MENU
Lake-Link Home
LOGIN
Lake-Link
LOG IN
CORONAVIRUS STATEMENT FROM LAKE-LINK

NRB Questions for spring Hearings

1/22/20 @ 4:35 PM
ORIGNAL POST
no-luck
User since 12/14/12

The Department of Natural Resources board on Wednesday approved six questions for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress' April hearings. 

                                                                                                                       

The questions ask if people would support extending the nine-day gun season to 19 days; eliminating the December antlerless-only season; prohibit hunting during the days before the nine-day season; eliminate management zones; limit the crossbow season to October and after the nine-day gun season; and invalidate bow and crossbow buck tags during the nine-day season.

DISPLAYING 21 TO 30 OF 57 POSTS
FILTER OPTIONS
1/27/20 @ 8:55 AM
.Long Barrels
User since 12/9/14

If I see another idiot post about WI PNY & BNC entries i'm going to go postal.  SUCH A STUPID comment time and time again.  

1/27/20 @ 3:35 AM
icefishingbestfishing
User since 11/27/19

I read through all the posts in this thread and I agree with what JC-Wisconsin and others have said.


If you want more people hunting -  we need more deer. Why is this so hard to understand? Want people to hunt? Then give them a chance to see deer. This isn't rocket science. 


I am really saddened by this proposal. 

1/27/20 @ 3:24 AM
icefishingbestfishing
User since 11/27/19

One shot one kill, I'm rolling on the floor laughing here at that couples comment

1/26/20 @ 3:53 PM
One shot one kill
MEMBER since 8/12/02

About 30 years ago or so , a longer season was discussed at the meetings  . I believe it was also for 19 days . A hillbilly couple in front of me were complaining  , what if you can't take 19 days off  !! I tried to explain it was not mandatory you had to hunt all 19 . They couldn't understand  it .

1/26/20 @ 2:02 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

Amazing when some people can't see or handle the facts and the truth. Especially on an area they aren't knowledgeable about. In regards to extending gun season to 19 days. You don't create or extend a season because a few people think it is a good idea or want it or think it will sell more licenses.  You create or extend a season because there is a biological need, example serious overpopulation that is affecting the environment,  other species or ecological balance.  THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL NEED FOR A 19 DAY GUN DEER SEASON AS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATE IS NOT OVERPOPULATED WITH DEER!. THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE NEEDS TO INCREASE THE DEER POPULATION. 

1/25/20 @ 11:49 PM
no-luck
User since 12/14/12

Ref: extending the current nine-day gun season to 19 days 

Has anyone actually have any seen any Data that pertains to this question.

I see that the assumption is that the 10 days will be added after the end of the traditional rifle season.

These are the possibilities that I see:

19 day season could start on Nov. 1 or could start 10 days before Traditional, or could run from Nov. 5 to 24 every year, or who knows.

Do you trust the NRB or the legislature to do the right thing?

1/24/20 @ 10:57 PM
LittleLuck
User since 2/16/17

TimT,

The habitat is excellent and has even improved from years ago. More logging than ever with a lots of young growth browse including poplar. Also oaks with lots of acorns, ag nearby. There is absolutely no doubt the dnr issuing unlimited doe tags for many years ruined hunting here. I have hunted deer, bear, grouse, pheasant, waterfowl, coyotes in this area for 40 years. I know the land better than the locals and the local dnr biologist. I told the dnr for the last 15 years or more they were issuing too many doe tags but they didn't listen now very few deer. Add predators including wolves, bears, coyotes, bobcats and uncertain winters and it will be very difficult to grow the deer population to decent levels. Especially when we are at a 30 year low.  Again the DNR does deserve the blame as they failed badly using their highly flawed SAK population estimate for years and still are using it. They even used it after the former DNR chief deer biologist admitted to me the formula was flawed and not working in my part of the  state(doesn't work anywhere in the state) and they didn't know why. Yeah that makes sense(really?) and they are still using SAK statewide. What a joke.  


1/24/20 @ 9:31 PM
Tim_T
User since 6/17/11

littleluck,

Please explain how you can have great habitat and few deer. That doesn't add up. There may be a chance that the habitat has changed? Old timers have told me about the change from the good old days. Maybe you can't blame the DNR for everything?

Tim

1/24/20 @ 12:41 PM
Fishsqueezer
User since 5/19/06

All of us would rifle hunt if we didn't get a buck with the bow/crossbow.  

Yes captain obvious. 

Show of hands...how many bowhunters would kill a forkhorn during archery season if that meant they couldn't gun hunt for a buck?  

Hand. Other than spending time with family I almost rather despise gun season. If I can get a deer with my bow gun season becomes far less important. If I get a buck with my bow I’m certainly not spending money on a gun license (or anything else related to the gun hunting trip) in a buck only zone with a one buck rule. I’d rather take a week bow hunting in my gun area where I’m not competing with ATVs and bait piles. 

Do you think by chance there may end up being more bucks available during rifle season?  

Probably not. See above. 

Fact is many bucks would not be killed during bow season and would be available to other hunters. Rifle season success would theoretically improve.  Success rate is a large factor inhunter recruitment.  

I think you have this backwards. The trend is more hunters abandoning gun hunting for stringed weapons. Tell me why this is bad. Why does gun hunting have to be the be all end all? 

So, since you don't agree with having more bucks available and want to protect the ability to shoot two bucks, 

Because the five ish percent of hunters who do is not a problem in any way shape or form. 

what other suggestions would you have? 

End party hunting, make the buck tag public/private for each weapon, ineligible to purchase public doe tag if selected private buck tag unless they are available during the leftover sale or have the doe tag mirror the land type if private bow and public gun buck are chosen (still where zones dictate doe harvest), zones based on habitat rather than counties and consolidate CDACs to about 20 (72 now, many less volunteers required) responsible for several zones of similar habitat (snow belt, drift less, etc), have the quota meetings on a Saturday in early June or late may and livestream. 

 You are of the mindset of DNR where shooting bucks makes no difference in deer populations - which is correct.  

Agree. Female mortality rates dictate population growth or decline. 

But why then do other states limit buck harvest to 1 per hunter per year?  Easy: it spreads out success rate, and it slightly improves quality. 

Quality by whose measure? What does quality even mean? Very subjective if you ask me. I’m sure your definition of quality will differ from mine. My whole overall point is I don’t want someone else dictating to me what a quality hunt is. 

 If you are managing purely to "control deer numbers" ala DNR's vision, then no wonder why you don't care about limiting buck harvest.  Why then should we not allow for 3-4 bucks per year for every hunter?

Excellent use of sensationalism. 95 ish percent of hunters would still shoot only one if it were 10.



1/24/20 @ 11:36 AM
JC-Wisconsin
User since 4/1/05

"Show of hands...How many northern forest hunters would quit gun hunting with a one buck rule?"

All of us would rifle hunt if we didn't get a buck with the bow/crossbow.  Show of hands...how many bowhunters would kill a forkhorn during archery season if that meant they couldn't gun hunt for a buck?  Do you think by chance there may end up being more bucks available during rifle season?  Fact is many bucks would not be killed during bow season and would be available to other hunters.  Rifle season success would theoretically improve.  Success rate is a large factor inhunter recruitment.  

"The fact remains that the percentage of hunters registering more than one buck in a year is in the low to middle single digits. Those numbers equate to about one buck per something like 6 square miles of deer habitat. It just is not a problem. "

So, since you don't agree with having more bucks available and want to protect the ability to shoot two bucks, what other suggestions would you have?  You are of the mindset of DNR where shooting bucks makes no difference in deer populations - which is correct.  But why then do other states limit buck harvest to 1 per hunter per year?  Easy: it spreads out success rate, and it slightly improves quality.  If you are managing purely to "control deer numbers" ala DNR's vision, then no wonder why you don't care about limiting buck harvest.  Why then should we not allow for 3-4 bucks per year for every hunter?

In my area of the state, people shooting two bucks a year (bow/crossbow and gun/muzzleloader) is still very common.  One of those bucks may had eventually ran in front of a kid starting hunting.  It is much easier to retain a young hunter if they have success.


DISPLAYING 21 TO 30 OF 57 POSTS
Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.