HuntingNet.com Forums - Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Midwest (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest-25/)

- - Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest/883-not-beat-dead-horse-more-wdnr.html)

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

Lets set the record straight:

In 2000, I arrowed a 9-pointer that scored about 131 gross. Since it's a "9", it did not net enough to get in the books, but still, a nice deer.

In 2001 druing gun season, I shot what has been estimated at a 5 1/2 year old 8-pointer that scored around 136 net. Heavy rack!

Also, I shot a doe this year and last year.

If anyone took the time to look, I never said "I didn't see a deer", or "I don't think there are enough deer." Nowhere. Seems like I've had pretty decent luck, right? You bet!

So why the gripes about the DNR?

Simple. I've seen this same pattern before. The DNR works on regular cycles.

First cycle is "Whoa! Too many deer! Here hunters! Have some tags! In fact in 1999, we'll give the t-zone hunters two per hunter per day! No lie! You wanna shoot over 100 deer yourself between gun and bow season? Hey cool with us! (see 1990- 1992)"

Second cycle? "Nope. No deer out there. Can't give out bonus tags. You kidding? There aren't the deer and besides...give away...we need the money! In fact, we aren't even gonna allow hunters choice in most areas because we think the population is WAY too low (see 1993 - 1994)."

Trapper, anyone else, that sound familiar!!!

So what is gonna come of this? Guaranteed. Within one or two years we'll be on the downswing of the "boom-bust" deer management cycle the DNR so ineptly employs. Again we'll hear "Oh sorry! Not enough deer in most units. No bonus tags/hunters choice possible!" Anyone wanna bet on that one? Then, of course, we'll hear the same tripe coming from this upgraded version of the DMV..."Oh it was the weather. Winters were too hard." Of course, when they said that before the '93 and '94 seasons, it was pointed out that their own highly vaunted "Winter Severity" index indicated nothing very severe, then of course the excuse...and that's all it is...was that "other factors" influenced the "drop" in population. Of course, overharvesting in prior years could never be the cause, could it?

In the early '90's, I used to go hunting around Crivitz with a friend. Tags were handed out like candy and deer were shot left and right. By about '93, deer were scarce...I mean scarce...and in the Lena Swamp, baiting, car kills, etc. were not a big issue. So of course the DNR said at a hearing up there that I attended, "Oh, it was the weather."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I guess if you think you can do a better job handling the deer herd, apply for the job.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Trapper, is that the attitude you take with your Congressman too? Did you run for office the last time your elected official really ticked you off? Or do you act and vote against him/her if you disagree? Remember that these "professionals" work for us. They do a subpar job, they should be held accountable.

Logs, you are entitled to your opinion and I can respect you for it. Would be nice if you had a factual basis for it, though.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>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.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I agree. So why can't the "pros" at the DNR name the factors and show the impact that they have, rather than hiding behind the discredited excuse of "it's the weather" when we've had record harvests during years of "bad" hunting weather? I would think the DNR would tell us, right? If they could show that it was the meteor shower opening weekend, show us. If it was baiting, disease, lack of private land access, agent orange, e-coli, the Taliban...show us the impact! But they haven't done that, have they? Instead, we hear vague arguments about "brown" seasons and then the DNR wonders why their own survey numbers show that only about 16% of hunters have a great deal of confidence in them.

Edited by - TJD on 01/09/2002 22:59:58

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

Well TJD it sounds like you've had some pretty good hunting. So what is it going to take to make you quit whining and criticizing the DNR? B&C bucks every year guaranteed?

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

Trapperjer1....you must not be a bowhunter. The proposed 16 day gun deer season would take away one full week of prime November rut bowhunting. It would also puts greater pressure on the need for a October T-zone hunt because it does away with the December T-zone hunt.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Trapperjer1....you must not be a bowhunter. The proposed 16 day gun deer season would take away one full week of prime November rut bowhunting. It would also puts greater pressure on the need for a October T-zone hunt because it does away with the December T-zone hunt.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I must concur. Trapper, how can the 16 day gun season be a good idea, unless of course you are strictly a gun hunter? The proposals that are being floated in that regard do just what Brian said; take away prime bowhunting time by moving the muzzleloader season right into late-October. A late October t-zone is bad enough, but at least that was for an anlterless harvest. Imagine bucks being shot at in that period. Not to mention, bucks are pretty smart. Start going after them with smokepoles in October, you think they might be a little more spooky by late-November?

In response to the rest of your comments: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I stand by my statement that if anybody thinks they can do a better job managing the deer herd apply for the job.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Are you actually reading the posts? Well, if not, let me refer you to my response to Logs a few posts back:
" So why can't the "pros" at the DNR name the factors and show the impact that they have, rather than hiding behind the discredited excuse of "it's the weather" when we've had record harvests during years of "bad" hunting weather? I would think the DNR would tell us, right? If they could show that it was the meteor shower opening weekend, show us. If it was baiting, disease, lack of private land access, agent orange, e-coli, the Taliban...show us the impact! But they haven't done that, have they? Instead, we hear vague arguments about "brown" seasons and then the DNR wonders why their own survey numbers show that only about 16% of hunters have a great deal of confidence in them."
BTW, let me repeat, that 16% of hunters having a great deal of confidence in the DNR is from their own survey numbers collected during the Deer 2000 survey.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm not saying the DNR doesn't make mistakes. I think the earn a buck is a stupid idea.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> ...But now, when it comes to deer management, it sounds like you don't like seeing people complain about how they do it...unless it comes to "Earn-a-buck". A little inconsistent there, Trapper? If the DNR says...as they have at times...that "Earn-a-buck" might be a necessity in order to help manage the deer herd, why would you say "it's a stupid idea"?

My point is this: no, I don't have all the answers either. Again, I've said this before:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Nick, I don't pretend to have all the answers either. And I will admit that things like baiting, road hunting, lack of access to private land, etc. may have an impact. That's fine, and if they are shown to be scientifically proven to have an impact, then let's address them as necessary. But to be quoted like Mytton was as saying "Oh, it was the lack of snow and the warmth, just like 1990", and then have it found that 1990 was a record year?...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Again, Trapper, like you I don't expect perfection from the DNR. But I do expect: 1) accountability, and 2) straight answers. We don't get that currently! In addition, you are right about the farmers and insurance companies. So if game management is supposedly based on science as the DNR says, why would any of that have an impact on how they manage the herd? Again, it comes down to being straight with hunters and having factual basis for doing their business, not having it based on some lobbyist walking in and taking them to the Super Bowl. If a change is made to deer management based on political factors, then say it! Don't try to cloak in in phony science!

Edited by - TJD on 01/11/2002 09:23:39

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

TJD, I found that when dealing with different types of small fires you use differnt types of fire extinguuishers, electrical, grease,petro etc. In this case I think have identified the type of fire and know what works best when dealing with it...
"Logs, you are entitled to your opinion and I can respect you for it. Would be nice if you had a factual basis for it, though."
Yes Dear, you're right

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

Logs, I'm just point to the facts...many compiled by the very organization you hold in such high esteem. Again, facts...

Refute them if you can...or join the ranks of drive-by posters who scurry off into the ether when they are unable to do that....if you choose.

Or in your case, I'll sum up your approach...

"Gee Dad! The DNR must be right! I saw it on T.V.!"

...And talk to me after the DNR has stuck another T-zone into October because of the snowmobilers, and then try to cloak it in science by saying something stupid like..."we have determined that October t-zones are better for deer management than December hunts"...or..."we have determined that bowhunting during December is harmful to the health of the herd"...or some such nonsense...just to cover the fact that they make most of their decisions based on politics instead of science...

...just wait and see, Logs...

Edited by - TJD on 01/11/2002 16:43:43