NRB Questions for spring Hearings

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.

"Eyesman"   -   Your post says a lot. Somewhere along the way the DNR advocated there were to many deer, so they started to incorporate ways to thin down the numbers by shooting the does. No more does, no more reproduction.  Was it due to complaints from the insurance companies, forestry, farmers, etc., I don't know, maybe a combination of all.  All under the claim of habitat carrying capacity.  Really quite suspicious that the DNR still claims such a high deer population, but seems a very large numbers of deer hunters say they see no deer.  After so many years of shooting does, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why hunters are stating they are not seeing many deer anymore.  

Many years ago before all the doe harvest opportunities existed you had the party tag system where 4 hunters could combine a license stub and get one doe tag. If I remember correctly that still took a lottery draw then to be successful. As I remember many hunters would draw and receive a permit and then not use it to prevent the harvest of a doe. Once the party tag option was ended there came the either/or tag, then readily available bonus tags, Earn a Buck and now multiple antlerless tags with every license. These options along with the T-Zone hunts and other antlerless seasons drove up the doe harvest numbers. As I have read the SAK formula uses harvest numbers to gauge population numbers, change the hunting dynamics and allow/force the harvest of more does ( the above mentioned tags and season options) the SAK formula loses it’s accuracy that it may or may not of had in it’s beginning. 

"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."

Because SAK is based on the theory that the harvest is a completely random sampling of the deer herd. This became flawed when the harvesters no longer shot the first deer to go by (Buck) and became trophy hunters. It was no longer a random selection but a specific harvest of a certain age group of deer.

Besides the monetary savings (like no metal tag, no back tag, reduced registration costs) there really is no need to funnel deer through a registration station were deer can be aged anymore so just call in your harvest.....if you're of a legal mind that is. 

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.  

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. 

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

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 .

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?

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

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. 

"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.

"We're one of a handful of states without a points restriction and Wisconsin still puts up more Booners and P&Y deer than any other state in the country.  1 buck per license is going to result in more lost license dollars.  Money isn't just going to show up from no where and we will lose more hunters with a one buck per hunter license structure." 

How many of these P&Y and Booners come from areas that are not managed heavily by large property owners or large groups of landowners?  WI is producing good bucks in SPITE of WDNR.  Years ago many large deer were shot in the northwoods.  There are articles and change petitions in Bayfield County where taxidermists are taking in drastically reduced numbers of nice bucks.  On top of few deer, there are very few deer making it to 3.5 years old or older in much of the state.

The lost license sales is moot if you increase the cost of the buck tag to account for the loss of those that may not purchase a rifle tag if they shot one with their bow.    

And, if people are not going to buy a license at all because they aren't allowed to shoot a second forkhorn during rifle season, then good riddance IMHO.

Show of hands...How many northern forest hunters would quit gun hunting with a one buck rule? Or guys from down south that go up up north for gun hunting? Get your bow buck down south there’s no reason (Or legally available option) to gun hunt up north in zones with no doe tags. Or is that what we’re really after? 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. 

I'd like to know where guys are coming up with we have an unbalanced age structure compared to the rest of the country outside of their own eye test?  We're one of a handful of states without a points restriction and Wisconsin still puts up more Booners and P&Y deer than any other state in the country.  1 buck per license is going to result in more lost license dollars.  Money isn't just going to show up from no where and we will lose more hunters with a one buck per hunter license structure. 

Put out a good product,  you mean like the midwest states south of here?  $500-700 for a NR bow tag.  I wouldn't come hunt Wisconsin for $180 if I was a NR,  this state is so pressured, mismanaged and the age structure is one of the worst in the country.... it's sickening.

My thoughts are somewhere along the lines of JC-Wisconsin,  you buy 1 buck and it comes with 2 doe tags.  only 2 deer can be harvested with a gun. Bow all 3 can be used.  Pretty simple stuff here.  you don't even need to mess with a season.  If folks really want another deer to eat,  they start bow hunting or Xbow hunting. 

Years ago you shot a buck or a doe and you were done.  Period.  gun and bow.  It's not like this should be culture shock to anyone.

Make group tagging illegal

I mean seriously,  I NEVER HEARD ANYONE talk about extending the gun season to 19 days.  Why such a stupid proposal?  Who comes up with this BS?