Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Wisconsin- 2015 preliminary quota recommendations

bueller

bueller

Moderator
You can now view the preliminary antlerless quota recommendations for each county for the 2015 hunting season on the WI DNR website. Follow this link, click your county on the map, and open "2015 preliminary quota recommendation". You can also voice your approval or disapproval by clicking on the "provide input" link.

Juneau County Forest
Quota=470
Public=100
Private=825

I think the private may be a tad high but otherwise I'm very happy with these numbers.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdacsurvey.html
 
Interesting to see the xbow numbers. Really interesting to see how this public land tag works out. You can still use the free doe tags you get when you buy your license on public land right? i don't see this being much of a way to increase the herd on public land when you can party hunt.
 
They voted 5-0 to split Marathon County into two seperate units. North of 29 and south of 29. That is something I suggested they needed to do since Marathon County is so large and so diverse. Hard to set tags on a county wide basis.
 
dipper said:
Interesting to see the xbow numbers. Really interesting to see how this public land tag works out. You can still use the free doe tags you get when you buy your license on public land right? i don't see this being much of a way to increase the herd on public land when you can party hunt.
Click to expand...
In my county, if you add the vbow and xbow buck numbers it equals a buck harvest consistent with past years. At least by me it appears most xbow hunters were vbow hunters that hung them up.
 
bueller said:
In my county, if you add the vbow and xbow buck numbers it equals a buck harvest consistent with past years. At least by me it appears most xbow hunters were vbow hunters that hung them up.
Click to expand...
Yup, it was not quite 2 bucks v to 1 x. The total number of the 2 was pretty close to the historic numbers, but the gun buck kill was down. I'd suspect the x bow led to a few hundred extra buck kills.
From a "trophy" aspect at the taxidermy shop. The older bucks were up big time during bow season, but the gun numbers were way down.
Either way the x bow isn't helping managers increase buck age structure. From what I've seen at this point the xbow is taking trophy bucks from gun hunters. Still early to be conclusive though.
 
dipper said:
Interesting to see the xbow numbers. Really interesting to see how this public land tag works out. You can still use the free doe tags you get when you buy your license on public land right? i don't see this being much of a way to increase the herd on public land when you can party hunt.
Click to expand...

Dipper the free tags you get with license have to be designated public or private for the county you will be hunting at time of purchase.
 
dipper said:
Yup, it was not quite 2 bucks v to 1 x. The total number of the 2 was pretty close to the historic numbers, but the gun buck kill was down. I'd suspect the x bow led to a few hundred extra buck kills.
From a "trophy" aspect at the taxidermy shop. The older bucks were up big time during bow season, but the gun numbers were way down.
Either way the x bow isn't helping managers increase buck age structure. From what I've seen at this point the xbow is taking trophy bucks from gun hunters. Still early to be conclusive though.
Click to expand...
I've heard much the same coming from some counties way up north. Many trophy bucks taken with crossbow but overall numbers not far from average.
 
BJE80 said:
They voted 5-0 to split Marathon County into two seperate units. North of 29 and south of 29. That is something I suggested they needed to do since Marathon County is so large and so diverse. Hard to set tags on a county wide basis.
Click to expand...
That should be interesting. So the whole county is "farmland zone" yet they may break it into two units?
 
bueller said:
That should be interesting. So the whole county is "farmland zone" yet they may break it into two units?
Click to expand...

I believe all they want to do be able to set antlerless quota limits separately from the north half to the south half. I still think it will all be farmland zone.
 
Seems acceptable for the areas I hunt. I would not mind it lower still for where my home farm is but it's still at a number that should allow the herd to grow.
 
BJE80 said:
I believe all they want to do be able to set antlerless quota limits separately from the north half to the south half. I still think it will all be farmland zone.
Click to expand...
That's smart. There's a difference habitat wise between southern and northern marathon county.
 
They really should seek to have it split as Farmland/Forest. It will make it easier to manage in the future if the designation is already in place for the next round of stakeholders that take the reins from the current group sometime down the road.
 
I'm confused to how they will monitor the public vs. private land antlerless tag? I think it's a good idea!
 
They won't until you get caught violating the rule.
 
In my area the 8 year average vbow buck kill is 101. 2014 vbow kill was exactly the 101 average. 2014 added another 60 xbow bucks. 60% buck kill increase in the first year. Since 2006 the previous high was 120. Total of 161 this year is a 34% increase. I had already seen the buck/herd quality drop when they axed EAB. This isn't going to help either.
 
QDMWRKS said:
In my area the 8 year average vbow buck kill is 101. 2014 vbow kill was exactly the 101 average. 2014 added another 60 xbow bucks. 60% buck kill increase in the first year. Since 2006 the previous high was 120. Total of 161 this year is a 34% increase. I had already seen the buck/herd quality drop when they axed EAB. This isn't going to help either.
Click to expand...
Where u located
 
wiscwhip said:
They really should seek to have it split as Farmland/Forest. It will make it easier to manage in the future if the designation is already in place for the next round of stakeholders that take the reins from the current group sometime down the road.
Click to expand...
I agree. I wonder if the DNR will even divide the unit based on the CDAC's vote?
 
bueller said:
I agree. I wonder if the DNR will even divide the unit based on the CDAC's vote?
Click to expand...

Given it is the largest county in the state and has approximately 37% forest, I really can't see any reason why they would deny that request. I snowmobiled extensively in Marathon Co when I was younger, and it was very easy to distinguish that there were 2 distinct habitat areas within the county. It may be more farmland now that 25 years ago, but a line should still surely exist. They are addressing this same type of thing in places with Metro Units. Here in LaCrosse Co, we have such a situation, and they are allowing a separate harvest goal and quota within the Metro section of the unit which is a "Decrease" goal, as opposed to the remainder of the unit which is "Maintain".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top