MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN

NRB overruled CDAC recommendations

6/28/20 @ 10:58 AM
ORIGNAL POST
madforlabs
User since 12/20/12

The 2020 deer season(s) structure was recently announced. Noteworthy is the fact that the Natural Resources Board led by Kaz (as usual) chose to overturn 11 County CDAC management recommendations. Most of these dealt with antlerless harvest recommendations in Northern counties. 

Irrespective of how one feels about the direction CDAC or NRB have gone with these specific management decisions, seems to me that any legitimacy the CDAC had has just gone out the window. Why invest volunteer effort in local testimony,  committee membership or any other efforts for that matter when Kaz and crew continue to make capricious and (often) unscientific management decisions. 

Hard to believe but Wisconsin appears to be reaching new lows in deer management decision making. 

DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 74 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS
TODAY @ 10:46 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

There is no need whatsoever for any antlerless harvest on any public lands north of highway 64 

I would say public lands south of HWY 64 have even been more ravaged, especially in farmland units where free public land doe tags are handed out to anyone who purchases a license....brutal.

TODAY @ 8:31 AM
robertwhite
User since 3/18/08

".....set by balanced fair county CDACs representing both sides of the issue with a compromise for all sides. 

…..It’s time to utterly ignore the forestry interests also......" 

Um, ok?  That seems contradictory.  Fair CDAC's that represent everyone, but not really, just as long as folks who want what they want get what they want.    

TODAY @ 8:16 AM
Farnorthbadger
User since 12/7/13

IF our WDNR wants to stop Wisconsin deer hunters fleeing the sport here’s an easy solution that will work in the framework of their own unlimited predator policy  Northern WI .

Zero antlerless harvest north of highway 64 on any and all public land at least until wolves are managed.

 Extremely limited antlerless harvest on private land as needed voted on and set by balanced fair county CDACs representing both sides of the issue with a compromise for all sides. 

There is no need whatsoever for any antlerless harvest on any public lands north of highway 64 . It’s time to utterly ignore the forestry interests also , bargaining deer numbers in good faith with them will get your deer  herd crushed and fast.  After some of the worst Wisconsin  gun hunts in a generation or two they will still complain about a single deer left browsing . 

 It really can be and is that simple the big IF is does our WDNR even want the deer hunting tradition here as in the past ? If this isn’t fixed and fast Wisconsin hunters will go elsewhere or just quit altogether. I’m still on the fence as that week of gun season has probably the best fishing of the year and would be a much better use of my time with how badly the deer herd  in N Wi is currently being managed. 

7/9/20 @ 9:14 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Robert

I should have clarified that if you reduce the doe tags the deer  population will increase with both bucks and does  Buck kills will go up as more does breeding produce more does and bucks. Increase buck kills population is increasing. You want to get to the historical buck kill average before you start adding doe tags to maintain the population. While doing this you also look at metrics car kills, crop damage, fawn recruitment, etc. It is very difficult to grow the deer herd on public land up north because the numbers are at or near 30 year lows . A main reason for this is years of over harvest of does due to inaccurate SAk population guestimates.  Throw in very high predator populations with wolves, coyotes, bear, bobcats and add in some harsh winters. Even with buck only on public land up north it is still real difficult to grow the herd. For years I have been telling dnr in Madison and local biologists need to do more to control predators.  I real predator management plan. A start would be increase bear and bobacat tags. Maybe add a bounty on coyotes and don't require a small game or any license to hunt or trap them. In South Dakota I believe they have like a $5-$10 bounty on predators which helps the pheasants and cattle ranchers. I think all you have to do is bring the tail in to get paid.

7/9/20 @ 4:29 PM
Fishsqueezer
User since 5/19/06

From a deer management perspective, this makes little sense.  Doe harvest drives population dynamics.  The benefit it would have is it would potentially increase age structure of bucks on public land.  When the problem is few deer on public land, you protect antlerless deer - restricting buck harvest does little for population.

I’m aware how doe harvest drives population trends. It’d be more of a Hunter management regulation. Public land hunters would benefit greatly. I think the end result would be at a minimum less doe harvest pressure on public lands. I don’t think there’s a whole lot you can do to increase doe harvest on private lands outside earn a buck.

Restricting buck harvest I am all for - but it is easier to first reduce buck harvest to 1 buck only statewide (choose your weapon) and/or shorten seasons.  However, for the guy that owns 10 acres by his house, he is basically restricting himself to his 10 acres and not allowed to hunt on public land.  Or, he hunts public land and deer don't get hunted on his private land ->exactly the opposite of what the ultimate goal is (increase harvest on private land and decrease it on public land).  

Not everyone wins in that scenario and you are right, ten acre guy might get the short end of the stick. Ten acre guy can pick public land if that works better for him so saying he would not allowed to hunt public is not accurate. It’s just a choice one would have to make.

In addition, the issue is hunters with private land are not shooting does on their own land, and utilizing public land for their antlerless/meat grocery shopping hunts.  I see this all the time on the public land I hunt where crews are making drives and filling every public land farmland unit tag they have.  They go back to their private land and sit on their food plots/baits in the evenings waiting for a mature buck.  The same crews have access to hundreds of acres of their own land, but the only ones allowed to shoot antlerless deer on their own land are first time hunters.  These same crews have ruined my deer hunting - opening morning - making drives through large chunks of private land.  They are gone in the afternoon sitting over their food plots.  That is why I quit hunting public land during rifle season in this area. 

This is precisely what I am getting at. When coupled with the elimination of party hunting on public tags, deer drives on public are greatly reduced unless they have shooters with valid tags. That right there would improve the public land experience immensely. 

7/9/20 @ 3:54 PM
robertwhite
User since 3/18/08

".....If kill numbers are increasing and getting more in line with the historical average and your objective is to increase you are heading in the right direction.  If your kill numbers are flat lining or decreasing and you are way below the historical average you are heading in the wrong direction and you need to decrease the doe tags or have none. When you get near you historically average kill level you add some doe tags and work on maintaining that population.....

This is kind of a rhetorical question, but if you reduce the amount of tags (in response to falling kill numbers), won't your kill numbers go down the following year?.....because there will be fewer tags. I mean, the intent of reducing the amount of tags is to reduce the kill.....right?

I'm a deer hunter.  I'm a deer hunter who grew up hunting in northern WI during the 90's, when there was an absolute pile of deer.  I remember seeing upwards of 20-30 during the 9-day on 80 acres.  Now, I can see maybe 4-5 on the same 80.  I'm fine with that.  I have no expectations that the deer herd will ever reach the numbers they were at in the late 90's early 2000's....and no expectations that they should.



7/9/20 @ 1:53 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

There really is a solution and it is the way the cdacs were intended to work. Not that complicated. First get rid of the dnr bogus SAK presentations at the cdac meeting which is propaganda designed to influence cdacs into issuing way more doe tags than needed or if any are needed at all especially on public land. Second cdacs should look at all the metrics and that tells you what is going on with the deer population.  Third if you issue doe tags or not look how it influences the metrics including and especially the kill numbers. If kill numbers are increasing and getting more in line with the historical average and your objective is to increase you are heading in the right direction.  If your kill numbers are flat lining or decreasing and you are way below the historical average you are heading in the wrong direction and you need to decrease the doe tags or have none. When you get near you historically average kill level you add some doe tags and work on maintaining that population.  No bogus SAK needed.  It really isn't rocket science and that difficult.  The dnr always tries to make thing more difficult than they need to and always screw things up with deer management.  Keep it simple.

7/9/20 @ 12:32 PM
fishnhunt14
User since 4/17/07

Another vote here for giving out 0 antlerless tags for public land and making a set amount available for purchase at $12 per tag. Makes sense on all fronts.

7/9/20 @ 11:26 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

Good post.  Lets fight for reparations due to the mismanagement of the deer herd the past 20+ years.

7/9/20 @ 11:25 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

1. Make the buck tag public or private, or at least the gun buck tag 

From a deer management perspective, this makes little sense.  Doe harvest drives population dynamics.  The benefit it would have is it would potentially increase age structure of bucks on public land.  When the problem is few deer on public land, you protect antlerless deer - restricting buck harvest does little for population.

Restricting buck harvest I am all for - but it is easier to first reduce buck harvest to 1 buck only statewide (choose your weapon) and/or shorten seasons.  However, for the guy that owns 10 acres by his house, he is basically restricting himself to his 10 acres and not allowed to hunt on public land.  Or, he hunts public land and deer don't get hunted on his private land ->exactly the opposite of what the ultimate goal is (increase harvest on private land and decrease it on public land).  

In addition, the issue is hunters with private land are not shooting does on their own land, and utilizing public land for their antlerless/meat grocery shopping hunts.  I see this all the time on the public land I hunt where crews are making drives and filling every public land farmland unit tag they have.  They go back to their private land and sit on their food plots/baits in the evenings waiting for a mature buck.  The same crews have access to hundreds of acres of their own land, but the only ones allowed to shoot antlerless deer on their own land are first time hunters.  These same crews have ruined my deer hunting - opening morning - making drives through large chunks of private land.  They are gone in the afternoon sitting over their food plots.  That is why I quit hunting public land during rifle season in this area. 



DISPLAYING 1 TO 10 OF 74 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.