Let's hear some alternate proposals to those suggested by the DNR
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Let's hear some alternate proposals to those suggested ... - 11/7/2009 12:01:23 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
Ok, it's apparent that the general public believes that the DNR has gone rogue from what its true mission is. That being the case, lets hear some other suggestions for workable regulations for all to enjoy.
I'll make my suggestion first...
Tags are no longer sex specific, but a (1) buck per hunter per year rule is installed for all seasons, number of tags available determined per DMU. Crop damage tags are available, antlerless only, any unfilled tags at the end of the season are returned to DNR and crop damage payments reduced accordingly.
or
Tags are sex specific and an antler point restrictions are installed, number of antlerless tags available determined per DMU. Southern part of State with 6 point total (brows and 1" plus points count) minimum (unless first time hunter/youth hunt); northern part of the State with 4 point totatl (brows and 1" plus points count) minimun (unless first time hunter/youth hunt); Crop damage tags available, antlerless only, and unfilled tags at end of season are returned to DNR and croop damage payments reduced accordingly.
I would also ban baiting statewide, but could be persuaded to not include if one or the other of the above were to be instituted.
Also, would be all for some sort of state sponsored private lands open to the public program, but not sure yet how to fund such a program.
Lets hear some other ideas.
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/7/2009 10:59:05 PM
|
|
|
Bigfoot
Posts: 59
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
|
the day antler point restrictions comes to wisconsin is the day i retire from hunting(and the 100 acres that i own will have zero hunters on it)
and yes let's continue to call for a baiting ban...........yet in the cwd zone the rate of infection went up 6% in bucks and 3% in does last year despite bait being banned for SEVEN YEARS their......so when do we get to start talking about banning the holy grail called food plots(even if it's just in the cwd zone???)
< Message edited by Bigfoot -- 11/7/2009 11:02:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/7/2009 11:45:47 PM
|
|
|
dmcianfa
Posts: 444
Joined: 9/23/2008
From: Upriver
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dan Salmon
Also, would be all for some sort of state sponsored private lands open to the public program, but not sure yet how to fund such a program.
Lets hear some other ideas.
This is already in effect through MFL and FCL through tax breaks. But, I think you will be hard pressed to find public land owners in wisconsin willing to let every tom dick and harry frequent their property. Most just lease out thier farmland for the cash. This proposal would be shot down in a heart beat and who's going to turn down cash to ransacking public hunters. Just my thoughts that this wouldn't go over well.
_____________________________
"I enjoy and become completely immersed in the challenge and the increased opportunity to become for a time a part of nature. Deer hunting is a classical exercise in freedom. It’s a return to fundamentals that I distinctly feel are basic and right"-F.B.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/8/2009 12:11:40 AM
|
|
|
Osty
Posts: 87
Joined: 1/15/2009
Status: offline
|
I'd like to go back a little to how the seasons were with a slight twist.
5 different seasons (bow, crossbow, muzzleloader, youth gun season and gun season)
Have bow season start the traditional date.
In October, allow crossbow hunters to start hunting.
In October, youth season weekend.
In November, traditional gun season, 9 days.
End of gun season, muzzleloader with bow/crossbows allowed.
Stipulations:
1 tag for archery (bow or crossbow) for either sex deer.
1 tag, buck only for gun (gun or muzzleloader season).
All tags get a bonus tag for other units (similar to what's in place).
-Regular unit - have to get a hunters-choice permit (like in the 80's, 90's)
-Overgoal unit (herd control) - gun tag becomes either sex, bonus permits available.
-EAB unit - Shoot an antlerless deer and then a buck. Gun tag becomes either sex. You can also earn one more tag for a buck for any season/weapon. You could potentially shoot 3 bucks in one year.
Reasons: Regular units will be at or below capacity. Overgoal units would are not way over and are within the 20% overwinter goal. EAB is focused more on a harvest of does. The extra buck tag is incentive: You have to buy a 2nd antlerless license in order to qualify for the extra buck tag. DNR gets money, herd gets reduced with more kills. I wouldn't mind having an option to shoot 2 deer with say a bow or gun instead of just 1.
Crossbows: why not touch a segment of hunters who want to use this weapon? More hunters for the sport, more chances to harvest deer. Youth gun season is a must because that helps the youngsters get involved early.
I know some would balk at the 3 buck limit but if that area is EAB you would need to shoot at least 3 does in order to get the tags. A lot of the responsibility is on the hunter on who and what they harvest.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/8/2009 12:23:25 AM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
I don't understand the hostility toward antler restrictions or a one buck rule.
Isn't that the basis of QDM that is all the rage on private land in this state? And, I believe, responsible for at least half all of this disagreement between the public and the DNR in the first place?
Why not have QDM on a state level, wouldn't that level the playing field? Isn't that essentially what the DNR is trying to do? Or is it Trophy Deer Management that is being practiced on private land? If the point of QDM is to produce a healthy deer herd then why so much resistance?
It seems, to me atleast, that all/most private land owners the practice some sort of QDM believe they are entitled to shoot bigger bucks and more bucks because they spend the time and money to create food plots, etc. that help to grow more antler? If what they are doing is to try to produce bigger bucks, it seems as though the message of QDM has been lost and really all that is being practiced is Trophy Deer Management.
As a comparison, how many dairy farmers shoot their best producing cows/bulls? The ones that I know don't, they take care of them like sons or daughters so as to produce more and possibly better animals for the future. Yet you see all these guys out shooting the biggest bucks they can at every opportunity? That seems to be a conflict of interest to me, doesn't it?
dmcianfa,
You are correct, I guess what I'm trying to get at is for more access in the southern part of the state. In the north, MFL and FCL are great programs. And I do agree that damage occurs, but don't believe that it's all that common. I would say that in order to get access you should have to sign in or slide your DL or something. Again, how practical/impractical that is, you can about imagine, but would be a way to track who was on the property and possibly be used to reparations if needed.
I'm not a fan of leasing and would be all for a change to law that would lower the monetary payment thresholds that would require a landowner to have to carry liability insurance due to accepting money for sole hunting rights also possibly lessening/hold harmless land owners that allow the public access to their land. In my opinion, and I have a few as you can see above, this would be a huge step toward gaining back lost hunters. However, I doubt that this will every happen with our huge problem with trial lawyers in this state/country and the seemingly easy money that comes with this to the general public. No one, it seems, actually believes that they need to work anymore to provide for themselves or their families, lets just sue the neighbor and let him pay for the way I want to live.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/8/2009 10:29:15 PM
|
|
|
Osty
Posts: 87
Joined: 1/15/2009
Status: offline
|
I am not in favor of antler restriction or spread restriction. What is the role of the hunter? To shoot deer and bring levels down. The more restrictive you get, the less deer will be shot. If you have the property to support QDM or TDM, sure, make up your own restrictions. OR if you are successful enough and want to raise your standards, go ahead. Because I hunt near public land and only get a few days to get back for gun season I do not have the option to be fussy. I think QDM/TDM works in the right conditions but not for Joe Public. I've always been in favor of harvesting a deer, not concerned about the size.
We've been restricted to 2 bucks a year (non-CWD areas). WHy not have a 3rd buck option? I know some hunters would rather shoot 2 or 3 bucks with bow or gun.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/8/2009 10:56:13 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
If you are trying to control the herd population, the most effective way is to harvest antlerless deer, correct? Where is the incentive to help the deer herd when 3 bucks can be harvested before an antlerless deer would need to be harvested? Not to mention the pressure now placed on the buck population both in hunting pressure and breeding pressure on younger deer.
I think if you talk to anyone from Pennsylvania prior to antler restrictions, they had little or no hope of shooting a buck bigger than a spike or fork horn. Is that the way you want it to be here? If you make the opportunity to harvest multiple bucks per year the priority, then I think you are toeing a fine line that can possibly take you to the Pennsylvania extreme prior to antler restrictions and I'm certain that the cry of hunters would be much worse than it is now.
I also find it funny that so many are so quick to criticise when things seemingly go wrong, but have nothing constructive to add or are able to propose new techniques/ideas to create conditions that will provide a compromise between opposing interests/polocies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 12:57:19 PM
|
|
|
Wolf River Hunter
Posts: 127
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline
|
I'm really not interested in any way, new or old, of reducing a deer heard that has already been sufficiently reduced. I don't feel the need to come up with an alternate plan to EAB. For me it's simple, I won't be shooting does on my property until I feel the heard has returned to an acceptable level. As far as I can tell the only action that has gotten the DNR's attention is groups of hunters closing off blocks of land, that is the course I will take. Hunters have showed up in force and voiced their opinions. If the DNR wants options all they have to do is listen. Formulating new plans and new ideas has run it's course. As many have pointed out, hunters ultimately hold the power when they pull or don't pull the trigger. That is the power I will exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 1:03:20 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
So, in essence, you are stating that there is no need for the DNR. More or less. Private landowners are more responsible and more knowledgeable?
More power to the landowners that close off thier land, it's just too bad that they don't understand that it is not going to get the results that they want. Closing off more land and not filling tags will only make the DNR resort to having to use other methods than sport hunting to bring the population down to the levels they think are warranted.
If anything, this will only exacerbate the problem and bring about even more liberal regulations in the face of unorganized opposition to current regulations, correct?
< Message edited by Dan Salmon -- 11/9/2009 1:20:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 1:36:14 PM
|
|
|
schlupis
Posts: 703
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
I would like to see hunters get 1 buck tag and 1 doe tag (not antlerless) Doe tag, because a nubby buck is not a doe. If a hunter kills a nubby buck he has to tag it as a buck. I mean really you should know what your target is before shooting. If a hunter wants to buy another Doe tag it should be full price and limit too one extra tag per weapon meaning 1 for bow 1 for gun/ML
I would like to see the T-zone hunts gone altogether. and Dont take this the wrong way get rid of the youth hunt in October aswell. They should hunt on opening day with the rest of us. I had to and I had to sit with my father till I was old enough to hunt on my own, I find nothing wrong with that.
We need to stop splitting up these seasons so much WI regs are the most confusing of any other state period. Archery should start in Sept followed by Rifle season in Nov then ML ending out the season with Archery season again.
I am also not a fan of the socalled need for crop damage tags you could get rid of that excusse to just kill deer altogether. My fatherinlaw is a farmer and has hundreds of acres and has never once gotten a crop damage tag along with all the other farmers in his area. All of them say the same thing there is no need for them, and this is coming from Farmers themselves. They tell me the geese and turkeys do more damage then the deer.
I am against the banning of baiting aswell I dont do it as much as when I was younger because we plant food plots now but Once in awhile I like to throw some corn out for deer, planning on doing that this weekend so I can kill a doe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 2:07:42 PM
|
|
|
Nubs
Posts: 224
Joined: 11/11/2008
From: Northwest Wisconsin
Status: offline
|
Dan, you sure are being harsh on other peoples view points. You asked for suggestions they gave you some and then you turn around and attack their suggestions.
Here is my suggestion.
Regular archery season starting on the first Sat. before Sept 15th.
Regular 9 day gun season starting on traditional date.
ML season starting after gun season.
Archery season starting after gun season.
Each DMU will have a set number of antler-less tags available for over the counter sale, once they are gone they are gone.
No antler restrictions, or extended seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 4:06:36 PM
|
|
|
hunt4fun
Posts: 231
Joined: 8/31/2009
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
|
Archery season starts the same as always. Allow crossbows to be used starting the first weekend in October (I prefer a vertical bow, but I don't care what my neighbors shoot as long as they are proficient).
Keep the youth hunt, but no other special gun hunts (t-zone, holliday, etc.)
Traditional opener of 9 day deer season, followed by muzzleloader hunt.
Bow hunting permitted throughout the state during all gun seasons, with requirement that blaze orange be worn.
Gun buck tag can be used as a second archery buck tag.
One doe per hunter, limited (an honest limit, not a 20,000 tag limit for a single unit) bonus tags sold over the counter. No EAB
Bow season closes after Dec. 31
HAVE DNR PROVIDE INCENTIVE FOR FARMERS TO GET CORN FIELDS CUT BY OCTOBER 31!!---That last one is just wishful thinking, but a guy can dream, can't he?!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 4:40:01 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
Nubs,
Not trying to be abrasive, just trying to show another viewpoint to ideas given and get better response or discussion as to the why of those viewpoints. But I do see how it may sound like I'm being harsh on other's views. So, I will say that I'm sorry for that and will try not to make future posts that reflect any nonintentioned bias or belittling of other's views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 6:11:12 PM
|
|
|
Fish
Posts: 233
Joined: 11/28/2008
Status: offline
|
I think if you talk to anyone from Pennsylvania prior to antler restrictions, they had little or no hope of shooting a buck bigger than a spike or fork horn. Is that the way you want it to be here? If you make the opportunity to harvest multiple bucks per year the priority, then I think you are toeing a fine line that can possibly take you to the Pennsylvania extreme prior to antler restrictions and I'm certain that the cry of hunters would be much worse than it is now.
I correspond with individual and biologist just about on a daily basis in PA. The last thing you want are antler restrictions. If you think EAB was bad...... Your selling the sizzle instead of the steak.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 6:46:28 PM
|
|
|
hunt4fun
Posts: 231
Joined: 8/31/2009
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
|
Fish: just out of curriosity, why do you think antler restrictions are bad? I don't really have a bias either way, so I'm wondering what the negative is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 7:14:02 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
Yes, Fish, enlighten us. You give the impression of someone in the know on a lot of issues, but never really deliver any of the goods. I'd like to hear why too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/9/2009 10:13:06 PM
|
|
|
Old Guy
Posts: 68
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline
|
Fish
I'm not sure of what you mean. Are antler restrictions Good or BAD ?
Hunt on
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/11/2009 2:00:22 AM
|
|
|
Whitetailaddict
Posts: 118
Joined: 2/2/2009
From: Washburn county WI
Status: offline
|
All I can say is I'm just not in favor of having more bucks killed. I like it the way it is. You can shoot a buck with your bow and one with the gun. That seems good to me. If I see a good buck with my bow i'll shoot it, and if I see a bigger buck with the gun I want to shoot that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's hear some alternate proposals to those sugges... - 11/11/2009 9:13:33 AM
|
|
|
Old Guy
Posts: 68
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline
|
Fish
Thank you very enlightening. I guess my cousins got it partly right we quit shooting yearling fawns on his property years ago. Like you suggested pass on the 1 ½ year old bucks, but may be take it one step farther and shoot all 1 ½ old spikes and let 1 ½ old forks go.
What do you think?
Hunt on
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
