WI DNR Poll

[mtnman]

I have to agree with with fish on this one. While the DNR is off on their numbers and need to take in consideration those in the deer woods, when the herd is down and multiple tags are handed out like candy, if you harvest excessive deer knowing that it is detrimental to the herd, you are just as culpable for the reduction in the deer herd in your area. I have, and will this year if deer numbers in my area are not at or above what I believe to be proper levels,  I will not hunt this year...plain and simple. I am sure that there are many out there will shoot anything rather than go home with nothing..that is their right. But they should not complain that only the DNR is responsible for the poor harvest  The state and the DNR has tried to make us killers and not hunters...they play to the greed in many of us to do their bidding...and we have been successful in that endeavor.

We must manage the herds in our area to the numbers needed to keep deer survival and our traditions alive and well...regardless of what agency modeling suggests that we do. You as hunters in the long run, have more say in herd levels than either the DNR or you give yourself credit for.

[wisbooner3932]

I chose "needs a lot of improvement".  They obviously dont know how to estimate populations (deer and bears) which is a huge part of their job.  If they can't estimate popultions then how are they going to know how to set up season framework properly?  They can't which is why their will be less hunters in the field next year, and the next and so on.  They also need to take hunters input into consideration, after all we are paying their wages. In my opinion T-zone and EAB need to go.  I can't complain about my deer season this year because my deer sightings didn't go down at all but it upsets me to know that people are calling it quits because of what the DNR is doing. 

[wack]

I do hear what you guys are saying about I/we shot to many deer. Most of my deer were from private land and part of my lack of luck recently is I am hunting public land now. Gas prices, and lack of access to private land that has been well managed had me a bit spoiled. I/we also would not have shot that many deer if the DNR didn't say that we needed to shoot that many deer. The other problem that directly affected my hunts on private land is the land surrounding was subdivided in 1 and 5 acre plots, and the fact that we had well managed the property, the owner sold it just in time and now too will be subdivided. What a shame.
 My frustration comes from seeing the potential of public grounds compared to reality. I really question using public hunting grounds for cash crops. There's a lot of work to do just in habitat restoration in my home area.
 Up north, much bigger story, a lot of work needed. Getting the wolf policy set up and put into action. Getting accurate counts on deer, bear, wolves, and elk. There's a lot of work and important decisions to be made. I've had my fun, now it's time I do something for my grandchildren. Getting the elk that the DNR wants would be a great gift for future generations. I'm more frustrated with fellow hunters than in Warnke and the DNR. The DNR's big picture makes sense, when it includes elk. It seems that hunters haven't gotten behind the idea so the DNR isn't pushing it. It's an important part of the big picture plan for up north and the DNR needs to push the issue and hunters need to back them up, give them a push. We can do it before all the deer are gone, or after.
 Minus the elk, we'd be in pretty good shape. 500 elk in 2002 would have gone a long ways for today, would have been a great help for the balance of the food chain and we wouldn't be looking at killing off a large number of bears, we'd be looking at a stead decrease in waiting list for bear tags. The DNR has to do what they are doing, selling 6000 extra tags, that's the adjustment needed from not having the 2002 elk added. I have my bear points, will be signing up for one 2010 to do my part. The future and number of bears northern WI will be able to maintain will be directly related to the number of elk. As the deer peaked, now too has the bear. How far the bear falls depends on how far the deer numbers fall, how soon we get more elk, and how well we can keep the wolves to a minimum.
 I'm fine with seeing a dozen deer while deer hunting if I also see a few elk, and bear. I'm fine with wolves as long as I also see a few deer, elk and bear. I'm not good with watching wolves and bears get out of hand, deer disappear, and over $5 millions dollars worth of research and habitat restoration efforts go to waist. One Dept of Agriculture ban ban on transporting elk stands in the DNR's way. Let the DNR know they have your support in the elk reintroduction and they should fight to give our elk herd the best chance possible to succeed.

[stumpsitter66]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "It's best to keep your mouth shut and appear the fool than to open it and remove all doubt." This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but unless you truly know how WI compares to other states, please don't express opinions on how you think they are doing in managing its herd. State based management is a science (inexact, but look at the state's track recrod). If you truly want to educate yourself, interview any state-game biologist from another state. Or, take the time to read the hundreds of pages of auditing that was done on the WIDNR herd management plan that was part of the $1.1 million taxpayers spent from the Deer 2000 fiasco. Saying that they "don't know what they are doing" based off of what you are personally seeing on your hunting land and heresay from your neigbors is like second-guessing your heart surgeon on how he is doing in the middle of surgery.


Stump

[bowhunter53]

Our DNR stinks. Under estimated the bear population by 2 to 2 1/2 times, over estimated the deer population. Has spent close to 40 million dollars on CWD for nothing. Set up a stake holder group on CWD, listened to what they had to say for one year and are now going back to what failed before. Wolves so far they have been able to blame on the Feds, lets see what happens now, when they have control. The head of our DNR use to run prisons, that qualifies him. I have talked to other states game biologists, and have hunted in numerous other states. Our DNR Stinks!!! There are some good people working for the DNR and they do have a tuff job, but overall I would give them a C-, below average.

[Wolf River Hunter]

I don't see it as hunters having a choice with EAB. For those of you who can sit back and not hunt...more power to you, that isn't me. I dream of that big buck working his way to my stand 365 days a year. I don't blame a single hunter for doing what they had to do to get that cursed sticker. Yes hunters pulled the trigger but what was the alternative? Don't hunt? Not an option for people like me. The DNR created the program that put us where we are now, blame them.

[stumpsitter66]

I have talked to other states game biologists, and have hunted in numerous other states.

Have you? Really? Who did you talk to? I am assuming it wasn't anyone from Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Texas Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Arkansas, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee or West Virginia. Why? Because the top deer biologists from those states are the ones who sat on the steering committee that audited our deer herd and the SAK formula.

If Wisconsin is using a flawed model, it's not alone. Seven of those states also use a SAK system and seven others use similar "herd reconstruction" models to estimate deer num-
bers. Meanwhile, Texas uses spotlight surveys and the other five states - Alabama, Arkansas,
Indiana, Tennessee and Virginia - don't bother with statewide estimates. Why?
Sound deer management doesn't always require them. As the panel reported: "Some
states estimated deer numbers for political or media purposes,
but population estimates were not used for making management decisions."

After comparing how these 21 states compile and use deer data, the panel wrote: "In Wis-
consin, data collection and analysis is objective and open to citizen review. The deer
management program is clearly defined, well-documented and available to the public. Wisconsin exceeds all states surveyed in the amount of information about the deer-management
process that is available to their citizens and the transparent manner in which deer manage-
ment decisions are made."

For those who sniff a conspiracy, please note four of the panelists work in states in-
cluded in the review: Josh Millspaugh and Lonnie Hansen are from Missouri, Duane Diefenbach is from Pennsylvania and Kent Kammermeyer is
from Georgia. The other two, Mark Boyce and John Skalski, are from Alberta and Washing-
ton, respectively.

[mtnman]

Maybe so...but did not that same audit board conclude that SAK, as used in Wisconsin, was off as much as 20% or more?
SAK is a good tool...and can work in its' purest form. Adding in other multipliers such as EAB, t-zone, cwd, predation, and other added in hunts, along with getting over winter population before fawn drop will never let SAK work as it is used here.

Solution...sure, use SAK, but the above mentioned must be addressed first. A formula is never going to be correct if the numbers are always in flux. It then becomes nothing but individual interpretation on whose numbers are deemed to have the most credibility.

We have seen, that because all factors are not taken into consideration, and not in the proper times, harvest goals and estimates have been way off..and hunting and the herd has suffered.

Remove all circumstances that skew SAK that are under our control (tzone, cwd, eab) until the herd has a chance to rcover. Do a better job, enlisting the hunters and especially landowners in helping with deer numbers in each DMU. Do not put out quotas in March until the fawn drop in April, at which the same time winter kill numbers would be more accurate.

Deer season starts in September, which means 9 months to set goals and harvest for the next season. Why such a hurry to get it done in three months? Accuracy is far more important to SAK, and our herd. It would be time well spent.

[stumpsitter66]

Mountainman:
Touche! Now that is intelligent debate! You make some good points and are obviously versed in the subject. Have a great day.
Old Stumpsitter

[mtnman]

Well, thank you...I hunt an live in the big woods...own a decent amount of land to boot. It has never surprised me on how many do their jobs, without doing their best (regardless of field of endeavor), and getting all and the best info possible. I (we) are trying to get some of these basic ideas implemented into SAK. It is not brain surgery, it just takes a little more time,(timeline) and those who truely care about the resource and the traditions of deer hunting in Wisconsin.
 It is not for the $$, for I (we) are doing this on a complete volunteer basis. There are many out there that are wildlife biologists, game managers, DMU board members, and just plenty of good old folks that know a heck of alot about deer, and deer hunting that are not in State Government. They have as much or more experience, and their voices should be given just as much credence as those paid members of a state agency. We are after all, looking to working with the DNR as a partner, not as advesaries. If indeed we share the same goals...deer and deer hunting would truely benefit with the cooperation of the state agencies and those citizens in the field.