cayugad

Give me a break..Handles - yes, Jesse... buy a license and support the failed policies of a DNR game management strategy that caused this slaughter of the deer herd. After all, they promise they will change??? Support something that does not work.. Get real. You want to hurt the DNR or any company for that matter that you feel did you wrong, twist their pocket book.

And calling one group of people a spoiled brat and others "sportsmen and sportswomen" that's an old debate trick from college Handles. Nice try though. Belittle one side when your position is wrong to hide the faults.

And we as Wisconsin resident have as much right to complain about a failed management plan and protest that any way we see fit. If you want to buy a license and sit in the woods.. fine. That's your right. BUT don't belittle others for believing in what they feel is the right way to approach the mistakes of the DNR.

UPHunter08

I've hunted the western UP since the late 80's, and experienced much of what is being described in WI. I now live in WI and bow hunt here, while returning to the UP for gun season. Throughout the late 80's and early-mid 90's the MI DNR promoted doe hunting in the UP, including the issuing of block permits to farmers for 'crop damage' (only crops in our area were hay!). Not surprisingly, through these practices along with less food (less farming and logging) and more wolves, our deer herd was eventually decimated. It got to the point where you were excited if you saw a handful of does during a weeklong hunt, let alone saw a decent buck. I nearly quit hunting, especially after moving out-of-state. The only reason I returned is because my family has land and it's as much an excuse for a family reunion as it was for the so-called hunting (saw few deer for a few years there). Around 2000 the DNR finally did away with the doe permits. You can no longer shoot any does in our area during gun season. Surprise, surprise, we're starting to see more and more deer now. I saw more deer this season than I've seen in 10 years.

Contrast this with my experience in WI...and that of others on this board. I saw more deer in one day while hunting in the UP than I've seen all fall bow hunting in WI. I'm getting the feeling that hunting in WI is going to be more like what we've had to deal with in the western UP for the past 10-15 years. I put the blame on meat hunters (those killing more than 2 deer per season) as well as the DNR (for allowing this to occur). Plenty of blame to go around.

On the plus side, trophies will be that much harder to come by, and hunters will have to earn them now, much as we've had to do in the UP. Simply showing up on opening morning will no longer guarantee one of getting a nice 8-pt or larger as I've seen many come to expect here in WI. The rewarding feeling you get is that much better when you have to really work to get your buck, but I do agree with the posters here that simply seeing deer and enjoying the hunt is also a reward on its own. I disagree with Handles that we should simply be happy to sit in the woods, whether or not we see deer. That's just plain discouraging if you can't see at least a few deer each day on the stand.

cayugad

Thanks for the insight UPHunter08 on the UP. I never knew it would take that long to come back.

The worst part of all this.. I can see, and understandHandles point of view. If hunters stop buying deer license, the rest of the outdoor experience suffers. After all hunters basically support the outdoor activities in Wisconsin for everyone to enjoy.

But Handles made some other points that concern me as well. Besides the being happy sitting in the woods enjoying the experience. That's horse you know what. I want to see deer. I'm not out there gopher hunting for goodness sakes. Many years hunting, I watched deer, especially doe, and never shot them, but found pleasure sitting there watching them. And I like watching the smaller creatures. I let many a young buck go too. Because taking a deer home is nice, but its not the end of the world. But outright, I deer hunt to see deer, and maybe put a little meat in the freezer.

The one point Handles made is the management or the upper administration will not suffer should funds be cut. While they might not loose their jobs, they could get their duties changed, or perhaps take a job demotion. Or heaven forbid be forced to get off their desk chair and actually have to work the field, they will suffer. They will suffer when hunters, politicians, and most of all the people in general start putting pressure on the DNR as to why things are in our outdoors are getting so bad. And face it, anyone that ever worked in management.. what happens when your boss is not happy?? That's right, he makes your life miserable.

The only way to put that kind of pressure on the upper management of the DNR is lock their wallet. Cut their funds, and they will feel it. Unfortunately some of the junior people might suffer job cuts, but that's life. And to cut their fund, you need to cut their major source of revenue. And that is deer license sales.

So while I see Handle's concerns, we just have to agree to disagree I guess. I am a stubborn old devil that is set in his ways. I went to meetings, I voiced my opinion, and it did no good. So now I will get off my soap box and maybe this thread will die off. Just like our deer herd did.....

passthrough24

I was just at my local sports shop and i noticed a petition with about 50 names on it who are promising not to buy deer licenses next year...it has been up for about 2 days and im sure the list will grow...

and to Handles...how many organizations do you donate money to that have failed and have continued to promote ideals that you disagree with??

mr.mc54

Just a short reply to Handles- I have been following your personal attacks on other hunters opinions andI just don't know where you stand. Are you a DNR employee or are you a wanna be? The impression I get is you are a wanna be and you are always right.

I have hunted whitetails in Wisconsin for over forty years and know that something is wrong with the deer herd. The DNR has hornshwaggled us into a mess as far as deer numbers go. I know that you think otherwise by your record. Why is it that the DNR never admits it messed up? You would fit right in with them. Hey If you went through what we as older hunters have (seeing 1 deer in 2 years) in the early 70's you wouldn't be so quick to attack the fellas that are trying to not let that happen again. If you are a DNR employee,you should be ashamed of your attacks on fellow hunters. But you know what- I think you are a (barney Fife). The deer herd is in danger of being wiped out and you as the DNR would rather defer the problem and say the hunters are (whiners). There just isn't a simple solution. I don't know the answer but killing every deer isn't in my plans. May be hunters should stand up to the DNR now and not latter.

mr.mc54

Poachers and trespassers won't be a problem if the Deer are shot off. Why do we need more DNR people in the field to manage less deer? Only a DNR person would say that. Trespassers are handled thru the sheriffs office. Why not let sportsmen be more involved in the decision making of the DNR? Just a thought. I agree with Jesse-everyone should not buy a license next year!

TJD

Management and administration will be hurt if enough public and political pressure is brought to bear. Does anyone else recall back in about 1995 or so when the DNR floated the idea of only allowing does to be taken in several DMU's during gun season? The rationale used by the DNR was similar to what we have been hearing...there are too many deer, hunters aren't shooting enough does, blah, blah, blah!!...The outcry from hunters was almost immediate and went all the way to Tommy Thompson. Thompson basically told the DNR to come up with another solution, or else!... Of course, we heard a lot of belly aching from the DNR about how politicians should not interfere with the good work of "professional wildlife management" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the DNR was forced to relent and the first t-zones were created.

Many still complain that politicians should not interfere with the DNR when it comes to setting policy for deer season. My response is: "Why not?!" Last time I checked, the DNR is a state agency. State agencies are accountable to the state senate, the state assembly, the governor, and ultimately: The People of the State of Wisconsin. That's right...they work for US, they get paid by US, and are ultimately accountable to US. Though it is true that we have state agencies in place to offer a degree of expertise in a field that may not otherwise be available without their help, that expertise, like that available in any other field or discipline, does not mean that they are given license to act as they choose or that they are now accountable to no one. They are ultimately accountable to the people of the state of Wisconsin. If the people who help fund their agency are dissatisfied with their work, then the people, through their elected representatives, should have the right to determine how their mandate to manage wildlife is addressed. Besides, why shouldn't the DNR be more amenable to listening to the concern of hunters? Since the DNR has repeatedly referred to hunters as their "primary wildlife management tool", shouldn't hunters have some input into how the herd is managed? Some argue that this is what the "spring meetings" are about: providing feedback to the DNR. Sure... Have you been to the meetings? Sort of like trying to have your opinions taken seriously by the Soviet Politburo. Is it any wonder why during the "Deer 2000" surveys that only 1/3 of hunters who responded to the survey had a high degree of confidence in the work of the DNR?

If the DNR really wants hunters to take them seriously, they need to start listening. Stop approaching meetings with the conclusions already reached and simply have meetings to go thru the motions because the lesislature told them to. Honestly ask for input from the real stakeholders in the process...hunters and landowners...as to how they would like to see deer managment work. They might be surprised...it certainly would go a long way to build good will from hunters, at least more so than floating ideas like "No buck" gun seasons, or having sharpshooters shoot deer from helicopters at night in the CWD zone.

mr.mc54

Right on TJD;

Untill everyone is on board -the DNR will listen to the Ins. Lobbyists and we will see a decimation of our deer herd. I hunted in the years when you saw maybe one deer a year. I'm afraid we are heading in that direction again. We have acted in good faith with what the DNR said were the deer numbers and I feel we were lied to or miss informed at best. First it was party tags then bonus tags (more revenue) and now they (DNR) are making us kill does before we can shoot a buck. The meetings you mention are truely a joke - (The fox in charge of the chicken coop) I can see why many hunters are not shooting does. Us hunters that have seen the rise and fall of deer hunting know where we were.
we must find a way to unite!!!!

Trapper22

I agree that the DNR is totally off base in the management of the deer herd. I've hunted for 25 years and saw far more deer in the late 80's and early 90's than I see now. This year my area 73D went to an earn a buck that is not needed. Ihave not seen over 10 deer in a years time inthe last 15 years. I usually see4 to 8 in 5 or 6 days of hunting. That's hardly a deer herd out of control.Everyone that hunts in the same area I do have said the same thing no one is seeing any amounts of deer, including two guys that hunt the land next to me not seeing anything.

I figure the DNR takes their counts on refuge land that no one can hunt such as Eagle Valley near Cassville or on blocks of land owned by city folk that don't allow hunting to inflate the herd numbers. I do not think I'm wrong on this either.

I asked how the registration was at the local co-op this year and the said on opening weekend it was 66 deer behind last year 263 to 197 with people saying the same thing. They're not seeing anything.

Handles I know you think the DNR is doing a great job but you are about the only onethat thinks that that I've heard. I think you also may be a new employee with them as you seem awfully worried if people don't buy licenses next year new people will be laid off.

I think this was brought up earlier in this thread.As far as deer damage permits go this may be unpopular but if a landowner has that much damage on their land they should allow people in to hunt. Simple solution if you apply for damage reimbursement the DNR should send in plain clothes people to ask for permission to hunt on your land. If the answer is no we save that for family then no check or permits for you. Some landowners are trying to have their cake and eat it too. I've heardthere are pockets of higher deer areas with this happening. Everyone is quick to blame deer for damage done to a cornfield but have any of you seen a group of coon going into a cornfield and knocking down countless stalks night after night? Coon do a heck of a lot of damage that deer get blamed for.

mr.mc54

I agree to a certain extent- however I have had some real bad situations with letting hunters on my land.
I think one way they the (DNR) could get farmers to let people on would be to give farmers a coupon like some states out west do. The coupon would be like $15.00 per hunter and land owners would be more receptive to letting people hunt. Also some guy's just don't get it-they are a guest and they must obey the rules each land owner has-such as closing gates, not cutting fences, and staying off neighboring farms. These are a few things that really make me leery of letting hunters on my land.
Also as far as damage goes I'll tell you a good one;

A farmer from Ridgeland WI ran into a monster black bear two weeks ago in his corn field. The bear was hibernating in the corn field. The corn field had a huge area that was destroyed by this bear through-out the summer. The bear had dug a hole two feet deep and pulled corn over him.
When the farmer hit the bear with his combine he killed it and the DNR was called to see if he could
keep the bear. The good old DNR warden said sure for I think it was $175.00. The farmer asked about all the damage the bear had done to his corn and the warden had no answer. The farmer ended up haggling with thewardenand got the bear for $75.00. Now after all this do you think this farmer would cooperate with the DNR by letting hunters on his land?

By the way this bear weighed 767lbs. I think it was and almost 7' long it was 6'2'' around his chest.

HOW MUCH CORN DO YOU THINK HE ATE?