Well, in rereading my previous post, I got to thinking that maybe I was somewhat to harsh in my response. I retract the comment about "the sanctimonious ones"...that is a tad unfair since it implies that I know that the people going "rah rah EAB" aren't shooting does. I guess I was in one of those moods when I posted.

Back to the thread itself: again, my biggest problems with this Earn-a-Buck rule are threefold. First, the DNR has all but admitted after the 2002 season that the SAK method of counting deer is flawed. By placing such a high reliance on the previous seasons' buck kill to calculate deer numbers, the formula essentially assumes that if the buck harvest is down, as it was in 2002 due to the discovery of CWD in the herd, then the population is also down. Taken to an extreme, the formula would tell us that if no one hunted and killed a buck, the population of deer would actually be lower, unless some adjustments to the formula were made. Such adjustments are subjective, meaning that you are now placing subjective judgements into what is supposed to be an objective, scientific way of measuring deer population. As such, we have hunters all over the state saying the same thing: "we aren't seeing nearly as many deer as in years past, but we are in a t-zone or and EAB zone." After awhile, it is pretty hard for hunters who spend a lot of time in the timber or scouting for sign to disagree with your own eyes.

Second problem that I alluded to before is the overwinter goals. As I mentioned, in Unit 61 the goal used to be about 24 deer per square mile. About 1996, it was dropped to 19, so woooolah!...we're suddenly over target! Basically, the DNR wanted a 20% reduction in herd from the previous goal numbers. Why? The habitat in that unit is sufficient, i.e. this is not a metro area that has acre after acre of habitat being paved over. So if the DNR suddenly decides again to change the overwinter goal, then EAB or t-zone never ends.

Finally, the DNR likes to go out and pontificate that the only reason that a unit is in EAB or t-zone is because the hunters in that region have not done a good enough job of shooting antlerless deer. Let's just assume that no one shoots any nubbin's (never happens, right ??). Now let's take a look at the harvest in Unit 61 as one example:

2003
Total Harvest, including bow, 9-day gun, and t-zone hunts: 14,454
Total antlerless harvest, all seasons : 9,029
Percentage of harvest composed of antlerless deer : 62.47%

So what is the problem here, in terms of deer population? Not enough does being shot, or not enough DEER being shot? Somehow, EAB does not strike me as a plan to get more hunters into the woods.

Also, in terms of comparison, the average doe kill in the so called CWD zones?? 67.48%. Seems like things are working pretty well in Unit 61, and probably most other units that have supposedly "not done a good enough job harvesting deer".

So much for EAB "ratcheting up the deer kill"! Instead, we'll have another year of many hunters getting PO'ed by a poorly conceived rule. Some will stay home. Wanna bet the total kill in our unit, and many others in the EAB will be lower this year (assuming weather is about the same)?

TJD
No offense taken to your previous post. I agian agree with you that the dnr has no clue to what there doing, thats a given! But in the unit I hunt in the north west ( near cable) the amount of does that get shot are few. At least from what I see. You go to a registration station and see 10 cars with a deer, of that 10 deer you see one doe, a button buck, 1-2 : 2 1/2 yr old bucks and the rest will be comprised of spikes and fork horns. You see cars driving around with spike after spike strapped to them. I'm not saying don't shoot little bucks because to a young child or first time hunter a fork horn is a trophy. But some of these guys you see every year with a spike or a fork horn. They claim it is for meat, but then go on to say that they passed up a few adult does befor they harvested the spike. Where is the logic in that.
I will also say that I saw a few more does taken up there this year. But that was entirly due to the looming EAB. What they didn't realize is 5 yrs. ago when it was made a t-zone they had said, you have 5 years to bring the deer numbers down or your getting EAB. Well you can't go on not shooting does till the last year and expect to meet the requirements.
Agian thats just from my observation. If you could provide a link that I can get the hard numbers from the harvest I would love to see them.

Jeff

HI Jeff:

Here is the link to the harvest data by unit; I don't have one by county, but there may be one that I have yet to find:


http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/.../harvest03.htm

To get the percentages, you need to add in the t-zone hunts and add together the bow and gun kills (sorry, I did leave out the muzzleloader season. Did not seem to be a real big impact either way).

Jeff, I don't dispute that some units need to have more does killed. But if that is the case, make sure that they are DOES, first of all. The DNR has cuffed this guesstimate for years that only about one in four of the antlerless deer killed are buck fawns. This based on a few spot checks at registration stations years ago. Since buck fawns are very easy to mistake for mature does, I would bet that the total gets pretty close to 40% in many units. Second, like the carpenters admonition cautions, "Measure twice, cut once." In other words, make sure you have a real problem before you engage in any drastic activity, or try to implement a solution to a problem that isn't there. As I mentioned before, our unit is now EAB based on a significantly reduced overwinter goal...I'm relatively certain that other units are like that as well. Again, it isn't that the deer population is higher, it is that the population goal is now lower. So in theory, as well as in practice, if the DNR can reduce that target with impunity, then a unit may have an impossible task in reaching a subjective goal set by the DNR.

Let's face it, the 23 day deal would be a huge mistake.And yes, there should be earn-a-buck, but make it retroactive.You would have to shoot a doe this year to get a buck tag next year.It's a win-win situation.

Okay, help me out here...

Really?? Why?? Why would that be such "a huge mistake". If overpopulation is really the problem, then enabling folks who can't get off on Thanksgiving week a chance to hunt seems to be a reasonable enough thing to do.

Again, why? T-zone has not brought the population down in the units in question, in spite of special hunts that enabled the killing of thousands of additional antlerless deer. So how is EAB (retroactive or not), which is sure to encourage a number of hunters to not hunt supposed to solve anything? That's a "win-win???

[Deleted by Admins]

Exactly, what better time to program (teach) young hunters than at the begining. We got to end the mentality of "I'ld rather a spike buck than a doe any day!" Sure a begining hunter should be able to shoot the first deer he/she sees ..... or shoud they????? It might be better to teach them to be selective from day one, teach them good herd management, hunter restraint, good shot selection should be considered good etiquette.

No, I am not being selfish. My son just graduated Hunters safty two weeks ago. This fall he will be deer hunting for the first time. Now, our back yard, which we can hunt on, will most likely become a EAB-CWD herd reduction zone next month. Depending on where he deer hunts the first time, I see no problem with him passing on a buck, because it may be the right thing to do.

Maybe you're saying more than you mean. I agree that teaching young hunters to be selective should always be the goal of every parent or adult. But that is really not the point here. Why should it be the job of the DNR to "program" a young..or old...hunter? I think Brian is right. We make a big issue of bringing youth into hunting, then when it comes to EAB, we make no exceptions at all. Besides, as to your point, 1Sag about selectivity...being selective is just the OPPOSITE of what EAB instills. First antlerless deer...don't think that a bunch of the so-called antlerless aren't gonna be nub bucks this year...and WHAM! So now we teach kids "You better fill that antlerless tag NOW if you want to shoot a buck!" And how "selective" do you think the average young hunter, who is probably also inexperienced, is going to be?

Back to your point, Brian. I'm not saying that a 23-day hunt is the magic number. Maybe its 14, or 12 or something else. I'm willing to consider alternatives if 1) it enables more hunting opportunities for people, and 2) we can be rid of t-zones. And yes, if the overwinter goal remains at 15 deer per sq. mile, then we will NEVER be at target no matter what we do. I am truly amazed that more of the outfitters in Buffalo County as well as the landowners have not made a bigger deal of that issue.

Maybe they'll give us Thompson submachine guns to help bring down the population!

TJD,

Youth don't need a exception for EAB. A young hunter does not have to shoot a nub, an attempt to ID an antlerless deer can be made. Then if they still shoot a nub, it is no big deal, not prefered, but no big deal.

Remember, there are really two different types of EAB going on this fall.

1. Regular EAB, shoot a doe before a buck, any weapon, and then shot some more does if you want. Here a hunter can, and should be selective in what he/she shoots.

2. CWD herd reduction zone EAB. Shoot a doe before a buck, any weapon, up to 4 deer per day. In these areas, deer harvest is very unselective.

Each EAB area should have a different attitude on deer harvest, and all Deer management units for that matter. I feel new hunters can grasp this concept better than most old timers that are set in their ways. The get a buck at any cost mentality can change.

[Deleted by Admins]