNR did not support a "tool" that was in their "tool box", interesting.
The DNR can have a recommendation on which tool to use, but they do not have a vote on the local CDAC. The Governor appointed NRB can decide whether to support the local CDAC decision, or lean toward a DNR recommendation.
Sag I think you missed the obvious point according to skookumjt. "The DNR did not support the antlerless only season when they sent their recommendations to the NRB last week".
So it appears that the DNR did not support a "tool" that was in their "tool box", interesting.
Nice try on the deflection though.
HF43
Just because the DNR does not recommend a tool for Buffalo county right now, does not mean the DNR would not support that tools use at another time or another county. The Governor appointed NRB can decide whether to support the local CDAC decision, or lean toward a DNR recommendation.
So in this case there was a "tool" available in the "tool box" and that "tool" was removed by the DNR. So from what I can gather it really depends on "who" (DNR/Legislature) removes the "tool" from the "tool box", not so much the "tool" itself. Interesting, I wonder if some on the CDAC and the DNR are trying to make a political statement? Can't be as politics within the DNR is impossible, right?
HF43
What will it take for the landowners to grant access to meat hunters? A 'doe only' season might seem like the only choice available. I can see why the Buffalo County CDAC recommended it. I would have given the landowners an additional choice; meet a specific doe harvest quota for a 'doe only' season in 2019, or a second year of 'doe only' will be added in 2020. Monetary incentives will work. Hit them where it makes a difference, and they will kill does. Perhaps go 'doe only' every other year? Open the gates, and they will come.
"What will it take for the landowners to grant access to meat hunters?"
Those despicable landowners that work to buy their land, maintain it, and pay taxes on it. Have the audacity to restrict who accesses their land. Sheesh what next?
There's a group of guys from up here that go down to Buffalo County for the great doe hunt. They usually shoot over fifty does when they go down to that farm.
Yep...the farmers want the deer killed but want money for that too. I say screw it dont hunt for a year. The DNR may give them an opportunity to stop complaining about to many deer. It will be up to the farmers to allow the opportunity to work.
Yes Hoot, there is a group I know from my area that go down to a farm to shoot doe's. That is how I heard about all the deer that are on some of these property's. They want crop damage money and to get it they have to kill x amount of deer. So, that forces them to let people on there property to hunt. This does not happen on property's that are just for hunting, at least I hope they don't give our money to land owners that are just hunting it for crop damage.
In order to get money for crop damage, the property has to be open to hunters.
Many significant landowners are not farmers, nor do they collect crop damage fees. They may however lease some crop lands to farmers, but they are not themselves farmers. Most farmers today do not own all the lands they farm, they lease from non farming landowners.
Hunters have a long history of not respecting personal property rights. Tough to shake the image when trespassing continues today.
Farmers use crop insurance much more often than the state crop damage program. Very few land owners use the crop damage program and many of the ones that do abuse it. I used to try and hunt these lands an never once was allowed on a property. With the heavily subsidized crop insurance they do not need to let the public on their land.
Don't get me wrong. I am against crop damage tags as they seem to usually be abused. I am also against property owners that piss and moan about too many deer. Yet will not let hunters that ask permission come on and shoot some does. But imo forcing property owners to allow access is a slippery slope.
RutnStrut - My 'meat hunters' comments come for landowners & outfitters that may complain about threats of doe only seasons. You cannot restrict access, then not expect to have over population issues. The system is where the government sets the deer rules, and the landowner sets the access rules. Not suggesting anything different here. The level of doe kill under the current terms of both parties is not sufficient. Status quo has caused many big problems. And so where are the problems located? On public land? Has the DNR not issued enough private land doe tags?
The CDAC recommendation is about the only option available to them. But another idea may be buck seasons every other year until the population gets reduced. How about some walk in only access programs that other states have implemented? Buffalo County will need to think outside the box and so will it's larger private landowners. You can almost hear all those fawns dropping right now in Buffalo County. The deer are not pressing the 'pause button' for indecision on the part of the humans.
"How about some walk in only access programs that other states have implemented? Buffalo County will need to think outside the box and so will it's larger private landowners"
Not a bad idea at all. Perhaps the state could up what they pay landowners that enroll in the VPA program in counties that need more deer killed.
"It was voted on by the CDAC. Essentially a cry for help to force the Legislature to give them a way to control the skyrocketing deer herd there." Let's remember, this is what the CDAC's consist of: CDAC seats: Councils are made up of a chair and alternate-chair, who are members of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, and seven citizens who represent various stakeholder groups.
With this in mind, which stakeholder group's definition is being used as to what constitutes "too many deer?" Apparently the deer hunters of BC do not overwhelmingly feel they have too many deer, otherwise they would be shooting them. Why do deer hunters unwittingly allow themselves to be used as a tool to address a situation of "too many deer" that they may not agree with? Until the biological carrying capacity is met, any other expressed "capacity" is nothing more than the perception and opinion of the person giving it.
As an example, hunters played a part in greatly reducing the herd in areas of the north when the Dept gave out unlimited, cheap doe tags. Hunters took the Dept at it's word and killed far too many antlerless. Years later, some areas are still experiencing a vastly reduced herd. While weather certainly has an impact on this, as does available food and cover, it is the huge reduction of does that hurt the populations long-term. Before acting as an unwitting accomplice to address other interests' perception of "too many deer," hunters would serve themselves well to learn exactly who and under what parameters are the claims of "too many deer" coming from.
Captain Mike that was an excellent post,,,,, hard for me to add to that, it says it all
Well stated Captain. People really thought they were doing good by the DNR when the slaughter started back in the early 2000s coming off that record kill of 2000. I think it would be different a 2nd time around and perhaps that has a lot to do with what is happening in BC now. People are afraid to make the same mistake twice. Every area is one really bad winter from being in a pickle again and people are erring on the high herd size.
You can't "bank" deer in case of a weather event. The best way to prevent a catastrophic winter kill is keep deer numbers in check.
You are right skook but I believe people think they are better able to withstand a harsh winter and have better deer sightings if the herd was higher to begin with. People are going to be very reluctant to have the killing rates that started with the T-Zones. I believe the majority of hunters who trusted they were helping the DNR with the huge doe kills will not do that again. Hence, the situation in BC.
T-Zone broke the back of the deer herd where I use to live not far from the Monroe/Jackson Co. line. Many of the land owners went to hunt the public land there and left their farms alone. It was like watching the vast buffalo herd reduce to nothing, not smart for deer management.
The problem with the old T zones and EAB was that everyone went and killed their deer on public land and refused to shoot deer on their land.
It's unfortunate that the typical hunter doesn't understand that the more deer there are the harder winter is on all of them.
This type of thread always have those that say the hunters are to blame for pulling the trigger. Yet the DNR claims we are all a bunch of "barstool" biologists and know nothing about deer management. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. The DNR either trusts and values hunter/landowner input or they don't. I believe both, that hunters need to monitor their areas and adjust their kills to what they observe. I also believe the DNR needs to take hunter/landowner input more seriously. We have people in the DNR making decisions that rarely if ever even put boots on the ground.
Rut good post,,,,, I do not care what BC does,,,,I do not hunt that county,,,, let them do what they think is best,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, why it bothers others is beyond me......
With that said, I do believe you should not stock pile deer in the north, on the other hand without predator control which we really have little of, the north could use a stronger herd...............
They want to put a bounty on deer in some areas,,,, hey how about a predator bounty,,, how about a few bob cat tags every year instead of the bs money pit, on points,,,, how about getting rid of bs cheap bear applications, and make it a must to buy a current hunting license, to apply....................
I do not hunt BC or any other county South of Hwy 10, nor do I hunt private land anymore and I do not care what they do either. But, we should care if our deer herd is in trouble. When you have too many deer congregated in areas, diseases as CWD can and will spread throughout faster. Just like too many deer going into a hard winter will kill just about all of them from over browsing the yarding areas.
For sure we should care if our herd is in trouble. I continue to ask at what level is "in trouble" and who decides that and with what parameters? Personally, I would use the over winter carrying capacity of an area as a definition.
Overall the majority of hunters/landowners want to see good #s of deer. The deer will never be spread out equally so certain properties will always have to many. Also everyone wants to get that trophy buck that's on their cam so less hunters are shooting does.
The carrying capacity should always trump social capacities. The demographic makeup of the land throughout that state makes it difficult and you have to manage each one on its own merits or lack there of.
VII. DEPARTMENT AND NRB REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Once final recommendations are provided by CDACs, the following process will occur until final approval is granted by the NRB:
A. Each CDAC’s recommendations will be reviewed by the Department’s Deer Advisory Committee. Committee membership consists of department wildlife biologists, researchers, law enforcement, forestry, health program, and ag damage specialists. In addition, several partner organizations are also represented, including Chippewa tribes and Wisconsin Conservation Congress, among others. This committee will develop a list indicating their support or concerns on each recommendation which will be provided to department leadership for consideration.
B. Department leadership will review and provide their final recommendations along with the unaltered CDAC recommendations to the NRB. NRB agenda items are posted on the department web site for public viewing prior to the NRB meeting to address any process containing CDAC recommendations.
C. If department recommendations are contrary to CDAC recommendations, program staff from the Big Game section will contact the individual CDAC to provide an explanation of any recommendations of concern or disagreement and provide the CDAC with an opportunity to respond to and clarify their reasoning for a recommendation.
