Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Midwest
Preliminary WI Harvest Numbers Announced >

Preliminary WI Harvest Numbers Announced

Midwest OH, IN, IL, WI, MI, MN, IA, MO, KS, ND, SD, NE Remember the Regional Forums are for Hunting Topics only.

Preliminary WI Harvest Numbers Announced

Old 12-03-2009, 08:07 AM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,007
Default

The brown/down theory did not start when the DNR began EAB or having free doe tags. That philosophy has been in the minds of too many hunters for too long. And it isn't just in wisconsin, and it isn't just for deer. Don't blame the DNR for anyone who pulls the trigger, that is each hunter's decision.
Now I'm not in with the rest of you who think there are no deer left. I personally think there are plenty of deer in the state, but maybe not in all areas. However if I were to believe that there were no deer left, I could easily take a look at the numbers of hunters in this state (more than MN and IA combined) and realize that might be part of the problem, therefore hunters not buying a license, or choosing not to shoot as the #1 way to increase the deer population. However that won't be a cure all for areas, such as big timber areas in the north, where because of overpopulation for many years, and shading from the tree canopy, there just isn't the browse needed to sustain, or re-grow a large population. Too many hunters want to have a deer behind every tree They get too caught up in the # of big bucks that we see on a 1/2 hr. tv show that might have taken 20 days afield to film.
Handles is offline  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:05 AM
  #22  
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
 
dvalliere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Central Wisconsin
Posts: 162
Default

Originally Posted by JW! View Post
To say that the low Hunter accident reprot was due to people not taking the safety off their gun is ludicrist!
I never said it was only due to that. I'm saying that I think it was a factor. Facts: a portion of hunter safety accidents involve bullets. Almost all shots are fired with the gun off safety. Guns in the hands of safe hunters are only off safety when they see a legitimate target (e.g. deer). Fewer deer sightings = reduced opportunities for accidents. That's all I'm saying or implying.

Originally Posted by JW! View Post
Calling all us Wiscosninites unsafe hunters no more no less with that statement is what I took offense too!
I never said or implied that Wisconsinites are unsafe hunters. In fact, the logic is the opposite. See my above paragraph. I'm assuming that most hunters are being safe. Accidental shootings (which I know are only a portion of the hunting accidents) are reduced with less gun fire.

Originally Posted by JW! View Post
No soap box here at all - you are blaming all the wrong people.
I'm not blaming anyone! All I was saying was that less shooting = less opportunity for accidents. You're interpreting my comments in a way that is totally out of line with what I said. For you to get riled up about something that was neither said or implied is the reason for my statement that you seem to have a soapbox.

Originally Posted by JW! View Post
You had better look for at your Insurance Lobby at Doyle's end!
And the fact the Wisconsin mentality is Brown it is down!
I'm not sure what the first part means other than that you think the DNR is motivated to reduce the herd to please the Insurance industry. Probably at least partly true. Also irrelevant to my safety observation.

This latter part, stated by you, is blaming the hunters, the very thing you accuse me of! LOL Brown is down is a mentality that can only exist when the DNR allows "open season" on everything. Limited doe tags and some sort of point restriction on bucks would eliminate the "brown is down" mentality. It would also contribute to safety as it would require people to think more before shooting.

Originally Posted by JW! View Post
And let me add - Next year's Deer Rifle Kill count will be down at least another 20%!
That would not surprise me at all.
dvalliere is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 08:26 AM
  #23  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,007
Default

As I mentioned before, brown is down does not pertain to doe shooting. It's the mentality of many many hunters. Wisconsin has seen more trophy bucks since the induction of EAB than any other time in history, including back when it was either choice. Hunters chose buck tags and chose to shoot small bucks. It would still be that way for at least 1/2 of our hunting population.
I'm not advocating that people must only trophy hunt. I'm saying that sometimes when the DNR took control of the harvest, some very positive things, like a respectible buck:doe ratio and an overall improvement in age class representation took place almost immediately.
Handles is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 08:50 AM
  #24  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barron county Wi
Posts: 169
Default

Here we go again with people saying that you need to shoot lots of does to get trophy bucks. Bucks get to be trophys by not being shot when young. Cut and dried black and white. Handles you can push your buck to doe ratios all you want but in the farmland where I live and hunt when the deer herd was at it's peak (which was probably about 10 years ago I don't care what the dnr says) deer weren't starving and guys shot trophy bucks every year. You had to work for that trophy buck but they have ALWAYS been around. No matter what the ratio is they can't get big hanging on the meat pole!!
jessejmc1979 is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 01:24 PM
  #25  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,007
Default

So jessie, you are absolutely agreeing with me then aren't you? Thanks. For a moment there I thought you were saying that there used to be more big bucks than there are now. I'm glad that I re-read your email that explained how hard you had to work for that trophy buck. Great point. Yes, the've always been around, but not nearly in the numbers they are now. i'm glad you are backing me up on that. And anyone could easily look at P&Y or B&C records and see a huge increase in the past few years compared to oh, 10-15 years ago, so yes, you make a valid point.
I also note how you mentioned the farmland where you hunt kept the population well fed. That is great as some people don't hunt in quality farming areas, they seem to think that there aren't many deer in the state. It's obvious by your argument that overpopulation in your area didn't seem to have an effect on deer numbers, then it couldnt' anywere else either.
Finally, you are so correct about bucks not getting big by hanging on the meat pole. It's good that so many hunters began shooting doe for their meat and letting the bucks go voluntarily. It's great that some areas of the state were so well managed by the hunters that there was almost a 20:1 doe/buck ratio. I mean, if the hunters hadn't been so pro-active for years, the DNR would have had to step in and tell hunters to shoot some doe to help balance the herd. And that would be crazy, because if anyone knows how many deer there are in the state, and what he can do as a hunter to help the situation, it is the thousands and thousands of hunters who buy their license and ammo (and sometimes even a new gun)the day before season. Those guys are in total control of their lives. What possibly could the DNR know about the statewide deer herd that they don't?
Right? Right.

Last edited by Handles; 12-04-2009 at 01:28 PM.
Handles is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 01:41 PM
  #26  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 79
Default

overall age improvement are you kidding me.EAB has totally destroyed the doe fawns and nubbies for how many years now.Why do you think hunters harvest and hunters sightings have declined since EAB.EAB has messed up alot of prime deer hunting areas and will take years to reverse its affect on the deer herd.
browningbolt is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 02:41 PM
  #27  
Spike
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 79
Default

Sorry to bust your bubble handles but those trophy deer have been the result of hunters on private land practiceing QDM.You know landowners who actually know how many deer are on their land and adjust their harvest accordingly.Not by the number guessing DNR who want everything dead.Only problem is these landowners have seen to much of a decline sinse EAB and no longer feel that the doe population is at an acceptable level.The same landowners who did their part when there was a overpopulation 10 years ago are saying numbers are to low now.The only response the DNR gives is a 16 day gun season.Im afraid they wont listen to hunters until its to late......
browningbolt is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 04:16 PM
  #28  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 342
Default

A larger population of deer means you should have a larger population of big bucks too. The percentage of the herd with big racks gets multiplied by a much larger population. Even if the percentage of big bucks drops some, a large enough population means more big bucks in the woods to get harvested. Meat hunters can be more selective, because they know they should get a shot at something else if they pass on the spike horn at 7 AM opening day. With a smaller herd, meat hunters will pull the trigger on the first legal target they see (and who could blame them). If you remember the 80's, there were not a lot of places where a spike horn could walk safely on opening day. As does get harder to find, and probably doe permits fewer, it will be the same way again.
Soilman is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 04:45 PM
  #29  
Spike
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 46
Default

Handles if you don't think that the practice of QDM and the massive amount of land that is now leased for hunting rights is the biggest contributing factor to bigger bucks being shot then you are nieve. I shot the largest buck in my time before we had EAB. Thank god we only had it for 1 year. I am a meat hunter and take the first adult deer to come by me. Since 2000 I have only shot 3 does. I've shot 4 bucks in that time as well. Only 1 buck would've been a 2 or 3 year old. I'd rather shoot a small buck than a doe because I don't see the deer numbers I did back in the mid to late 80's and early 90's contrary to what the DNR says. I would rather see more deer period. I can use 1 to 2 deer per year and that's all I'll take. Actually I've only gotten 2 deer in the same year once (2001).

The DNR is the main problem with the decline of the deer herd, but as hunters I'm sure you know a group or individual that will shoot several deer in a year just because they can. They're the type to walk into a store and plop ten bucks on the counter for five extra antlerless tags and hunt until they're filled and maybe go back for more. Of course the DNR is ramming it down everyones throat that we have too many deer and the above are dumb enough to believe it.

I did harvest a doe this year (the last doe I shot was in 2005) and yes I'm not happy with the amount of deer I see in a years time. I saw 7 deer in 6 days of hunting, that's not impressive at all. I do hunt mostly private ground during gun season and only was on public land twice so only seeing 7 in 6 days isn't good. I also passed on a doe standing 60 yards away broadside after I'd already taken my doe. I didn't want to shoot another doe on that land. That logic cost me a buck later on as well when I let what I thought was a doe go and decided to just look at it through the scope after it ran. It turned out to be a small buck (6pt). I got one shot and that was it. I may hunt the antlerless season but I won't hunt on the private ground and will travel a little ways to go hunt if I do go.

I talked with 2 guys (IL hunters) who hunt on the adjoining private ground, they've been coming up for years and are increasingly upset that they don't see deer anymore. They also are the same guys that will shoot 3 to 6 does every year and will pass on small bucks. Neither have ever shot a bigger buck on that property which is worth noting. Why they pass the small bucks is beyond me. They're meat hunters they say. I talked to them on Tuesday morning and on Monday night at dusk one of them shot a small buck he thought was a doe. I could tell he wasn't happy and asked him why. "Well I'd rather shoot does and let the little bucks go". I told him I was opposite and that yes I shot a doe this year and won't shoot another one down there this year. I then asked if they realized that by shooting a doe you typically take 3 deer out of the herd for next year. If you shoot a small buck you take one out of the herd. One of them kinda understood it the other one still seemed confused. If they aren't happy with the deer numbers they're seeing quit shooting 3 to 6 does every damn year. One really is enough in a low deer density area.

One of the other factors in me shooting a doe this year is the possibility of EAB coming back next year. I like to be able to shoot what I can to put one in the freezer and I damn sure don't want to be standing there if a buck comes by and wave at it especially with a bow in my hand. I actually eat what I shoot and I know there are some that don't so I use the meat as well.


I'd like to see it go back to sending in a hunters choice application and one deer of either sex with a bow. They can get rid of all the bonus tags and HRZ/CWD tags.
Trapper22 is offline  
Old 12-04-2009, 05:49 PM
  #30  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barron county Wi
Posts: 169
Default

Handles I don't agree with you. You spun my post like a cnn reporter spins the news. What I was saying is their is no reason for all of these stupid antlerless seasons the dnr imposes to erradicate the deer. Brainwashed people like you just believe everything the dnr tells you and will keep shooting does until their aren't any left. Shooting a doe is ok if your area has enough to shoot A doe. The people that have shot multiple does for years because of fear of eab, and glutiny (the dnr says record numbers and we need to shoot more). The bottom line is that the dnr has no clue what is going on in this state. Deer harvest is way down for the second year in a row. Last year was too cold and this year was too warm. The dnr can't decide which excuse to use next. Oh yeah I'm sure they'll throw in the hunters don't hunt hard enough anymore too. The deer herd is in grave danger of being erradicated, and at this point we as hunters have to do something.

And I have a friend that is an insurance salesman and in 2001 there were 49,000 deer car collisions, this year (year runs from last june through this july) there were 19,000. That is statewide. So who is the genius running the dnr that can't see that statistic and know we are running out of deer!!!
jessejmc1979 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.