Northern WI Buck Only
- Thread starter strawhead
- Start date
B
BJE80
Guest
Link? Is there a list of counties out yet?
B
BJE80
Guest
B
BJE80
Guest
Only 7000 private land doe tags in Marathon County. I guess I'm OK with that.
bueller
Moderator
Don't forget about the free one issued with all licenses since Marathon is a Farmland Zone. The antlerless quota for Marathon is 13,000 :eek:
B
BJE80
Guest
Ahhhh. yes. Good point. Forgot they are giving those out this year yet.
bueller
Moderator
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.
B
BJE80
Guest
So how many gun hunters will be griping come middle of November that they can't get any meat this year?
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Haven't posted for a few days due to work schedules and twin grandbabies visiting who are now mobile enough to extremely limit computer time:eek::D, but I felt this was a noteworthy topic and jumped on to post during lunch. First of all, to the MN guys. Take this and shove it up your DNR's hole and demand something get done over there. Show it to your state Rep's and ask the hard questions about why your DNR sits on there hands while the DNR across the river is holding nothing back to remedy their situation. This is more fuel for your audit request, an audit is needed to find out why your DNR isn't reacting to the current situation or what issues do they have that are preventing them from making these types of changes as they are needed. Stu, did you ever think you would see the day that only 450 antlerless tags were issued in the old 54A part of Juneau Co? I surely didn't. This should help to give the populations on the Necedah NWR, Meadow Valley SWA, and the Hardwood Bombing Range a chance to rebound. I am also glad the freebie tags don't apply to the Forest Zone's. I for one couldn't be happier about this situation. 50 happy public land hunters in Juneau Co. this year, the rest of the Fudd's can get bent. Get in line, get on the phone, or log on to the web and get your tag or shut up. Maybe this will cause some of the more "weekend warrior" types to find a new place to hunt, and take the pressure off even more. I am glad to see the DNR using sound numbers and science to come up with the bonus tag numbers. 1.56 deer per tag, definitely some research went in to that and it wasn't just a random number pulled from the air. BJE, almost all of them will be unhappy, THIS year. In 2 to 4 years when the population improves and they are having a quality hunting experience, they will totally forget about the year(or 2) without an antlerless tag. I for one have went 3 years without "any meat" due to the low deer numbers in our immediate area, one more season(or 2) won't bother me a bit, it just makes me look forward down the road a couple years to when the hunting will improve because of sacrifices made today. I suppose in this age of instant gratification that won't fly with most folks, but again, they can get bent. Someone may need to give me an internet b!tchslap for this, but I have to say "Kudo's to the WI DNR for listening to the hunters of WI and making hard changes to improve our deer hunting.", and I don't say stuff like that very often.
Last edited:
D
dipper
Guest
Don't forget the DNR was forced to open it's eyes due to politicial pressure. They aren't the heros, they were forced to change. So many are citticial of Walker and his Dr Deer approach, but this is FINAL results of that deer audit. The DNR was not capable of this on their own. There has been alot of "fluff" the media threw around about Dr. Deer, but this is the net result. The media is just incapable of putting all this together. It cost the WI taxpayer $100,000 to force the DNR's eyes open, in the big sceme of things it was worth it.
I often wonder if Walker would have offered QDMA to do a $100,000 audit? I guess they just aren't as credible as Dr Deer is HaHa.....I'm partially joking
I often wonder if Walker would have offered QDMA to do a $100,000 audit? I guess they just aren't as credible as Dr Deer is HaHa.....I'm partially joking
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Agreed dipper, but keep in mind the political pressure had nothing at all to do with Walker(or anyone else with any authority for that matter) having a genuine concern for the deer herd. It was strictly because Walker heard the complaining and said to himself, "If I can do something positive to qwell the voices of the deer hunters it is a potential 600,000+ votes for me." That is all, nothing more. As for Walker using Dr. Deer, I've said before, he needed someone well known and from out of state. It just so happened that when he did an internet search, Kroll's name was the first to pop up and Walker drank the Kroll-Aid, that is why we ended up using Dr. Deer. It could have just as well been Grant Woods or someone else. As far as the DNR not being capable of this on there own I mostly disagree, "IF" they would have been forced to listen to the hunters of WI and forced to act upon those findings, which they were by default of the Kroll report, I feel many of these changes would and could have come about either way. And yes, at this point, after seeing the upcoming changes on the table, it seems worth the expense to me.
Swen17
Yearling... With promise
I'm 50 Yards in to Burnett County. Meaning 50 yards from me Does can be taken. Oh well, nothing can be done about that. Glad they reduced Tags. Never hurts to error on the side of caution. Our 2012 Overwinter Density is listed at 35 DPSM. They raised the management goal from 22 to 25 DPSM in 2010. I guarantee there was little to no Winter kill above the average year the last 2 years. However, 2 years later they halt doe harvest to be sure we don't "pull a Minnesota" and drop too low. Think about that. If they think there is a chance that the county(zone) will drop below 15 DPSM (Guessing 15 or so) they immediately halt Doe harvest. What say you MN DNR??
kabic
5 year old buck +
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.
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.
D
dipper
Guest
Wisc-not saying Walker is a hero, just wanted to point out the DNR isn't either.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
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.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
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.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Unfortunately I feel that will be just one of many, but if you hunted where I hunt, you would call that a small price to pay for long term improvements.
