POLL: What would WISportsmen change?

TJD · 02-23-2003, 08:29 PM

Okay folks! We have some pretty lively discussions here at times regarding some of the issues that hunters and fisherman face here in Cheeseland.

I' m just curious as to what sort of consensus, or lack thereof, we may see among those who hunt and fish in Wisconsin. Non-residents, feel free to take a stab at it as well if you wish. I' d like to pose two questions:

1) What is your biggest gripe with the current state of hunting and fishing regulations in Wisconsin?

2) What do you like the best about the current situation.

If you have no gripes, than state that. If you hate everything, state that as well. But please answer WHY you feel like you do.

1sagittarius · 02-24-2003, 02:39 AM

A WI Non-Resident deer license fees are half that of Illinois and Iowa. Wisconsin NR hunting fees should be at least equal to the cost of a Illinois or Iowa NR license. IL = $293 total, IA = $308 total, WI = $135 (small increase proposed for 2004)

Not enough game wardens.

Deleted User · 02-24-2003, 06:56 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

basserman · 02-24-2003, 07:25 AM

Sag hit on my issue. Raise Nonres.!!! Should set it up on a reciprocity type situation. i.e. They pay what we pay in their state.

logs · 02-24-2003, 12:25 PM

1) What is your biggest gripe with the current state of hunting and fishing regulations in Wisconsin?
I' d like to see a more restricted deer season for bucks. Such as a Point restriction of say, three on a single side. And harvest more does where needed. To improve the buck doe ratio to say 1 to 3 at most.

Mandatory hunter education for all hunter under 65 years of age. Include more game management, forestry, wildlife habitat and biology in the course. It would get a lot of inbreeds out of the woods.

Make it mandator to have any firearm in a separate part of the vehicle out of anyones reach or in a locked case while in a vehicle. It would eliminate road hunting.

Increase the number of enforcement people in the field at the most hunter populated times. It would help to get rid of the unethical hunters and other violators.

2) What do you like the best about the current situation.

Over all I think that the DNR (watch out for the flack coming now) does a good job. They are not perfect but they make every effort to maintain and improve the resources for the sportsmen and women in this state, not to mention all thier other responsiblities. They are well educated and trianed dedicated people who have a difficult job.

basserman · 02-24-2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Over all I thing that the DNR (watch out for the flack coming now) does a good job.

OH OH! Logs, Are you a warden??

TJD · 02-24-2003, 12:55 PM

Well, here' s my take:

1) Gripes. Inconsistency and a tad bit of intellectual dishonesty. For example, the yearly debate over deer population and targets. Don' t set targets based on SAK, and then when it doesn' t turn out, blame it all on any of the following a) the weather, b)a Packer game, c) overlap with duck hunting...etc. Maybe, just maybe, as this year attests, there are flaws with a model that relies so heavily on the previous years buck kill to come up with population figures.

With regards to the CWD issue, many of the same applies, but I' ll second Nick on his post. No need to reopen the whole issue.

Lack of wardens is also a problem. Then when you run into one, it seems as though some of them are looking to do a cavity search! [

]

2) What do I like? Licensing is easy. The structures of the seasons seem to be just about right (not too short or long).

Not sure if I' d be wild about a point restriction, although we practice QDM.

BTW

Quote:

To improve the buck doe ratio to say 1 to 3 at most

Just curious; where did you come up with that ratio? Don' t get me wrong, I' d love to see more balance in the herd, but what is the current ratio, and is achieving that ratio possible?

basserman · 02-24-2003, 01:20 PM

TJD, The buck to doe ratio thingy simply cannot be a blanket stratagy by the DNR as some think. The deer population and ratios change drastically even within management zones (some). i.e. zone 72 in Central WI is so large that the practices for licensing and harvests cause nearly a zero pop. in some areas within the zone and large herds in other areas of the zone. It is difficult for the DNR to regulate the numbers in areas with a significant amount of private land.
I hunt a different zone and IMO our numbers and ratios are not bad.

logs · 02-24-2003, 02:11 PM

No Im not a warrden, although I have great respect for the good ones. Like all LEO' s most of them are good and there are those that lack common sense and are inflexible or all puffed up. The good thing is there are very few other those.
I think there are to many idiots, beer drinkers and weekend warriors in the woods that screw it up for the rest or majority of the hunters. The only way to improve the group is through education and enforcement. For some, education is a lost cause. They already know it all or don' t care. Those are the ones we need more enforcers to deal with and help from the rest of the hunting community.

The buck doe ratio is something that can not be reached on a state wide level and maintained like it is in a high fenced program. It is a only a target number that makes population control and range management less difficult. I like the 1 buck to 3 doe ratio because it would provide for a realistic deer population state wide that would be easier to manage. It would improve the quality of the hunting. You' d still be able to or have to harvest does and the Bucks would get a chance to grow and compete for breeding. That improves the health and quaility of the herd. Im not exactly sure where got the number from. I read a lot about quality management and other deer management items and I picked it up there.

I did forget one thing I' d like to see changed.
Tree stands. Tree stands are no different than ice shanties. I' d like to be able to leave them over night in the woods on public land. I could see having to have a label with name and all that on the stand visible from the ground. And it would give the hunter no special right to the spot, it would just be easier and more efficient for the hunter. They do it in other states with little or no problem, why not here.

BowHuntingFool · 02-25-2003, 11:43 AM

[ul]I guess I have 2 Gripes:[*] I would like to see some sort of antler restiction. Maybe 3 points on one side. I think this would give a buck a bit more of a chance to grow in all aspects! Which to me in the long run is a good thing![*] Not being able to leave a treestand up overnight on state land. I agree with logs on this one. label it and make it visible when left overnight.[*]
[/ul]

[ul]What I like:[*]Being able to buy my license online! This is very easy to do. I was on the road when I purchased mine. Very convienent.[*] For me the DNR has been very helpful in response to my emails, for research purposes for me to do my scouting![*]
[/ul]