jessejmc1979

Here's a link to a site that will tell you who your senator is. You just put in your address and it will tell you including e-mail addresses. We all need to contact them like has been said. Hopefully the dnr will pull their heads out of their hind ends and do the right thing for once.

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx
Sorry guys I don't know how to post a link but this is the address anyways.

TJD

Hmmm...okay...

Let me see if I understand the logic of that prediction: Hunters (folks like us), landowners, and farmers are all too dumb or lacking enough in foresight to not look out for their own best interests, so we need to have the DNR to tell us what to do. Yep...and how did that logic work out in the CWD areas, where the herd is now about where it was back in 2002 when the DNR created the "eradication zone"? Seems the only thing the DNR "eradicated" was the good will of the landowners in the "zone". Back to the apparent logic of the argument:
[ul][*]Hunters are too dumb: well, obviously they do not understand that too many deer reduces the chances of seeing trophy bucks, so the intellect of the DNR is needed to make sure they do the right thing.[*]Landowners are too dumb: same as above, plus they love having property values ultimately reduced since the lack of trophy deer means fewer potential buyers looking to buy prime hunting land.[*]Farmers are too dumb: we know how they absolutely love crop damage over and above what crop insurance would reimburse them for, so of course we need the DNR to tell them to shoot more and more deer because, apparently, they are unable to balance a checkbook and understand that too many deer actually costs them money.[/ul]

The theme here seems similar to that expressed by those who think higher taxes are a good thing, since only the brain trust employed by the government, not the people,is smart enough to decide how and where their hard earned money should be spent. God-forbid the money be spent on something like an evil SUV, pickup truck,or...GASP!...a gun! The government has much better plans for your money!

Back to hunting:Keep in mind thatit is not 1980 anymore, where hunters who shot doeswere vilified by hunterswho thought it almosta sin. That is not the case anymore. Smooth-heads will still get harvested if EAB goes away, especially if they continue to provide a free tag for just that purpose.Oh, and let me remind folks...remember when the DNR told us two years ago that if you had a 2:1 ratio of does to bucks harvested in your area, you would be removed from EAB? Funny, but our unit, 61, did just that and then some. We were told that...alas...the DNR meant that your whole region had to have a 2:1 ratio for that to occur. So because a unit 150 miles away falls short, why that must mean my unit is also "overpopulated".

And you wonder why the DNR has credibility issues??

Perhaps all of this will at least get the DNR to change their tone and deal honestly and in a spirit of cooperation with all stakeholders,rather than acting as a power unto themselves who are accountable to no one.

Handles

1. Many "hunters" are dumb when it comes to knowing what the deer herd needs. Proof is that EAB had to be implemented before most hunters would shoot a doe regardless of what year it is. There are still many guys who won't shoot a doe, but will tag one if someone else shoot it. Then once EAB happens, too many hunters go nuts shooting 4,6,8 deer each. It shows that many of our "hunters" have no understanding, no self control. They haven't changed since the time of the market hunters. They willshoot as much as they can, eventhough they can't use all the meat themselves.Most of our "hunters" are not outdoorsmen, most of them spend only a couple days in the woods all year, many don't even spend the time to clean orsight intheir rifle (we all know at least 1 guy like that) they shouldn't even be allowed to buy a license, yetif they don't happen to see deer during that time they scream "NO DEER". I'll bet 1/2 of the days that I bowhunt I see0 deer. That's hunting. Don't like it? Don't do it.

2. In your bullet points, Your land owners and farmers may be part of the reason that you are seeing too few deer. Lots of farmers give away ag-tags to shoot as many deer as possible. They don't want crop damage, they want the deer gone. So you are saying if we let farmers have their way we will have more deer?? Bigger deer? Do you even know what you are arguing for? You say you want more deer, but you want farmers to do whatever they want. Hello, who owns the biggest portion of property in our state?

mr.mc54

Dumb- Stupid- LOOK WHO'S CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!!!!

By the way if it were'nt for us dumb stupid farmers and hunters) I'd like to see what our natural resources would look like. Ok -who do you think feeds these animals ? And as far as ag. tags go- we get just enough tags to cover excessive deer damage. Who do you think leaves pheasant habitat for pheasants? And what about CRP programs? We could make more on corn than leaving fields in CRP. Who do you think leaves low land for water foul? Yourkind of thinking is why we are despising the DNR. If the STUPID FARMERS AND SPORTSMEN WHO SUPPORT DUCKS UNLIMITED, WHITETAILS UNLIMITED, PHEASANTS FOREVER WOULD QUIT HELPING I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE " GOOD OLD DNR WOULD DO".

ALL FARMERS AND HUNTERS ARE NOT DUMB OR STUPID!

HANDLES- you clearly don't know what your talking about

BY THE WAY- ARE YOU STARTING TO LOOK FOR A JOB? YOUR GONNA NEED ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Handles

I never said anyone was stupid. You did. I said many "hunters" are dumb when it comes to knowing about our deer herd needs, and I gave very valid solid examples of the way some of the general hunting public has acted in the past, and continues to act. I doubt that you can dispute that.

I never once said anything about a farmer being dumb or stupid. I never once mentioned anything regarding CRP, or lowlands.Please stop making up lies.
Please explain toeveryone how using crop damage tags will increase the population of the deer herd. Please show your math.

I do not work for the DNR, never said I did. Please stop making up lies.

TJD

Okay...but then you say...

Let me see if I follow this train of thought: Hunters will not shoot does unless told to do so by the DNR, but on the other hand hunters "will shoot as much as they can, even though they can't use all the meat themselves"

Which is it?! If the point in the second quote is really true, then EAB was never necessary since hunters will have a natural tendency to shoot more deer than they need or can use. "Market hunters" did not simply shoot antlered bucks and let the does run by...they shot everything they saw. So, if such base tendencies still exists as you suggest, then the answer all along should have been to give a free antlerless tag or two out with each license. Yes, not everyone would use it, but do you want to bet that someone else in the hunting party would? The guys who like to shoot all the time will more than make up for the guys who don't again if your logic holds. Of course, the DNR does'tt want to have that discussion about availability of antlerless tages, since up until very recently...in fact not even 10 years ago!..., to shoot a doe you needed to either :1) get a "hunters choice" sticker to have the "privledge" of shooting a doe, or 2) apply for an antlerless tag, and once approved send the DNR some more money to get a doe tag.

Ag-tags are not unlimited, so they do not even have the ability "to shoot as many deer as possible". Besides, if the DNR was accurate in saying that most units are over goal, how is that a bad thing?

So let me get this straight: we should keep EAB so that we don't have a population issue, but the evil farmers are going to kill off too many deer because "they want the deer gone". So if the DNR "wants the deer gone" by having t-zones, EAB, special December antlerless hunts, so-called "eradication zones"...it's a good thing, but if a farmer wants to lower the deer population to protect his livelihood, it is a bad thing. So you are saying we need EAB to keep the herd in check, but the evil farmers are going to shoot too many deer if we get rid of it. Hmmmmm....want to think that one over again??....

That's right...THEY OWN THE LAND!!! They make their livelihood on that land. They pay the taxes for that land and the income they generate. And...as you just said, they "own the biggest portion of property in our state" so they should have a very, very, VERY big say in how the herd is managed!

mr.mc54

YOU MAKE HUNTERS AND FARMERS LOOK STUPID!!!!!!!

THAT IS MY POINT. ie; NO SELF CONTROL,GOING NUTS,NO UNDERSTANDING, AND NOT OUTDOORS MEN.

YOU DON'T WORK FOR THE DNR?I believe you said you "VOLUNTEERED" Ok you got me !
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU STAND. JUST WHERE DID YOU VOLUNTEER? DO ALL VOLUNTEERES
THINK THE WONDERFUL DNR WALK'S ON WATER?

Ihave never used a crop damage tag nor have I askedfor damages because we managed our herd until the DNR alowed the slaughter on neighboring properties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I GET THE FEELING YOUTHINK EVERY ONE IS A YOSIPPITY SAM, TRIGGER HAPPY NUT CASE And that couldn't be further from the trueth.Every one wants the same thing-just to see deer again. Even me as a farmer and hunter.

TJD

mr.mc54

You, like many, saw that something needed to be done and took action. That is my point in my response to Handles. I'm not disputing that some areas have had, and continue to have, population issues. Nor do I think that we should simply do away with season rules and regulations. Rather, my point is that the DNR needs to be more responsive and understand that they have to work with farmers, hunters, and landowners and stop the "rule by decree" approach.

Like I pointed out, until just a short time ago, it was the DNR that effecively discouraged the shooting of antlerless deer by leaving in place outdated hoops to jump through, like "Hunters Choice" and having to apply for antlerless tags. Was the $3 for Hunters Choice to expensive? No. Neither was the $12 you had to pay for a "bonus tag". But it was another pain in the neck step that simply made it more difficult. Whether intentionally or not, the DNR basically made it appear that shooting does was something "special" that had to be strictly limited. Then, almost overnight, we were told that we had a "deer management crisis" in Wisconsin due to overpopulation. So we then had free tags, t-zones, EAB, and the like. Fast forward to this year: we were told for the past several years that there are too many deer, so now the expectation hunters have when they hit the timber is that they are going to see more deer than in the past, then we have the 2008 season and the harvest drops by 20%.

Basically, what I am saying is the DNR has created a boom/bust deer management practice. For reasons that may have more to do with protecting spending dollars to maintain the wildlife menagement bureacracy, the DNR seems to manage as if there is always a crisis right around the corner. "We need Hunters Choice and Bonus Tag application approvals to make sure we have enough deer." all the way to "We need EAB and t-zone to make sure we don't have too many deer."

Handles, you did make the point about bowhunting and seeing no deer on several occassions. I have had that occur with me as well. But that is not the point. Gun season is when the vast majority of deer harvested are taken. If hunters are told that they should expect to have plenty of harvest opportunities, and then see few or no deer, what do you think is going to happen? You think they are more likely or less likely to buy a license and hunt next year? So next year, if little changes with management policy, what is the DNR to do if the number of licenses sold drops by 10 or 20%? Require all of us who still buy licenses to shoot two or three does before we shoot a buck, to make up for the fact we have fewer hunters?

The DNR needs to do a better job of finding balance: balance in the deer herd, but also balance in public relations with hunters and landowners. If they alienate hunters, they alienate their primary deer management tool. If they alienate landowners, expect that there will be even less access to private land, making deer management more difficult.

That is what is at stake here.

mr.mc54

TJD- I agree with you.

What ticks me off as a farmer is (HANDLESinsinuating) that we willkill all the deer or want all the deer dead. This could not be further from the trueth. I can live with deer damage - there is no better keeper of the land or natural resources than us farmers! I have been managing the deer on our 160 acres just fine till the DNR gave 2 dollar tags to all the non resident neighboring land owners. We let the small bucks go and shoot a very limited amount of does. (My neighbors shoot every deer they see) and that type of hunting is supported by our wonderful DNR. I have said before that when people shoot anterless deer they also will wipe out numerous nubbies and as you know they are our future TEN-TWELVEPOINTERS.

TJD, YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT-I WILL NOT SHOOT DOE AND NO-ONE ELSE WILL ON MY LAND NEXT YEAR!

I just wonder if Handles has his own land or he hunts on a brain dead farmers?

JUST LET ME CLARIFY ONE THING I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUT OF STATERS HERE!


I could manage my land with-out the DNR's help.

Handles

So in reality, you should be mad at your neighbors for shooting deer on their land. If they had exercised some control you wouldn't be on this forum complaining about this subject.
That's my whole point. Just because something is legal it doesn't mean a hunter or landowner has to do it. If you feel your deer herd is in jepardy, then by all means don't shoot any doe. You live there, you should know.
That's been my point from the begining. The problem is that many hunters will shoot what ever and however many deer, ducks, phesants, turkeys thatare legal, and if we take away the DNR restrictions (whether they are good or bad in your eyes) that many hunters will go completely overboard.That does include farmers who fill, or ask hunters to fill all of their ag tags.
Remember, not all farmers are hunters. Many of them could give a rip if there was a deer anywhere on their property, and yet others won't allow any hunting on theirs. Not all farmers are good stuards of the land. Many of them plow up every possible acre for crops, and diminish places for wildlife to live. Many use more chemicals than are needed, or have poor practices regarding animal waste control.
There are some really dumb hunters and some really dumb farmers out there depending on how you look at things.
Oh, and one other thing...I highly doubt that the DNR will get rid of volunteers. So why don't you do something positive and help out?