Preliminary WI Harvest Numbers Announced
12-05-2009, 01:33 PM
#31
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 248
What I've heard and what outdoor news reporters who have been present at the WDNR public input meetings have reported is that there was overwhelming support from the public at these meetings for a longer season.
In advance of the meetings, the WDNR was on record with their position that they were NOT strongly in favor of a longer season because of concerns over a shrinking heard size and the possibility that CWD could worsen.
While you might not be in favor of a longer season many of your fellow Cheesehunters (sorry, couldn't resist) are certainly throwing their support behind it for various reasons. Bottom line is that it doesn't sound to me like it's an idea that is only supported by the DNR over there.
And least we all forget, hunting has been proven to have very little impact on deer populations when compared to other factors like winter kill, predator kills, and road deaths. The area I hunt in Minnesota has sustained large scale harvests every year since the 1980s, but the only thing that seemed to significantly reduce the overall heard were the years when there were very harsh winters with deep snow and cold. Every mild winter sees an uptick in the deer numbers the next year even if the previous season had a record deer harvest.
Grouse
In advance of the meetings, the WDNR was on record with their position that they were NOT strongly in favor of a longer season because of concerns over a shrinking heard size and the possibility that CWD could worsen.
While you might not be in favor of a longer season many of your fellow Cheesehunters (sorry, couldn't resist) are certainly throwing their support behind it for various reasons. Bottom line is that it doesn't sound to me like it's an idea that is only supported by the DNR over there.
And least we all forget, hunting has been proven to have very little impact on deer populations when compared to other factors like winter kill, predator kills, and road deaths. The area I hunt in Minnesota has sustained large scale harvests every year since the 1980s, but the only thing that seemed to significantly reduce the overall heard were the years when there were very harsh winters with deep snow and cold. Every mild winter sees an uptick in the deer numbers the next year even if the previous season had a record deer harvest.
Grouse
12-06-2009, 11:11 AM
#33
Fork Horn
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 473
This I believe,We will never see EAB (exceptcwd area,s)in the next 10 years it just ain,t gonna happen,no way, Whether right or wrong EAB is done, The deer managers know there jobs are on the line.
Now with the idea that less doe,s equals more bucks can be true IF you manage for a given number of deer in an area. Say 20 deer per square mile, if 12 are does 8 can be bucks ,if 16 are does only 4 can be bucks that is DNR thinking but that only works in theory and through very strick harvest principles with no predator involved and knowledge of every deer around. In the real world that will not work,however I am seeing more large bucks on our land here in Waupaca Co. not near as many deer tho.
Trouble is people think because they own 40 acres they can shoot several deer, well that cannot be (long term). There are 16 forties in a sq. mile now if there are 32 deer per sq.mile (thats a lot)thats only 2 deer per 40. A person with 40 acres should shoot a doe every 3 or 4 years on that property and a buck every other year that would be a large kill. Of course deer don't stay on that 40 and move so folks see more deer.
If the DNR is managing for 750,000 deer and the deer kill is about 350,000 (all kills) thats half the deer, Thats why we are in the position we are in. Deer are way down you can't shoot half the deer and expect to have a large herd. Folks we are in a world of hurt, have to go out now and ML hunt, nothing smaller than 8 points tho.
Redclub
Now with the idea that less doe,s equals more bucks can be true IF you manage for a given number of deer in an area. Say 20 deer per square mile, if 12 are does 8 can be bucks ,if 16 are does only 4 can be bucks that is DNR thinking but that only works in theory and through very strick harvest principles with no predator involved and knowledge of every deer around. In the real world that will not work,however I am seeing more large bucks on our land here in Waupaca Co. not near as many deer tho.
Trouble is people think because they own 40 acres they can shoot several deer, well that cannot be (long term). There are 16 forties in a sq. mile now if there are 32 deer per sq.mile (thats a lot)thats only 2 deer per 40. A person with 40 acres should shoot a doe every 3 or 4 years on that property and a buck every other year that would be a large kill. Of course deer don't stay on that 40 and move so folks see more deer.
If the DNR is managing for 750,000 deer and the deer kill is about 350,000 (all kills) thats half the deer, Thats why we are in the position we are in. Deer are way down you can't shoot half the deer and expect to have a large herd. Folks we are in a world of hurt, have to go out now and ML hunt, nothing smaller than 8 points tho.
Redclub
