5 year old buck +
Haven't seen this posted, WI NRB has approved 19 counties in northern WI as buck only. This will be good for most areas.
Yep, the anterless quota for Juneau Forest Zone is only 450! Only 50 public land tags will even be sold and as we know there are LOTS of public lands in the zone :). I haven't seen the fawns yet but we had several momma's with at least one in their belly on our cameras a couple weeks ago.Yea I was surprised we even made it in the central forest zone. I think the population by us is rebounding nicely. Soon enough we'll be complaining about too many deer again. :)
13% of the total state's antlerless tags are public land. Wow, the divide continues. Waupaca county has only 4% of tags public. Way less then Portage or Shawano counties. Will a Private land Dmap hotspot in a Zero tag county get tags issued?
I think your looking at the 13% number from a different standpoint, the past number of antlerless kill off of public land is skewed and is part of the problem with the current population declines on public properties. First of all, in most areas with little public land(i.e. portions of Nofo's area and most other parts of the Farmland Zones) 13% could be right on the money. Ask yourself this, "Is the percentage of public acres in my given area more or less than 13% of the total land?" If it is less, then yes only 13% or less of the antlerless harvest should be shot off public properties in that area. If 13% of your counties land area is public and you harvest 40% of the antlerless deer from that 13%, that is when the issues and complaints of not seeing enough deer arise in the first place. Or look at it from this standpoint, if your public acreage is higher than 13%, are you trying to increase the herd? If so, then again you should be shooting 13% or less of the antlerless harvest off those public lands. If you continue to harvest a high percentage of antlerless off of minimal public acres, how do you expect to increase the population on those public lands to numbers that are acceptable to the "Joe Average" hunters. It is bad enough that deer seek out the better habitat on private lands as it is, without overharvesting them from the lesser habitats and causing those few that call public land home to move on to private lands even more. I totally agree that public land antlerless opportunities will be greatly diminished for a few years until the population in some of those shot off areas starts to rebound, but if this system works out the way the DNR seems to have it planned out, in 2 to 3 years those opportunities will return and the hunting will be better. I fail to see how this is any different than the way it was back in the days of "party tags" for antlerless deer, the problem is most guys hunting today don't have any clue what the "party tag" system was or how it worked. Same way when the state went to the "Hunter's Choice" permit, again which many do not remember. Everyone has gotten used to the more recent days of unlimited T-Zone and Herd Control tags and extended seasons which all led to overharvest on these public properties. One thing to consider as a private landowner, "Are you willing to drive the antlerless deer off your property and onto public lands to increase the hunting opportunities for public land hunters to harvest an antlerless deer or allow public land hunters to come on to your property to harvest a "private land" antlerless deer?" The obvious answer is "NO WAY, I might run the risk of chasing a buck off my land only to have it shot on the public land!" So given that response, how else would you recommend that the tags be doled out to the masses to prevent over harvest on public properties? It has to be based on available acres of public land and whether or not your herd is in need of recovery on those lands. As sad as it sounds, the number of guys that want a tag or go without an antlerless tag has no relevance to the equation whatsoever.I didn't read the report but did they release the past anterless harvest percentages that was public land vs. Private land?
If I remember correctly when you registered your deer one question was what county and another was public or private land so they should have the data. I'm curious how close the 13% is to past harvests on public land.
I totally understand where you are coming from dipper, the only ones in this situation that might be called "hero's" are the 7000 folks who went to the spring hearings and the 8400 folks who took the time to fill out the online questionnaire's. I really believe that those responses caused the DNR to react the way they did with the rule changes. Had no one spoke up, the drastic changes in harvest numbers may have been considerably less than what is on the table for some of those depleted areas.Wisc-not saying Walker is a hero, just wanted to point out the DNR isn't either.