Limited season for Xbow's?

1/30/18 @ 12:25 PM
ORIGINAL POST
Alex the dog
Alex the dog
USER since 12/27/01

Anybody catch at the January 24th Wisconsin NRB meeting Gregory Kazmierski's proposal to change the Xbow season structure for able bodied individuals due to % of buck harvest with xbows being higher than verticle bows and firearms?

Note no proposed dates are given, just looking for approval to limit the number of days one can hunt with a Xbow.

Here is the webcast of the NRB meeting, watch at the 5:45 mark for the proposal to come up as a possible question at the spring hearings: 

http://dnrmedia.wi.gov/main/Play/6dfc8e3...86-756192a62f17

I can only imagine what that will start among Wisconsin sportsman.  Maybe long bows can hunt all season, vertical bows get 2/3 of the season and xbows get 1/3 of the season then everyone has equal opportunity at a buck.

Regardless of what an individual uses we should all be concerned if this is acted upon because what type of equipment will be limited next?  Can't use vertical bow that shoots faster than 300fps or maybe only single pin sights vs. multi-pin or the new range finder auto adjusting.

Alex



Post Your Comment
Displaying 81 to 90 of 191 Posts
2/7/18 @ 6:16 PM
Fishsqueezer
Fishsqueezer
USER since 5/19/06

“Frankly, that is conjecture. There is no proof the bait ban has had anything to do with buck harvest numbers or even overall deer harvest.”

You are right, there is no “proof” but there is certainly evidence to support my theory. 

“You are applying a year's worth of statistics for 3 counties to a trend with several confounding variables.”

What confounding variables? Hunter effort is the only one You can point to, and it can certainly account for some of the harvest drop, but it certainly wouldn’t account for the majority. Show me the numbers. All three counties had been buck only for 3+ years and all adjacent comparible non baiting counties had been buck only for 3 years or had very limited doe harvest. The one thing that changed was the baiting regulation in the three counties from 2015-2016 otherwise habitat, winter, predators are all similar.

“If you can find any information on harvested buck age structure increasing that will help your argument, and frankly I would welcome to see such a positive result.”

70% yearlings in the NE northern forest in 2016. I’m not sure exactly which counties this consists of...

“There is nothing out there that I have seen, or that DNR has touted, that more bucks survive in areas where baiting is banned. Every study the DNR has referenced shows that baiting has no inherent advantage for success.”

I agree, HOWEVER 1.) why do you bait if it doesn’t increase success?

2.) Would success rates for baiters remain the same when compared to non baiters if the baiters lost the ability to bait? Like I said before, Joe Schmoe would have a hard time without his corn pile. 

“In addition, DNR themselves have blamed baiting and feeding for population explosions. According to DNR studies, banning baiting and feeding reduces the fawn crop and eventually 1.5 year old bucks (reducing buck recruitment).”

In my neighborhood, yes, in the more vast areas of public land, highly doubtful. 



Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 2:29 PM
JC-Wisconsin
JC-Wisconsin
USER since 4/1/05

"JC, if there ever was glaring example looking you right in the face this is it. The bait ban in these three counties achieved exactly what you are advocating, less young bucks shot during archery which carried over to the gun hunters, which ultimately led to more bucks surviving to 2.5 for the next year improving the age structure. "

Frankly, that is conjecture.  There is no proof the bait ban has had anything to do with buck harvest numbers or even overall deer harvest.  You are applying a year's worth of statistics for 3 counties to a trend with several confounding variables.  In addition, the second year after the bait ban should show a larger increase in buck harvest with your theory (obviously higher amount of bucks available) in these counties compared to surrounding counties, but the numbers don't show that.  If you can find any information on harvested buck age structure increasing that will help your argument, and frankly I would welcome to see such a positive result.  There is nothing out there that I have seen, or that DNR has touted, that more bucks survive in areas where baiting is banned.   Every study the DNR has referenced shows that baiting has no inherent advantage for success.  In addition, DNR themselves have blamed baiting and feeding for population explosions.  According to DNR studies, banning baiting and feeding reduces the fawn crop and eventually 1.5 year old bucks (reducing buck recruitment).

To top it off, my argument on 1 buck per hunter is an attempt to spread the success rate out to other hunters.  Banning baiting does no such thing.  You still have guys shooting multiple bucks every year.

"The CWD in Oneida was from captive deer and has not been found in the wild. The response would not be near what it was in 2001. I live in Oneida county and bow hunt public land, I really haven't noticed a drop off in bow hunters in the areas I go."

I am hunting on public areas where the exact situation occurred.  I guess it is a coincidence that the public land I frequent showed a massive shift of hunters to the counties allowing baiting.

Don't get me wrong, if baiting saved any statistical amount of bucks without losing license buyers I would be all for it.  I have not seen it, and there is no data available (yet) which shows this. 

Again, why again are you so insistent on shooting 2 bucks, or having the option of shooting 2 bucks or more per year?  With party tagging, extra buck hunts (youth and muzzleloader), longer seasons, more efficient weapons, etc. shouldn't we restrict buck tags?  Why on earth is hunting in other states so much better for buck hunting?  They limit bucks to 1 per year, or they have a lottery draw for a buck tag.  The easy fix is to STOP SHOOTING SO MANY DEER.  I also concur that if the DNR stops issuing unfathomable amounts of antlerless tags, we would see a bigger uptick on buck success rates moreso than any other change.  I just don't see an honest attempt ever being made again to cut back on antlerless tags to actually make a difference.


Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 12:50 PM
.Long Barrels
.Long Barrels
USER since 12/9/14

Fish,  you speak the truth.  I wouldn't mind one bit to pay 30-35 for a bow tag.  I'm going to pay $100 if that's what it's got to be.  I love it,  i'm going to do it at any price.  Not everyone is like me and that's cool,  but drop in license sales just means they need to be more creative.  What about paying $10 for a permit to leave a tree stand on public...with the pretense that others can hunt it if they find it.  Public is public after all.

Bump up the non rez tag $20. I know nowadays there is permits for everything,  regulations for everything but if you intend on having a quality herd and good hunting,  you have to think of the herd first and generating the needed revenues second.  Some states do this,  it's about the animals,  not the Government's pocket book.

Edited on 2/7/18 12:51 PM
Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 11:13 AM
Fishsqueezer
Fishsqueezer
USER since 5/19/06

Good Post LB!

JC, if there ever was glaring example looking you right in the face this is it. The bait ban in these three counties achieved exactly what you are advocating, less young bucks shot during archery which carried over to the gun hunters, which ultimately led to more bucks surviving to 2.5 for the next year improving the age structure. Every little bit helps, right? But I'm the one with my head in the sand. Without any real numbers, pinning it purely on hunter effort is complete conjecture. The CWD in Oneida was from captive deer and has not been found in the wild. The response would not be near what it was in 2001. I live in Oneida county and bow hunt public land, I really haven't noticed a drop off in bow hunters in the areas I go. There may have been some who decided it wasnt worth the time if they couldn't put out their corn behind the cabin and wait, but there is no way hunter effort alone accounts for or even contributes significantly to those three counties being the only counties in the state that saw a reduction in crossbow harvested bucks. If we do lose the hunters who feel they won't be successful if they are not waiting at a corn pile, good riddance. I'd then support your plan to "adjust the price of a (license) to offset any loss of license sales." 


Edited on 2/7/18 12:20 PM
Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 9:51 AM
.Long Barrels
.Long Barrels
USER since 12/9/14

JC, that's the problem....all the snow flakes.  I don't understand why everyone gives a crap about the next guy that doesn't want to hunt anymore.  I say great,  go take up golf, water polo or watch a good WNBA game . To me,  less hunters means a more quality herd.  Wisconsin doesn't have a quality herd and that's a fact,  I mean the average buck is 1.5 years of age.  That's just mind blowing.

We had EAB,  folks complained but still shot every deer in sight.  Then complained about no deer.  So the DNR got rid of EAB because loss of revenues.  Then the baiting ban.  People followed suit and cried.  WI says,  OK OK OK,  you guys can bait now, please come back and keep the tradition alive.  If you have to bait to keep a tradition alive you really aren't concerned about the tradition. 

WIDNR takes a reactive approach to everything.  For one, you don't need a bait pile to kill a deer.  you need a good set of boots and find areas the deer are using more. Period. I don't care if you hunt public or private,  there are better areas to hunt if you put in your time.  People are friggen lazy.  It's the truth and until people realize it your hunting won't change.  I know many people hunting the northwoods. there are sections that people hunt and others understand that.  The public in the northwoods is public,  but kind of private as people stake claim somewhat.  I hear it all the time.  Well you know what, rather than walking out the cabin to bait your station,  get off your arse and drive 7 miles to a different area.  I know some run miles of baiting stations...i'm not saying everyone just jumps out the cabin and hunts the public a block away. 

If people really truly care they make a change.  if they don't care and just out to spend quality time,  then not seeing anything shouldn't be a big deal. Rant over

BTW,  i give props to the people that bought Xbows and are out hunting.  I personally know 3 people that shot bucks with Xbows that didn't buy a gun license.  That's awesome!  They got the meat they needed and didn't just go out to shoot something they didn't need.  To me,  that's a win for wisconsin.  If more did that,  things would improve.

Edited on 2/7/18 12:36 PM
Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 9:36 AM
.Long Barrels
.Long Barrels
USER since 12/9/14

Lake,  good question.  I think the answer to that is BIG MARSHES.  Even though they put a hurt on them every year,  enough live.  Big marshes will always save plenty of deer.  it's the deer that get pushed into the stands of timber that die.  Mature deer know to just lay down so many get shot,  obviously many make it.

Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 9:35 AM
JC-Wisconsin
JC-Wisconsin
USER since 4/1/05

"I was just futzing with the deer metrics database, the crossbow buck harvests in Oneida, Forest, and Vilas from 2015 to 2016 fell not just a little bit, but precipitously, like 25-40%. Every other northern forest county was up...a lot. What other explanation could there be to account for this????????"

One big explanation is the number of hours in the field in those counties after baiting was banned, the number of bowhunters/crossbow license buyers in the affected counties, and the number of guys hunting in neighboring counties where baiting was allowed.  When CWD was first discovered and baiting was banned, the number of archery licenses dropped greatly, and the number of guys on public land dropped because of the bait ban.  There was not much of an impact where people had private land especially with ag fields.  When baiting came back, the license buyers came back and public had the hunters back.  I hunt on bordering counties where bait bans are enforced and others where it is allowed.  There are definitely more people baiting and hunting within a couple miles of the border now, which would in tune increase the number of deer shot in neighboring counties.  There are a lot of bowhunters that do not know how, or have even tried, to hunt deer without a bait, so they either quit or go to a neighboring county when a ban is enacted.  This happens much more frequently where there is a lot of public land with little available food sources.  

You can argue for a statewide bait ban, but keep in mind that much of the northwoods public land bowhunters/crossbow hunters will not purchase a license.  For guys with private land with food plots or ag fields, that would be the best thing they could hope for.

Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 8:48 AM
lakeshiner
lakeshiner
USER since 7/20/09

I agree with you on gun season Long Barrels.  I think the lack of access to private lands is actually what keeps the deer population where it is.  Hunters can pound the heck out of the accessable properties and the deer just hole up on the non-access places.  After the season they disperse out again.  My theory as to why you can piss pound a spot and still have deer the next year anyways.  Like refuges.

Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 7:30 AM
PSE
PSE
MEMBER since 11/25/05

The end result is not to have "hunting", the end result is to "manage" a natural resource. If the tool or tools used to manage the resource leads to a mismanagement of the resource then you make changes.   

Post Your Comment
2/7/18 @ 6:11 AM
.Long Barrels
.Long Barrels
USER since 12/9/14

JC,  it's not that i hate gun hunters,  i just hate how the mindset changes when you put a gun in someones hands.  They get stupid, NOT ALL,  but most i talk to.  It's all about pushing everything, shooting everything.  I was out on public this year with a few groups.  I went because it was something to do.  I didn't hunt,  just walked because I like to see new ground.  It was simply pathetic what i saw in these guys.  i was actually disturbed by the greed and lack of remorse.  No matter what it was,  if it moved it died.  really?  Just sick.  I know that happens all over.

Post Your Comment
Displaying 81 to 90 of 191 Posts