Wisconsin Hunters Read This

stumpsitter66
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:58 am

Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby stumpsitter66 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:05 am


User avatar
gunther89
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:38 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby gunther89 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:19 am

I kinda figured this would happen.  Hunters now aren't gonna shoot as many does to get the numbers back up but then we are over-populated so we are back to the beginning in more seasons.  Also the reason we have shot so many deer is because you basically have 4 months to shoot alot of deer.  When hunters shoot 5-6 deer a year the numbers are going to be higher.  Even in areas that are below normal, hunters were still shooting deer so they could get there EAB tag.  To compare numbers 10 years ago when we had the bow season, the 9 day gun hunt and then muzzleloader is just dumb.  Of course your gonna have more deer shot now with more days to hunt.
Scott

User avatar
mtnman
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:05 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby mtnman » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:04 am

We have expected this. The fact that the DNR does not address the decline in deer numbers across the state, honestly and in good faith, has nothing to dod with earn a buck. EAB has been a disaster. You will not force someone to take a doe in order to take a buck if deem not to. Especially if the herd numbers do not require it. Same with CWD. Ther are just as many professional biologists on the other side of this issue than there is on the DNR's side. Add in the public, and who do you think has a better handle on the true populations. Deer management has to change. And it is worth doing right...not what is expedient.
(Florence Co., WI)

Spurred
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby Spurred » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:34 am

ORIGINAL: mtnman

Ther are just as many professional biologists on the other side of this issue than there is on the DNR's side.


Let me ask you something, who are these professional biologists?

stumpsitter66
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:58 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby stumpsitter66 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:49 am

That is a good question. I have heard and read reports from the top state managers from Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and New York and they have all stated that WI's system is sound. I have heard so-called "professional" biologists give there 2 cents from time to time but they are usually private land guys from TX, GA and other southern locations. Back when I was an up and coming stump sitter, I cared more, but I will take the word of a true biologist who is managing a whole state as opposed to some guy who is managing a couple of thousand acres. That article in the GB paper is the most enlightened piece I've read on this topic so far.

Jack (Stump)

User avatar
gunther89
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:38 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby gunther89 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:03 am

CWD is a waste of time.  In the whole time they have been testing, the DNR had 1,172 confirmed cases of CWD.  They tested 151,977 statewide.  104,222 were tested inside the CWD zone so we will go with that number.  So if I am correct on my math that means that 1.1% of the deer that got tested had CWD.  So your right we should be worried about CWD when 1.1% were found to have it.  I am willing to bet that more deer die of jumping over a fence and getting there foot caught then they do of CWD. 
Scott

User avatar
Fish
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby Fish » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:05 am

Too funny, you are actually addressing an article written by Pat Durkin.  I'm not even going to spend the time to comment, how 'bout you Mr. Sweeny?
 
I do wonder about some of your comments though.  If you were present at the April 15th hearing you would have heard some testimony from the CC, WWF and other orgs not standing hand in hand with our DNR and their management plan. SAK is sound, the introduction of EAB and Zone T hinders it.  This was expressed by a study of biologist outside of the DNR in 2005.  BTW, testimony from a retired MI biologist was made at the hearing.....not in support of EAB and Zone T.
 
Stump, if you read much about MI DNR reports, you will see a department with a detailed report on what the goal is and what goes into setting that goal.  Oh, and yes, their DSPM is much higher AND address forest regeneration.
 
I like this statement the best from Mr Durkin,
 
"Think about it. When fishing, we don't anchor in the same place daily and demand the DNR put walleyes or bluegills under our boats."
 
No we don't but does the DNR make us catch 2 bluegill, a musky and a northern in order to catch a limit of walleye?
 
Priceless........

Spurred
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby Spurred » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:42 am

My question remains (No, I was not at the hearings so please inform me) -- who are these "professional" biologists that are on the other side of the issue as our DNR?

stumpsitter66
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:58 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby stumpsitter66 » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:26 am

No we don't but does the DNR make us catch 2 bluegill, a musky and a northern in order to catch a limit of walleye?


No, they don't, because few (if any) lakes have problems with too many fish. I thought the original analogy was pretty good. Plus, the DNR does implement rules to manage fish when needed. The original point, as I read it, was that most guys get locked into their little 20, 40 or 80 acre hunting parcels, then they complain that "there aren't any deer left" when populations get closer to goal. It is all about reality and reality is now skewed after years of overpopulations. I'm really tired of beating this dead horse, but do some research and get to the bottom of the real reasons why the DNR backed off in 1988 then again in 1992.

Also, you should note that the Democrat-controlled Legislature can be thanked for this recent back-pedaling. The same Democrats that want to take your guns and tax you out of existence on ammunition.

I'm done on this topic.

Jack

User avatar
Fish
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Wisconsin Hunters Read This

Postby Fish » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:03 pm

You can watch the hearing on WI eye.

What is goal?  What are the real numbers in regards to population?  Fact is, SAK is incorrect relative to car and buck kill.  Social carrying capacity is about 50% of biological carrying capacity.  Bio capacity is about 3 million.  Deer 2000 stated DPSM more like 25 DPSM.  Why the drop to 20?(average)
There is only one study in regards to DPSM which is NOT presence vs. absence.  Tilgman's study proved 30+ DPSM w/o aditional food sources i.e. corn, food plots, etc...  Give me one study that says otherwise.  I am also sick of beating a dead horse and that horse is the individuals who only believe what the DNR tells them.  DNR biologist are in disagreement for pete's sake.

Yes, I know these Democrats, if fact, I shook many of their hands yesterday and today.  Why?  The Youth Mentored Hunting bill hearings which they strongly support.  Oh yeah, BTW the DNR fully endorses this bill too.  How can Fish and the DNR hold hands in support?  Sky must be falling.....

Sorry, I'm just sick of certain individuals calling out "barstool biologist" when they, themselves can't even attend and support whatever their stance is.   And please, don't ever ask me to do more research.....I'm up to my ears in it along with actually doing something to protect the traditions you hold so dear.  Thank me or hate me but don't ever tell me to do more.

Sorry, I mean no offense but sometimes....[:@]

Next

Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests