New Bear Managment Plan and Drawing Tags
Wisconsin
Contributors to this thread:
There was a lengthy thread on here awhile ago discussing the new black bear management plan that was recently approved (link to plan below). Other than the creation of zones E and F, Zone D and A have some pretty significant changes as well, with Zone A absorbing the northern part of Zone D, and if you look closely some pretty significant changes to the southern and south eastern portions of Zone D, with that zone now extending down into northern St Croix, Dunn, and Chippewa counties, and the eastern border going all the way to HWY 27.
Of course this means the area I hunt, which is currently in southwest part of Zone A will now be southeast part of Zone D for the 2021 season when these new zones take affect.
What are everyone's thoughts on how this might change the draw odds?
Seems like the Northern Part of Zone D would have had the most bear habitat, the most bears, and likely more bear hunters, but with that portion of the zone now in A, I'm presuming more tags available in Zone A, but also more applicants as well. 2019 draw statistics show it took a minimum of 8 points to draw for zone A this year, and 5 points for Zone D. Conversely for zone D, much smaller in size, and presumably less hunters and fewer bears, but more crop area with a possible desire to have a lower bear population in that area due to crop damage issues, so maybe a better chance to draw a tag?
My biggest peeve is throwing preference points away and this kinda sucks because my son is sitting at 7 pts and I'm at 5 pts, and neither of us would likely draw in A next year, but by 2021 would have way more points than needed for Zone D (presumably)
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/bearplan.pdf
Leave it to the WI DNR to make something more complicated than it needs to be.
The DNR didn't write the new bear management plan. A large group of stakeholders did. Right now it takes 7-8 years to get a tag in A and I doubt that will change much, but only time will tell. There are a ton of people who were in C that are now in D that are used to getting tags every year or two but having a poor quality hunt. It will be interesting to see how the changes work there. Rusk County (home for me) has a ton of changes to sort out.
Doesn't matter to me, I'm done applying in WI, I got a tag this year that I transferred to my youngest daughter. I'm not going to wait another 11-13 years to draw in B and I'm not going to go to another zone, it takes enough time to do baits close to the house. If I get the desire to kill another bear, I'll go to an outfitter somewhere that I can buy an over the counter tag.
so what does this mean for preference points? what will it take to draw in the new zones?
There's no way of knowing for sure other than C will take longer.
Trouble is 8 of the 11 stakeholders were members of WBA.
I'm pretty sure you mean the Wisconsin Bear Hunter's Association which is WBHA and they were one of the the eleven stakeholders, which makes sense since this is about bear management.
skookumjt... you are right my mistake. But I'm not wrong on the number of stakeholders who were members or hunted bears with hounds.
In looking at the redrawn zones, I agree, Zone c will likely take longer now, Zones E and F will likely remain close to a one point or so draw. If I had to venture a guess, I would think Zone D would remain the same, or maybe even shave a year or two off the points, reason being is that area the DNR might want to manage for a lower bear population because of all the cropped land in the zone and the higher population of people. I'm thinking the majority of larger tracts of land that hound hunters would be able to hunt are in the part of Zone D that went into Zone A. Zone B I don't see much of a change at all in terms of points.
“But I'm not wrong on the number of stakeholders who were members or hunted bears with hounds.”
So what’s your point your trying to make?
Really DT..... So you think its fair to have one user group make the decision for two groups to hunt bear either with hounds or bait. What about all the landowners who were not represented. Been voted down several times at the CC Meetings. Im starting to think Minesota has the right idea for bear hunting.
There is nothing wrong with bear hunting in WI. There is not another state in the lower 48 that can boast the success rates WI. does. WBHA was just 1of the 11 stakeholders groups represented. I still don’t know what the heck your all riled about now. There are no hound hunts in C so ..... maybe you should start up a group the WI. Bear Masterbaiters Association if you feel your not being represented.
DT not riled up at all. Just stating facts that you cant except. By the way .... theres no hound bear hunting in C because of hunters like me. DT you should start a CROSSGUN WANNA BE ARCHERS ASSOCIATION.
Slurper handing out “rights?” Lol!
Pretty funny. A user group claims they need public input a few weeks before the CC Meetings. 5 special meetings. What a bunch of sneaks. CaptMike my heart skipped a beat with his post.
“DT you should start a CROSSGUN WANNA BE ARCHERS ASSOCIATION”
Why? I don’t hunt or target shoot with one. The new management plan is in the books. You need to move on and quit dwelling on the past.
I think someone was touched inappropriately by a hound hunters.
The trouble is you wonderful houndsmen lie thru your teeth how this was a fair process. 8 of 11 stakholders tried and lied. Not dwelling in the past at all ... Just calling out a bunch of sneaks. Was never against running hounds for bear at all. Have friends who are members of the WBHA. But my view and a lot of fellow sportsmen have changed.
Having people who bear hunt participate in writing a bear management plan doesn't seem sneaky, it's common sense.
Then why not let illegal aliens participate in writing immigration laws?
Because they are not citizens of the U.S. and are here illegally. Also does the board of the WBH not have meetings ahead of legislation that affects bowhunting? Or is it any different than Kaz heading the charge to reduce the length of the crossbow season? You can’t tell me he was not involved with the WBH and a active member Ron K. behind the Sean’s with phone calls and meetings while that was going on. Pot meet Kettle!
The system worked and we have a new management plan. It’s time to quit looking in the rear view mirror at where we’ve been and start looking foreword to where we are headed.
DT I can tell you dont take defeat very well. Agreements were made before the cross gun season ever started. I would take your complaints to the NRA and the cross gun federation they are the ones who agreed to this. For the bear management plan..... the WBHA tried to sneak running dogs in zone C. They added stakeholders who did not support the plan. SNEAKS. The reason it was stopped is because of concerned sportsmen in C. Marathon county wrote a resolution to have it on the spring hearings 55 to 6. Have fun playing with your pots and kettles. Minnesota has some good ideas for bear hunting
DT, you are correct, they are not citizens. Hence the name “illegal aliens.” I could care less, I just yanked a chain and you responded. Lol!
As stated before your just an antagonist and offer nothing relevant to Bowsite.
Sneak?? If anyone could read the whole plan was right there in black and white for public comment.
Defeat? As I said above the process worked and we have a new management plan. Also for the record I did not support a hound kill season in C. I’ve ran in that area and fully understand that while there are large enough tracts of land to run there. Adding a kill season would increase numbers of participants and greater chances of conflict.
You are so funny.... They want input on new bear plan.... why not just wait a few weeks and have the CC Meetings take care of it.
DT show me where you ever stated before that you did not support running hounds during the hunting season in C. I will wait for your politician answer. NOT. Try not to call names if you can.
I said there are areas large enough to support it. But I never once said I personally supported the idea.
But you never once said you were against it and that it would create conflict. Thank you for a politician's answer.
Who cares if he said he supported hound hunting in C or not? The management plan is more than 50 pages long and covers a great deal of information and changes and you have your panties in a bunch over some time foil hat conspiracy theory about hound hunting in C.
Most of us could care less one way or another. I don't hunt in C, nor do I hunt with hounds. I figured it wouldn't ever happen, but there are plenty of good reasons why it might have been worth trying.
Conflict in what?? I’m one person and have no legislative or judicial power.
There are many things I’m for and or against you will never know about.
And your liberal thinking is showing. Assuming something you know nothing about often leads to looking like a fool.
DT ....Im a republican....if anyone looks like a fool....it YOU. skook..... I dont even think your worth answering.
Please answer what I’m conflicting with.
DT you posted...Adding a kill season would increase numbers of participants and greater chances of conflict. BM posted ...But you never once said you were against it and that it would create conflict. Thank you for a politician's answer. DT .....
BM (fitting, eh?), I wasn't interested in an answer from you. You have been on a psychotic rant about some supposed conspiracy and you continue to double down on your delusions. You are fixated on a small part of a plan that was very public and was changed as a result of that public process. It's finalized. Move on to another silly conspiracy that is at least current.
skookumjt posted...... Most of us could care less one way or another. I don't hunt in C, nor do I hunt with hounds. I figured it wouldn't ever happen, but there are plenty of good reasons why it might have been worth trying. shook ......Most landowners in C do care about this plan. As you found out at the NRBM. and resolutions at the spring hearings this year. Theres no way hounds could run in C without running thru private property. When this plan came up they wanted public input ....why not wait till spring hearings??? Because it would get shot down state wide .(like last time) Maybe you dont know when the plan was wrote up The dog running in C was just added on to see if it would fly. A stockholder was said to support the plan but they did not. I use to support running bear with hounds. But now I THINK MINNESOTA MIGHT HAVE THE RIGHT IDEA
What’s the success rate in MN. Buck if they have it so right?
NO RUNNING OF HOUNDS FOR BEAR
NO RUNNING OF HOUNDS FOR BEAR
In the new reduced zone C there are plenty of very large tracts of national, state, and county forest that would be well suited to hound hunting. There are also people that would welcome hounds as they are the best way to harvest bears where there are too many or large bears. But it doesn't matter, the NRB chose not to include that portion of the plan. That's fine and I don't know why Bowel Movement still has his panties in a bunch.
Feel free to go to MN if you like it there.
Slicer, most of us don’t tolerate stupidity.
Must be a sore spot for you skunk because you seem pretty upset here.
DT.... most with a limited education dont even lower themselves to call names when they are proven WRONG!!
What in the sam hell are you talking about?? Proven wrong about what? Conflicting with what?
You should be happy there are no hounds in C during the kill season. But instead........
I had not opened this thread until today because I figured the changes would have little impact except for the zone changes which seemed reasonable and had no real impact on me. Surprise, are they really zeroing out everyone's preference points? Seems crazy and not fair.
WI bear management authorities should take a serious look at Minnesota laws. As stated above maybe it is time to hunt MN instead. Why?
First, no dogs. OK dog hunters fire at will but Minnesota had the good sense to ban dogs 40+ years ago and I don't hear any complaints about it. It evens the playing field for everyone and reduces conflicts.
Drawing is easier, only a few people will not get drawn with 5 preference points. Some areas draw with 1 point and a vast area is over the counter license. over the counter areas have few bears, yet I know of a hunter that shot a 500+# bear in that zone last year)
Only 3 baits allowed per hunter, plus 3 extra for a guide. 3 is plenty. Cannot bait more than about a month before season, can't find the exact date now. Must post a sign at each bait with the bait owner/guides name and register the owner and location with the state. You can quit baits and replace it but must report the change.
The points are not being? zeroed out.
Jeff them are some dam good ideas.
Thanks Skook, I wonder where I read that.
Jeff what’s the success rate in MN?
Even the playing field? Last time I looked at data bait sitters in WI. Had a higher success rate than hound hunters for 10 straight years of data. Should we shorten the bait sitters season to even out success rates??
You guys want to hunt Minnesota rules, go there and hunt. WI. Has it right and the success rates prove it.
Jeff I think its a great idea.
Wisconsin's bear structure is not broken, there just doing some fine tuning which will always happen and continue to happen. Wisconsin has one of the best success stories when it come to bear hunting and its opportunities.
DT, here is the data on success rates.
"Record-breaking success was experienced by hunters in 2016 and 2017. In 2018, success was generally lower, yet was still exceptionally high in many areas (>50% in BMUs 12, 13, 25; 60% in BMU 28 [which has a high proportion of guided hunters]). Success rate in the no-quota zone as a whole (15%) was less than half that in the quota zone (38%). The distribution of hunters within the no-quota zone is gleaned from where they said they would hunt when they purchased their license: a growing proportion indicated that they planned to hunt in BMU 10 (although the hunting success rate in this area is lowest in the state)."
Heck, one year MN even had a 2 bear limit in some areas several years ago. Although it was not considered a good idea by many.
Note, hunting most of the OTC area in MN would be comparable to hunting south of EauClaire. Exception being the far north part of the MN no quota area.
Our small group for the last 4 hunts has taken a new approach. We no longer pre bait. We go to totally new areas about 3 days before the season starts to start baiting, once even starting baits a week or so after the season started. It saves a lot of time and money not having to make long trips just to start baits. It works too. We don't usually shoot monsters but it sure makes it affordable.
One good thing about having to put signs up with your name on them at your bait is that if you run across someones bait site with no sign you are free to put up your sign and hunt it. I did that the first year when we started baiting a week after opener. I shot my bear off that bait the next day.