Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Deer Hunting 2010 Wisconsin gun deer season proposal - sucks

We are done listening to the WDNR talking out of both sides of their mouth in our area. They encourage us to be stewards of the land and provide wildlife habitat then turn around and ask us to blast the heck out of the herd. We go to the public meetings and we have questions about less deer sightings and one WDNR manager will say that was by design....herd reduction goals are being met and the hunters are doing a good job...another manager will tell us deer move and one particular week of hunting is not indicitive of a low or high population. So on and so forth.

They buy up land around us, burn the buildings to the ground, tear up the fences and then walk away. Brush and invasive plant species take over the public land and they call this land management.

Our lands will not be completely closed to deer hunting...we will be more selective on who hunts and what is harvested. This is not unusual in this state...there a deer management organizations all over the state.

I'll see your "horse pucky", and raise you a "reality check".

You had escalating deer harvests in that DMU for almost 8 years. Your harvest in 2009 still exceeded 2001 when your DMU was at goal.



Congratulations. Your "public action" affects 3% of the DMU acreage.

Look at the "Harvest" in units 1 and 2 (Bayfield and Douglas counties). The pitiful numbers for the last few years have dropped directly in proportion to the massive spike in wolves.

The rest of the state has been affected, to a degree, but these counties have been absolutely devastated,

Ok, but, his action does affect his 3%, and perhaps a bit more of the surrounding area. For RO that is a positive.

I'll see your "reality check" and raise you.

The WDNR will not admit their DMU over winter goals are based on sound data. It is arbitrary. I have approached several wildlife managers on the subject in the past including Keith Warnke and his boss Vander Zouwen. Their reponses are full of I believe, we think so, but, but, etc. If you want to hang your argument on their pre-set goals have at it.

In your internet paper analysis did you seek out just where the deer kill occured within the DMU? Was the harvest heavy in the north, south, east, west or central portion of the DMU? Is it not possible to have low deer density in certain areas within a DMU? What does the registration stations data tell you?

What percentage of the DMU harvest record occured outside of the DMU zone?

In closing, thank you for the congratulations and the enlightened "GrandView" of my backyard.

grandview-

Over/under goal is quite relative as we're talking about a board of people that insist that their numbers and processes are solid, and, without peer in the states that truly embrace deer management. The WI DNR has continually stepped on their collective dicks with regards to wolf, bear and deer counts, and, in a very roundabout way have admitted so.

I'd long been a proponent of the WI DNR as their role is certainly not without complexity and rationalize that they should be better equipped on wildlife biology than I. I've changed my tune in recent years because the level of arrogance and inability to listen has reached epic proportions.

They are no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. They're a recurring PR nightmare of their own doing. And it's time the state of WI adds a helping of reality to its science and that comes from actually listening to hunters across the state instead of constantly citing science and talking down to them.

The goal setting is hardly arbitrary. It is based on specific management units. It is derived from the size of the DMU, the physical habitat of the DMU, the hunting pressure of that DMU, and the tolerance of deer population to car/deer accidents and habit destruction.

There are necessary things to consider far beyond what the typical hunter wants.........what they consider "enough" deer to kill. Any reasonable analysis of Wisconsin's deer population over the last 40 years will prove that. I've been hunting deer in this state since 1961. A bit over half of that in Columbia County......the last 22 years in Bayfield County.



It is certainly possible to have deer inequitably distributed across a single DMU. In fact it is a dead certainty that they are. Which is one of the reasons that hunter reactions to "low deer densities" in the area they hunt is of questionable practical value in relationship to the area the herd is being managed to.

There is way more problem with deer distribution across this state than there is in population numbers. And that goes for individual DMU's also.



Hunters would intentionally incorrectly record their harvest? Say it isn't so!



You have defined 4K acres of area within a 158K acre DMU that you don't think has enough deer. The history of population and harvest for that 158K acre management unit shows deer population escalating over goal and a commensurate harvest.

So you believe the DNR should manage to your unique 4K acreage. Is that about it?

That's not the worst scenario I've heard expressed. A lot of people think the statewide herd should be managed to their specific 20 acre parcel.

Escalating wolf population is certainly taking a toll. I hunt in DMU 6 in Bayfield County so I can attest. In addition, the rising wolf population is coupled with a herd that is intentionally being reduced, and aided by two consecutive bad weather years that surrounding states experienced also.

I might add that the two northwestern units you cite are no where near as bad as some of the northeastern units.

Not to mention that the wolf problem is basically out of the hands of Wisconsin's DNR.

Bingo!!!!!!

75% of the reason I'm done hunting there ( I can say that now ) Having worked with CO's for about 10 years.... I was on their side. Even they don't have clue anymore as to what is going on in the DNR org. Too much red tape and B.S.

The meetings are all for political show. They don't listen, and their adgenda is already on it's own track well before they set foot in a meeting.

Which is EXACTLY why it will be in the hands of the resident farmer, hunters, and citizens.

No more BS from the State. They've proven their dumbphucktitude over and over, not to mention the last kick in the dick to the hunters and fisherman by the dnr...the partnering with the HSUS. Duck the FNR.

So.......the state has a "dumbphucktitude" because they adhere to federal restrictions on wolf management???

Federal restrictions that farmers, hunters, and citizens are somehow exempt from..........or who will intentionally disregard them?

And your conscience is somehow salved because you intend to lay that off on the state DNR?

I think what Tom is saying is that the inability to adequately gauge the populations of both wolves and bears is darn near laughable.

No, the state cannot do anything about the wolves. They can, however, take into account their numbers and adjust their deer index "science" appropriately. And, FWIW, the state is the one responsible for bringing them back. Can't say I mind having wolves among us, I can say it's ridiculous to not have a plan at the time of introduction.

I'm in a much different frame of mind. I have studied deer management in Wisconsin and neighboring states for close to 10 years. Everything available in public-accessible media.

There isn't 3% of the hunters in Wisconsin that have done the same and can tell you how goals and estimates are derived in this state. Nor can they tell you (or admit) how hunting and private land management/private wildlife management practices have changed over the last 10-15 years. Basically their major reaction to warden observations of these practices in that time span has been...."They're labeling us as lazy hunters!!!!")

The DNR isn't perfect. They don't always get it right. No state management entity is perfect....nor right all the time. But they are nowhere near as imperfect as the presently aroused hunter population tries to portray.

I've listened and read virtually every complaint, observation, analysis, and proposed corrective action from this "disenfranchised" hunter population. As is typical of anything in the public arena........this voice is largely selfish, ignorant to any other factors other than their own, and largely myopic and self-centered. It's how things work in this day and age..........argue your own specific issue from an extreme position.

There remains a large difference between "wildlife management" and "hunter management". Aldo Leopold recognized it..........and probably was the first to place it in the public arena.

Expand on that if you would please....

Wow! If unit 6 is worse than 1 & 2, I really do feel for ya. Condolences. For real. It's like the early 70s again, except much, much less land to hunt.

Not an inapt analogy.

If goal levels were instantly established in Wisconsin......and that would mean raising population levels in many north and northeastern DMU's.......it still wouldn't be nirvana for many hunters.

The deer statewide harvest was just under 40,000 the year I started hunting. And I was hunting in the southern part of the state where the deer herd hadn't yet taken a strong hold on.

However, we were at liberty to hunt virtually anywhere we wanted. We had access to those "pockets" where deer were.......if we could find them. We roamed a 4 county area at will looking for them. Those days are certainly gone.

But from a management perspective, you can't "inflate" a deer herd to a specific small area to satisfy what is now a rather "stationary" hunting population. Distribution of the herd will continue to be an escalating problem in a time when the mobility of the hunter is becoming more and more restrictive.

I think there is indeed a lot of small sandbox mentality when it comes to this subject. But I also think there are many more folks that would like to see the bigger/long term addressed so we're not in this same boat in years to come. The problem IMO, has more to do with trust and competence of the DNR than it does Ed from Neopit not seeing a buck last year.

My observations and complaints aren't based on whether I see less deer on a couple of tracts that I hunt - I'd like to think I'm a wee bigger picture than that. I have many friends scattered around the state; rationale, reasoning, educated people that simply don't understand WTF is going on. Good hunters that cannot see a DEER in a 9 day season and the DNR puts it in a EAB or Tzone the following year. It's not limited to Joe that hunts on 20 acres in Pembine or Bill that hunts 200 in Hortonville. Yes, I understand there's more to all of this - the problem is that I don't see anyone in the DNR connecting the dots for anyone.

You're asking people to believe in a political run agency that's been very wrong on a number of fronts, yet are still asking people to be patient and to let professionals do their job. You cited Aldo Leopold earlier and I found some irony in that because he's the very one that sought to insulate the DNR from the politics.

I may have been hasty in my "bringing them back" statement as I'm well aware that they were here in the 70's.

The Timber Wolf Recovery Plan in 1989 (IIRC) is to what I was referring......

Oh....OK. I thought I was going to hear the "Wisconsin DNR planted wolves" story again.

The Great Lakes states all developed a "Wolf Recovery Plan" to reply to the Endangered Species Act that afforded protection to wolves in 1973. Having adhered to those plans, the respective states certainly showed that the wolf populations rebounded. In my estimation, and that of many more professionally qualified people, to the extent there exists viable permanent populations in the Great Lakes area.

However, animal rights groups recently did a much better job of proving their point in court than any opposition to them. I think it's using a "sliding scale"....considering the respective Wolf Management plans were ostensibly approved by the Feds when they were established. Whatever.........a better case must be made in court, with the appropriate time for public input as defined by the court.

Fortunately a lot of farmers, landowners, and hunters have wised-up to what's going on at the Wisconsin Department of Mismanaged Resources and are taking matters into their own hands on their properties.

If deer hunting is going to be saved in this state it will be the hunters and landowners who will do it, not the arrogant, managerial, political hacks at the DMR.

They are going to spend millons of our tax dollars on several useless studies over the next couple of years when all they would have to do is listen to what hunters, farmers, and landowners have been telling them. Idiots!