Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
Thanks!
Thanks!
gwm
5 year old buck +
I read the minutes too. I was at the meeting and I don't remember any "mixed" feelings about giving a free antlerless tag in the forest zone. It was pretty clear no one wanted the free antlerless tag in that zone.
The individual who writes the minutes did float the idea of having zero free antlerless tags for the farmland zone. He, along with one person from the public, thought that was a good idea.
I've been to the majority of these meetings and the meeting minutes, at least to me, always seem to be skewed a little from what was actually discussed / said.
bueller
Moderator
I have a feeling it was a misprint and was meant to refer to the farmland zone, not the forest zone. I don't believe the free tags are an option for forest zones as the DNR specifically identifies them as free farmland zone permits. I just put in my comments. Mostly positive with a suggestion that the # of antlerless permits in the forest zone remain the same as last year instead of the slight increase recommended for this year. It seems the herd has rebounded a bit but increased antlerless harvest and/or a bad winter will put us right back in the gutter.
bueller
Moderator
On a county by county basis yes. Recommended by Ashland, Forest, and Sawyer counties.
bueller
Moderator
In reading some of the minutes it sounds like discussions to modify zone boundaries are going to begin this fall. I assume any changes would be for 2017 at the earliest. Jackson, Marathon, and Wood counties are the ones that I know of that will probably be pushing for some sort of change.
Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
I emailed my recommendations ...
- One buck only all weapons with EAB type requirements to get a buck tag.
- Private landowner buck bonus tag after initial EAB above is satisfied. Require additional 2 does to get 1 bonus buck. Limited to license holder.
We'll see what happens ...
- One buck only all weapons with EAB type requirements to get a buck tag.
- Private landowner buck bonus tag after initial EAB above is satisfied. Require additional 2 does to get 1 bonus buck. Limited to license holder.
We'll see what happens ...
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
This will be my suggestion for the online survey for the Waupaca Co. CDAC.
Maybe the guys in Waupaca that refuse to keep their herd in check would prefer something like this...Since the DNR can enter your land from the ground whenever they want, maybe these Waupaca guys who refuse to shoot enough does deserve the DNR "deputizing" about 50 guys to come and make drives across their properties and shoot every deer that runs out the end of the drive. They could do it twice a year, once in mid April when none of the deer have horns, so who knows what they will be shooting, could be a doe, could be a potential 200" buck? And the second "hunt" could start around October 25th and run for 21 consecutive days, does only, bucks scared out of their minds and totally nocturnal, just in time for rifle season? How's that? Sounds good to me, how about everyone else? DNR gets the kill they are looking for and the poor, sad sack, landowners aren't "forced" to have to shoot more deer than they "want" to.
Maybe the guys in Waupaca that refuse to keep their herd in check would prefer something like this...Since the DNR can enter your land from the ground whenever they want, maybe these Waupaca guys who refuse to shoot enough does deserve the DNR "deputizing" about 50 guys to come and make drives across their properties and shoot every deer that runs out the end of the drive. They could do it twice a year, once in mid April when none of the deer have horns, so who knows what they will be shooting, could be a doe, could be a potential 200" buck? And the second "hunt" could start around October 25th and run for 21 consecutive days, does only, bucks scared out of their minds and totally nocturnal, just in time for rifle season? How's that? Sounds good to me, how about everyone else? DNR gets the kill they are looking for and the poor, sad sack, landowners aren't "forced" to have to shoot more deer than they "want" to.
Tree Spud
5 year old buck +
You are quite the angry bird ... :eek:
Guess you were a Bernie voter with this socialistic approach to private land ownership ...
.
Peeps
5 year old buck +
I completed the survey and comments for Marinette county northern forest. I don't get it, they are reccomending the same as last year. A quota of 350 antler less with around a thousand bonus tags available. This resulted in an antler less harvest of over 900 last year. Way over the quota and the biologist even said the herd didn't grow. The herd has not recovered in northern Marinette county. I reccomended buck only or stick with the 350 quota and only make 350 bonus tags available. Sad to say I don't have much faith in the survey or comments having any impact on the final numbers. Unfortunately I can't go to the meeting as I will be working.
gwm
5 year old buck +
Yikes! I can't believe anyone would advocate for something like this. There are other options available then to go to this route. Maybe just being facetious?
bueller
Moderator
They would be a lot closer to that quota if they issued 1,000 antlerless tags but made the junior tags invalid. Or better yet they could keep the junior tags valid and as you said make only a couple hundred antlerless tags available to the public.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Sorry to burst you bubble Spud, not a fan of Bernie giving my sh!t away or that treasonous b!t(h Hillary.
As far as me being angry, hell yes I am! We all had an opportunity to make something good out of this new system and some have failed for their own selfish reasons. The State/DNR/NRB did not put in this system for it to become a free for all for every Tom, Dick, and Harry armchair deer manager/landowner to expand their deer herds on their own property to unrealistic levels. This was put in place to allow the hunting public to have a say in RESPONSIBLE deer management. No one other than the "spoiled brats" who have never known what it is like to hunt an area with an acceptable population in the 20-25 DPSM range think that 45-80+ DPSM is "responsible" in any way. What, you afraid if you only have 20 DPSM that you might find out you aren't as good a hunter as you thought you were? That kills might not be so easy when the herd is at a more "normal" level? When are all the idiots going to realize that the word "hunters" does not mean what it did back in the "Clan of the Cave Bear" days. We are not some "heroes" going out to provide sustenance for the tribe. All we are is a "tool" for the DNR's to use for animal population control, nothing more, nothing less. If game populations did not need to be controlled, or had enough of their own natural controls, there would be very little, if any hunting at all. It is really not all that hard of a concept to grasp. The Gobbermint, States, DNR's, etc, do not give a tinker's damn about your enjoyment of the outdoors, contrary to popular belief, that is just a byproduct of them using us to serve their needs. When a tool in your toolbox is broken, you replace it with another tool, the hunters in areas like Waupaca that refuse to keep their herd numbers under control are just a broken tool as far as the DNR/NRB is concerned, and now the DNR/NRB will replace that broken tool with something that will get the job done, since those hunters are unwilling to do it themselves. What they replace it with is yet to be seen, but it will happen, those deer will die one way or the other. Whether it be season after season of antlerless only deer hunts, sharpshooters, the DNR "encouraging" the return of wolves and higher predator populations, the return of EAB or some form of it, or the hunters actually deciding to step up and decrease the herd of their own accord, it will happen. The DNR/NRB will not let the status quo remain unchecked, those deer will die. I just wish the hunters would have set the precedence, not forced the DNR to react in a knee-jerk fashion with rules like they are now proposing. Those hunters forced the DNR's hand and now they are crying in their cereal. I feel no remorse for them, they dug their own grave, now they must lie in it.
gwm, facetious, maybe? Here's the thing, everyone knew they were going to be getting scrutinized heavily during this first go around, if you didn't, you were a fool. This was the "litmus test" by which our(the CDAC's and the hunting public) decisions will be judged moving forward. Greed and horn porn drove some to make irresponsible management decisions. I said earlier that Waupaca should have followed Buffalo Co's lead with the "Decrease" status and reducing their deer density. Waupaca really should have been leading the charge on the "Decrease" herd designation and should have done their best to see that come to fruition, but they choose to follow their greed. Whatever fate the DNR/NRB decides for them now is exactly what they deserve for their decision to thumb their noses at them the first time and I refuse to feel sorry for them or make excuses for them, that is what liberals do. Maybe those guys should be voting for Bernie, he will give them all the "free" deer they want. Or maybe Hillary, she will be happy to know that the lady deer are getting the "protections" that she so adamantly thinks everyone needs.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
The NRB wants those deer dead, I do not believe they will overrule the CDAC. If the desired results are not achieved, you will either see more years of antlerless only or the DNR/NRB will impose even more drastic measures to reach their goals. Again, best case scenario, this will reinstate some type of EAB-style program that can be monitored against abuse.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
The thing with the MFL deal is that it doesn't seem like an imminent threat for most, as their contracts are likely not up for renewal for many years. Has there been talk of actually revoking the current contracts? That would be the only real threat for most guys, but I would think that would be illegal?
Last edited:
gwm
5 year old buck +
The DNR says the Juneau County Forest Zone has 19 DPSM. Your comment above says that 20-25 DPSM is an acceptable population. Are you advocating for a "Maintain" status in that area then? I'm going by memory here but I believe the Forest Zone had a 24% increase in antlered buck and 3% increase in antlerless this past year. I thought you once complained about the low deer numbers in that area but I must have you confused with someone else. We did have multiple individuals at the last CDAC meeting basically tell the DNR biologist to take their number and put it where the sun doesn't shine as they didn't believe it. One landowner walked out half way thru he was so mad. I'm not sure if they were whiney bowhunters, spoiled brats or just a Fudd but I can say they weren't happy with the numbers the DNR was saying.
Did you make the meeting? There was three individuals from Slinger that made the two hour drive to be there. There was 21 total people there.
I don't know what's going to happen in Waupaca. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. In reading multiple posts, across multiple sites, it seems some complain of not seeing deer and many say they don't have the numbers the DNR says they have. I believe buck harvest has remained pretty static over the years in that county and there was only one person that claimed damage tags last year? I'm going from memory again on those numbers.
I've never hunted Waupaca, or intend to, so what happens there doesn't affect me first hand. What does affect me, and many, many others, is if the DNR takes a position you seem to be advocating for. If the acceptable population is 20-25 DPSM, and we automatically trust the DNR's numbers, where does the line get drawn in the DNR being able to do anything they want?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
First off, no I did not make the meeting, because I was in the process of making arrangements to attend a funeral of a family member in Florida(which is why I was not on here for almost a week), thanks anyway, but family comes first. And good for those guys from Slinger, kudos to them. And yes, I did make the meeting in LaCrosse Co on the 15th, as it was only 10 minutes from my house, and I was not yet in the process of planning a trip to FL. Secondly, when have the hunters of WI ever believed the DNR's numbers, never that I can remember. We ALWAYS have landowners telling the DNR to shove their number, even when it really is 35+ DPSM. The increase in buck harvest is directly related to the inability to shoot antlerless deer(guys are shooting more small bucks because they have no other alternative, I hunted with a group on the Friday after T-Day that killed 7 bucks under 2.5 yo last season in the Juneau Forest Zone), and the 3% increase in antlerless harvest is right on the money with the increased amount of tags issued from the prior season and the fact that I think we are seeing a very slight rebound of numbers in some areas. As far as the 19 DPSM, that could very well be true. The better, private habitat likely has 25+ dpsm and the hard hunted public ground likely has 13 or less dpsm, so an average of 19 is probably close. And yes, my hunting has sucked for quite a few years now, but the point everyone is missing is that we have/had a voice at the table and now we are giving the DNR/NRB a reason to take that away because of greed and that pi$$es me off.
I am advocating for nothing other than a smart and responsible voice at the table with the ability to make decisions on our own, others are advocating for greed. We should be smart enough to know by now that we have to play the game as well. Tell the DNR we are managing for 20-25 dpsm and then adjust our harvest practices to reflect an actual kill to maintain 30-35 dpsm and then keep the numbers in that range. Slightly over goal they will all live with, grossly over goal and they will take our voice away or make it irrelevant. We cannot tell them to stick it and that we are going to manage for the numbers we want in the high 40+ range and expect them to allow it, it is not going to happen, ever! The NRB was on our side last year, now they are leaning towards the DNR on this and that is what is scary, they have the power to turn things right back over to them if they so choose. Believe me when I tell you that most NRB members do not see eye to eye with the DNR on lots of issues, deer being one of them, but most of them are all highly educated, wildlife degree holding folks who will not allow the resources or habitat of this state to be destroyed by greedy hunters or government agencies, that is the job the NRB members are appointed for, and they take it seriously.
I am advocating for nothing other than a smart and responsible voice at the table with the ability to make decisions on our own, others are advocating for greed. We should be smart enough to know by now that we have to play the game as well. Tell the DNR we are managing for 20-25 dpsm and then adjust our harvest practices to reflect an actual kill to maintain 30-35 dpsm and then keep the numbers in that range. Slightly over goal they will all live with, grossly over goal and they will take our voice away or make it irrelevant. We cannot tell them to stick it and that we are going to manage for the numbers we want in the high 40+ range and expect them to allow it, it is not going to happen, ever! The NRB was on our side last year, now they are leaning towards the DNR on this and that is what is scary, they have the power to turn things right back over to them if they so choose. Believe me when I tell you that most NRB members do not see eye to eye with the DNR on lots of issues, deer being one of them, but most of them are all highly educated, wildlife degree holding folks who will not allow the resources or habitat of this state to be destroyed by greedy hunters or government agencies, that is the job the NRB members are appointed for, and they take it seriously.
B
BJE80
Guest
Wisc they can't revoke current contracts. If they did it, it would be for new ones. But I really doubt they do that. I just do see it personally.
Similar threads
