Private and Public Antlerless Tags

The creation of public and private antlerless tags just got voted down at the Spring Hearings. I am looking for reasons why this was voted down. To me, this was the only way of protecting the deer on public land. There are many large crews that use public land for their meat hunt. I know of several of these crews who do this, and refuse to shoot a doe on their own land. Also, since there is less available access to private land, guys (and gals) are shooting more and more antlerless deer on public land, which has created a deer barren zone in many public land areas. I do not see how this would affect private landowners at all, as they can pick and choose which deer they shoot regardless how many tags for a unit are issued. In fact, I would think private landowners near public land would back the proposal since more of the deer that frequent their land would get protected. So, to me, the people that voted it down are likely the very same people that hunt public land 99% of the time and don't have private land to hunt of their own. Has society gotten so selfish that people would rather see zero deer for the chance if a fawn walked by they could shoot it? Please help me understand some reasons it was voted down because this is the only thing I could come up with.

My condolences stang on the passing of your grandfather.....

"my ideas for one, are not self-serving. i have enough hunts planned in Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana to keep my falls booked for the next 10 years or more. I actually have an Excel Spreadsheet developed to help me keep track of application deadlines, zones to hunt, season dates, tag prices, and ect" stang maybe you should be saving some of the $$ for when you get laid off again or your wife has to take more cuts in bennies?????

Stangl send me that spreadsheet! I always forget those February deadlines!

So now we are back to where we started. NO DEER, and trying to figure out a new system. So why are you against restricting doe harvest? Then Wis DNR bought the program and said that they needed MANAGE the public herd as well. Don't ever remember the DNR implementing any QDM program. Pretty sure the DNR had been managing the herd long before your stated time frame. As you also stated the population fluctuates and regardless of how many deer anybody said we had back in the 90's we had a lot more then, than we do now. The population was growing out of control and the DNR felt they had to do something, hence the bonus tags and eventually Zone T and EAB,. Grandpa I am not going to argue with you about QDM because it is clear you don't have a full understanding of how it works, nor do you like the program, which is fine. I don't give a rats arse what the hunting regs are because my group is versatile and open minded enough to adjust and enjoy our hunt. We will make the best of it, if not, we will continue to hunt KS and IA. I have said it all along, the average WI hunter will fill every tag they have in their pocket or buddies pocket if the opportunity presents itself. We are greedy and want to get ours while we can. We can restrict harvest all we want and the population will climb until we are at numbers like the 90's. Then when we have a problem again more tags will be given out and guys will fill their pick-ups with deer and we will have this conversation all over. People have done this through out history. Until the majority of hunters care more about the resource this cycle will probably go on forever. One other thing, the amount of years you have been hunting does not mean poop to me. I know some old timers who don't have a clue and I know some college age guys that really get it. Just because you have sat the same swamp edge for 60 years does not make you an authority on hunting and what is right. Everybody keeps throwing their hunting stats out, BFD! In the end all we have is our opinions but time served does not make 1 better than the other.

Lookin and Jc, You have to bring QDM and EAB into the conversation, because they both are about buck to doe ratios. QDM was private and EAB was public. Both programs were about killing does to balance the herd to the landscape. I am not against new ideas, but, once they are in effect it is very hard if not impossible to change them. If you go back 15/20 years ago there never was a problem or complaint about deer season, all went hunting and had a good time. About that time hunting became all about big bucks. QDM, does that ring a bell ? a better buck to doe ratio so that bucks were more active during the rut, or was it for better herd health ? Then Wis DNR bought the program and said that they needed MANAGE the public herd as well. The only problem is that they did not know how many deer they had on the public land and proceeded to kill way to many. So now we are back to where we started. NO DEER, and trying to figure out a new system. I have hunted deer since 1961, I have seen the herd grow and then be depleted, I have seen all of the ideas you put forth, and every new idea is self serving. Look, if you want to shoot big buck's , just don't shoot the first one. I made that decision 20 years ago, but I never tried to force everyone else to do the same. Does it really matter if I have 10 or 100 deer on my property ? Does it really matter if I shoot a P and Y buck every year? Does it really matter if I hunt public land and see another hunter ? You see evry thing that you have proposed is about YOU . I have my own land, but a lot of hunters pay taxes in some way shape or form to pay for that land you want to control. Public land is just that. Limit what can be killed on it and you have solved the problem. With the new 67,000 acres there should be plenty of places to hunt.

I didn't mean to make it sound like your idea was terrible before, I do think parts of it do have merit. I definitely was not saying no because I thought it was hard, I just don't think the overall mentality in this state would allow for anything like that. Then again, I'm probably in the minority as a public land hunter because I think the hunting is still decent. Of course I'm sure it matters where I go (4 different counties last year), but I see deer so it's hard for me to jump on the band wagon all the way. I guess that makes me think smaller changes.

Well said.

I wish some of you would leave QDM out of this discussion. Doe harvest is just a small part of QDM if it is even needed. QDM is about improving habitat and managing a well balanced deer herd based on that habitats capacities. Mature deer are a benefit of a good QDM program. Guys passing up "small" bucks and calling it QDM are not doing the program justice. Trying to implement any level of QDM on public land would be a disaster especially since most don't know what it is and have proven they have no intention of learning. Maybe if we can limit the slaughter first we could move forward. I certainly don't need a booner behind every tree but knowing one is in the area is pretty motivating if large antlered mature bucks are your thing. Stangl, I think your ideas have a lot of merit but I think people envision your system to be far more restrictive than it would be. I still feel at a minimum if doe tags were limited on public land it would help until the population recovered and everybody did what they have been doing for years and shooting every deer they have tags for. Most sportsman are pretty greedy whether they admit it or not.

"So EAB and QDM became the standard. That meant that the private and public hunters needed to kill of the doe population and it was done. Now this whole program has backfired and some of you are trying to figure out a program to get the deer back. Stangl, I think you are trying to over engineer this whole subject. I think if we just go back to the late 60's and seventy's it would all work out. We do not need a booner behind every tree" EAB and QDM have nothing to do with one another. EAB was instituted to reduce the deer population, that is it. QDM is about shooting does to improve the buck/doe ratio, and to protect smaller bucks. The late 60's and 70's were much different than today. You could gain access to private land very easily back then, and if land wasn't posted you could hunt it. Hunters could evenly reduce the deer population in WI because most land wasn't off limits. Today you simply cannot hunt nearly the same number of places that you used to. As such, if you managed deer like the 60's and 70's and only had hunters choice tags or party tags, the deer population would explode in many areas of the state. Too many deer isn't good either. Managing private land and public land seperately has nothing to do with trophy management. It is designed to reduce pressure on antlerless deer on public land. No difference on the number of bucks or size of bucks shot. I honestly cannot understand how reducing pressure on antlerless deer on public land is a bad thing.

Stangl,my prayers are with your grampa. I want all of you to look at Wis hunting. For many years it has been the best. Then, along came QDM, good for private land. Some how every one at the DNR thought that it was a good idea. Now along comes EAB and big bucks became common. So EAB and QDM became the standard. That meant that the private and public hunters needed to kill of the doe population and it was done. Now this whole program has backfired and some of you are trying to figure out a program to get the deer back. Stangl, I think you are trying to over engineer this whole subject. I think if we just go back to the late 60's and seventy's it would all work out. We do not need a booner behind every tree.

I agree lakeshiner, and that is where Stang and I differ. It would never fly in WI. However, restricting antlerless tags on public land, or managing deer seperately between private and public land would be rather simple. That in itself would decrease pressure on public land. If guys don't have doe tags available for public land, they would likely reduce the amount of time they spend on public land for antlerless deer. People are not going to hunt as much if they only have a buck tag to fill on public land. If they have access to private land and antlerless tags are available there, they would likely hunt the private land if they purely were hunting for meat.

Pretty sure that would never fly. It may sound good, but you won't be able to restrict hunter access to public lands. I thought people got mad about EAB, but I bet this would cause even more of an uprising. It doesn't have anything to do with greed. People will be ticked because they are being restricted from hunting public land period. Whether they shoot something or not is irrelevant, it will be an access issue. A good way to think of it is that it sounds like those Kroll accusations running around, and we all know how well those went over It also assumes hunters will be spread out which is false. There is nothing saying that those who can go won't all hunt near each other. Deer aren't everywhere in the woods, so hunters who know what they are doing won't be spread out evenly. I know a lot of places where I could sit and not see other people, but I won't see deer either. Also, losing hunters is not an option. They are constantly trying to bring more hunters into the sport, not decrease it. That is a big reason as to why I don't think this would ever happen. Blame it on the almighty dollar or whatever. Those are just a few things that I think need to be included in a plan for it to have any chance of happening (realistically).

"you following me?" if you have to keep asking this your plan is not simple!

JC, the DNR has been using a estimated GUESS for the last X number of years and I do not think that is working out real well. Now, there is about 400 acres of land around my place that was bought with the assistance of the Knowels / Nelson money that is not huntable. In the winter all of those deer on that land feed in the neighbors fields. So tell me what is the real count of deer on the neighbors land and on the land that no one can hunt.

I believe they already have a good deal of information to at least come up with a quality educated guess. The registration stubs already ask if the deer harvested was from public or private land. Based on using harvest numbers and by the percentage of publicly accessible land in a unit, it would be very easy to come up with a pretty good plan.