RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

logs: I would like to think if a deer passed within a safe kill range, I'd be able to see it. If I couldn't, I'd get my eyes checked. Seeing every deer within a few thousand yards would only confirm my suspicions.

Sag: You have mail.

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I would think that the snowmobilers would all be in favor of a Dec. hunt. That way they would have something to do in &quot;winter&quot;!! Why not have a Dec. hunt planned and if the trails are officially opened cancel the Dec. T-Zone hunt? Odds are most years it wouldn't get canceled. The Dec. hunt focusses on private land as that is where the deer are after gun season. It allows landowners to hunt without the fear of wrecking future bow or gun hunts or pushing deer onto neighboring properties. The problems are on private lands so address the problem at the source. This hunt is the best tool for the problem as it doesn't require the additional efforts and expenditure as such other options as shooting permits. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Brian, Snomobilers rely on trails going through alot of private lands. Many land owners do not want snomobilers crossing there lands til after the deer seasons are over. The earlier the season ends, the less the hassle for them. They also don't want anyone shooting in the woods while they are on the trails, or blocking trail heads with vehicals while in hunting, or competition for lodging in December and January.

Would any Wisconsin deer hunter want the snowmobilers telling them they can't hunt in December, or bowhunt in January ?!?!?!?! <img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle>

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

Sag: Perhaps the snowmobilers are realizing bowhunting isn't as big a hazard to them as first thought. Didn't see a whole lot of them this Dec down this far south. Even though their numbers are large, perhaps they are seeing the mileage of trails is minimal when compared to acreage of hunting land.

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Sag: Perhaps the snowmobilers are realizing bowhunting isn't as big a hazard to them as first thought. Didn't see a whole lot of them this Dec down this far south. Even though their numbers are large, perhaps they are seeing the mileage of trails is minimal when compared to acreage of hunting land <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Yes this is a odd, no snow year. But if the Snowmobile association did not fear bowhunters, they would not have fought against extending the bow season into January last year. We could still be bowhunting right now, had it not been for them!!!!!! <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The reason the harvest was as high as it was in 1990 was because the population was high going into the season.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Logs, &quot;high&quot; relative to what? Supposedly going into this season, the population was high too. So if both were &quot;brown&quot; seasons, this years' total should have been alot higher that it was, right? After all, 1990 was a RECORD!

Again, if you and Bill Mytton are right, the &quot;brown&quot; season effect should have meant no record in 1990, since from what you said, <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The &quot;brown seasons&quot; do effect deer harvest. You can't shoot what you can't see. And most hunters can't see deer as well or often with limited snow cover.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>. I agree! So again, the DNR said going into THIS season, we again had record numbers of deer. If that indeed was the case in 1990 as well and that is why that harvest was so high that year, shouldn't this years harvest have been a record as well?

At least according your and Bill Mytton's logic...?

Edited by - TJD on 01/09/2002 13:56:55

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

Guess I'll find out their agenda tomorrow at the capitol. I don't know how much Jan. hunting I would do anyway. I've seen bucks that have shed 1 or both antlers already. Don't tell me you still have a buck tag. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Thought I was the only one with unfilled tags.

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

To answer your question.......&quot;The reason the harvest was as high as it was in 1990 was because the population was high going into the season. I'd be quessing but I'll bet the kill was a smaller percentage of the herd size than the DNR wanted havested.&quot;
And to answer part two......
&quot;Further, the brown season effect does not effect the state equally. There are times that everything north of Hy 8 has a good snow cover and the remaining part,the greater percentage of land, has no snow cover. Agian this is looking at the entire picture not just what you a single but deeply concern individual can see from the limited position.&quot;
I'd rather you took the time to read the post the first time and not ask questions already answered.
If the state would have been completely covered with snow in 1990 the kill would have been even greater. Just as this season was the sixth highest on record and it was a brown season. Therefore the deer population was sufficent to afford these number under less than desirable conditions. If we would have had a complete snow cover what do you believe the kill would have been, in 1990 and in 2001?


<font size=5>agian nice font up top there</font id=size5>
And nub I'd like to think so also but unfortunately that is not the case for most hunters and Im not casting any doubt on your ability, Im speaking of hunters in general. But then agian we'll never know how many deer we didn't see that were really there will we?

Edited by - logs on 01/09/2002 15:33:06

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

Logs, my reading is just fine, how about yours?...and hey, glad you like my font. <font size=6><font color=orange>Wanted to make sure you were able to read it, this being a &quot;brown&quot; year when it's so hard to see! Even added a little orange this time for safety, too!!</font id=orange></font id=size6>

But in answer to your response. For your contention to have any merit, you should be able to answer the following:

I agree that not all parts of the state are affected equally by snow cover...remember, this is Bill Mytton saying that both were &quot;brown&quot; seasons. So if your contention has something to do with varying snow coverage, what was the snowcover in various parts of the state that led to that record kill in 1990? How did it compare to 2001?

Also, since about 60,000 more deer were harvested in 1990 than in 2001 (both &quot;Brown&quot; years), point me to the url that shows that the population of deer entering the 1990 gun season was higher that the population entering the 2001 season. Or, are you just assuming that was the case because the DNR can't be wrong?

Logs, I'm only asking that the DNR back up their contentions with facts. Nothing more. And that's all I'm asking of you. You can keep whistling in the dark and humming that tune about the great job the DNR does with deer management. That's your opinion and your entitled to it. It would be nice if you had a factual basis for it, but hey, it's your opinion to have. I'm saying that with the bulk of the wildlife management budgets' funding coming from deer licenses, they should be doing a he11 of a lot better. And this hogwash that guys like Mytton put out certainly doesn't inspire any confidence.



Edited by - TJD on 01/09/2002 19:07:48

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR
 

TJD, Your missing the point completely and Im not about to do a search for information that you'll just argue with anyways.
The deer population varies from year to year. Im not comparing any one year to another. Im pointing out that there are VARIABLES in all aspects, snow cover by region, population by management unit, population by year, harest objectives by year, ability of one range to carry more deer than an other, prospective by individual hunters and ability of hunters.
All these things come into play to determine the total state deer harvest.
I have never taken the positon that the DNR can't be wrong. I don't always agree with them but in this case Im behind them 100%. Have you taken the position that you know better based on your vast knowledge of the entire state that the DNR is and has been wrong each year or just the ones you pick?