MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

The great bow /crossbow debate

10/31/18 @ 1:32 PM
ORIGINAL POST
str8shot
User since 11/19/10

Since I have about 2 months to burn being laid up and haven't been on in a while, I figured I would see how some fellow lake linkers feel on the topic of crossbows now that they have been legal in the archery season for a few years. 

I'm interested in knowing WHY (big emphasis on the "WHY")….you either do or don't support having them being a part of the archery season. 

As the thread progresses I figure I'll have chances to support my own thoughts on the topic.





DISPLAYING 41 TO 50 OF 520 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS

2/1/19 @ 2:10 PM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"I see your line of thinking however I don’t think it’s that simple. Wouldn’t success rates climb anyway as a result of 1.) the decade long trend of declining hunter participation (this is a nationwide trend) and 2.) somewhat increasing deer numbers? Aren’t buck success rates more a function of population trends (higher overall deer pop, higher buck success rate)? How would going to one buck affect the doe harvest? "

I see it as the same as now...you manage for a total deer population.  Hand out antlerless tags to meet deer population goals.  You may end up with a slightly higher buck to doe ratio.

"How many public land guys have up and quit when a drive goes by opening morning at 10:00? "

I last rifle hunted public land about 3 years ago on opening morning.  I had a drive go right under my stand, but I did not quit at 10:00AM.  I quit at 8:00AM.  They came through at the opening bell.  

2/1/19 @ 1:48 PM
Fishsqueezer
User since 5/19/06

I see your line of thinking however I don’t think it’s that simple. Wouldn’t success rates climb anyway as a result of 1.) the decade long trend of declining  hunter participation (this is a nationwide trend) and 2.) somewhat increasing deer numbers? Aren’t buck success rates more a function of population trends (higher overall deer pop, higher buck success rate)? How would going to one buck affect the doe harvest? If Joe Sixpack has one buck tag and a doe tag he’s going to fill the doe tag waiting for his precious one buck. This would be fine in the southern 2/3 but more problematic up north. Or Joe Sixpack filled his buck tag with his bow and fills his doe tag with the gun when he could’ve shot another fork. That doe can no longer give birth to a buck or other does who give birth to bucks. I think best case scenario it’s a wash with more antlerless tags being filled to compensate. 

I’d be on board with ending group hunting, even just for public land tags so the amatuer deer managers can manage their properties as they see fit. I’d also suggest make the buck tag public/private like the antlerless tags and even make it such that if a hunter chooses a private buck tag, they can’t buy a public antlerless tag until the leftover sale. I’m sure some hunters would be negatively affected but that right there would remove a lot of pressure on public lands and increase hunter satisfaction significantly. How many public land guys have up and quit when a drive goes by opening morning at 10:00? 

2/1/19 @ 10:59 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"It’s just preposterous that we have to limit the amount of bucks harvested because we are interfering with natural selection."

My argument is we should limit the amount of bucks harvested because too many young bucks are being shot in my opinion.

"As we continue to lose hunters the buck harvest will be dropping anyway. Go to one buck or limit crossbows the result is still mostly 1.5’s getting shot only a few thousand less...insignificant. "

That is where I will always disagree with you. One way to retain hunters is to improve success rates. Limiting hunters to 1 buck will only reduce the number of bucks killed slightly. However, it will increase success rates per individual hunter. Many more bucks will be passed with archery or crossbow equipment that otherwise would have been shot. Will a guy risk burning his tag on a 1.5 year old buck at the expense of having to skip rifle season? Many will, many won't. Ending party tagging and limiting hunters to one buck will improve individual success rates. You seem to claim that adding a "few thousand bucks" to the landscape is insignificant. If those few extra bucks are shot by people that are on the verge of quitting, or a new hunter, that may entrench them into the sport for life.

Is it worth throwing that away just so a 45 year old hunter can shoot TWO forkhorns?  

2/1/19 @ 7:43 AM
.Long Barrels
User since 12/9/14

 There are so many other factors determining whether a wild free ranging deer reaches an older age besides it’s genes. 

Yes,  75% of the Wisconsin hunting population is what's keeping most of WI down, the age structure pathetic.  Period. 

Look at other states.  Kansas has 20 times the coyote population,  Illinois,  Iowa same thing.  Lot's of big bucks there.  The predators aren't getting them all,  that's just a WI thing.  The bears, wolf's and coyotes are eating all the deer here.

Most people shoot 1.5s cause they are dumb and easy to kill.  many want to harvest and not hunt.  I know a few guys that kill the first buck that walks by.  Done opening weekend.  It's not a bout the hunt here,  it's about the kill.  To each his own,  but nothing is going to get better if you kill all the small ones.  I personally don't even want to kill a 4.5 on opening weekend, I hope i never have the chance.

Everyone claims they don't care about shooting a big buck,  they are liars.  

I understand that not all hunters want to kill for the rack or for the challenge.  That's totally fine.  Going out to kill for meat is what it's all about.  My point here is that the old mentality of shooting a small buck for meat is a generational thing. We need to educate hunters that it's ok to kill a doe to eat. Doe eat better anyway.  you are NOT going to kill all the doe.  Just don't fill every tag the DNR gives you.  Shoot what you can eat and the hunting will be better all around.  I understand many areas can't shoot doe yet.  That's actually is a blessing and a curse.  I personally would not even shoot a small buck to eat.  I'd go to a piece of public somewhere to kill a doe where it's allowed.

1/31/19 @ 11:23 PM
Fishsqueezer
User since 5/19/06

I can’t believe I’m even having this argument with someone as well spoken and seemingly informed as you. Deer evolved over hundreds of thousands of years in the presence of a multitude of predators and much harsher conditions than they face now. They are well equipped for the posh life they have these days. The last 50 years is a drop in ocean of evolutionary history. We are having zero effect on the genetic fitness of the deer herd. There are so many other factors determining whether a wild free ranging deer reaches an older age besides it’s genes. Predator avoidance is a learned behavior utilizing the fruits of evolution, winter survival is much more of function of habitat and competition (density) than anything. It’s just preposterous that we have to limit the amount of bucks harvested because we are interfering with natural selection. With that in mind what then would be the proper amount of bucks to harvest to prevent disrupting natural selection? As we continue to lose hunters the buck harvest will be dropping anyway. Go to one buck or limit crossbows the result is still mostly 1.5’s getting shot only a few thousand less...insignificant. 

1/31/19 @ 6:51 PM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"So why would we harvest these animals instead of allowing them to pass their superior genes evolved over the last 50 years? If anything, if your hypothetical scenario was the case, you shouldn’t harvest any old, large bucks."

Let's see. Harvest a buck with good genetics at 1.5 years old in September and they pass along ZERO genetics. Shoot it during rifle season and they MAY pass along genetics to one set of offspring. In a herd with a natural age class, they most likely don't even breed their first year. Shoot a buck at 4.5 years old, and they have passed along their set of genetics to 3-4 sets of offspring.  

"Another question, not to rehash this this, but in some of our past exchanges you stated allowing baiting allows more deer to survive the winter thus increasing productivity. How does this affect natural selection that is all of the sudden of importance in this threads context? "

Again, I have never been a proponent of FEEDING deer in winter, and baiting should be used only as a tool to harvest deer.  We shouldn't be feeding deer with the sole purpose to help them through winter.  I don't care if you are baiting or not baiting, shooting 1.5 year old bucks removes natural selection almost completely.

As I stated in previous posts, in the frenzy of the DNR attempting to do anything possible to outlaw baiting, they published that baiting can lead to higher populations of deer.  You can believe that as however you wish.

1/31/19 @ 6:18 PM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"Where did I say i supported a 50” size limit? Only if biologically necessary, but I think you will find pretty much every lake with a 50” limit is sustained by stocking so it really is a social issue and terrible comparison in this context. "

You didn't, and if you were against it then I can understand.  However you didn't.  It is biologically necessary to have a 50" size limit for muskies?  Really?  You have been saying reducing buck harvest and selective buck harvest is PURELY a social issue and has no biological umphhh behind it, and of course is a direct comparison.

1/31/19 @ 5:22 PM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
User since 7/9/12

Lol Wicasa!

1/31/19 @ 4:35 PM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
User since 7/9/12

Them things are 2 grand or more!!! Lol

1/31/19 @ 4:32 PM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
User since 7/9/12

I agree with JC. If anybody who wants more mature bucks mixed up with population, you have to concur, ....a little? 

Note: I’m with ya on that Raven! Lol

DISPLAYING 41 TO 50 OF 520 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.