WI DNR Poll

wack
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:10 am

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby wack » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:40 pm

Abraham Lincoln once said, "It's best to keep your mouth shut and appear the fool than to open it and remove all doubt."


I did not know that was a Lincoln Quote. My grandfather used to say this to me and my brother and I've passed it on to my children.

Mtnman, Do you think that bigger units will help the SAK work better in the future? I also agree with you that Wisconsin DNR does a great job of collecting DATA. How about the DATA that shows how well the elk have done? Impact studies? $5 Million + in habitat restoration and elk research our tax dollars have paid for?  Tell them about all the research that says we need to bring in more elk and how it will help the deer herd, bear and wolf populations. How the elk have been delayed but the deer herd goals haven't changed. The goals for up north were supposed to have a lot more elk by now, a lot less bears right now and a full house of wolves not waiting for the wolf plan to kick in. Thie affect is those units shown in RED or "below goals." The north woods is much different from the rest of the state and needs to be treated differently. With or with out the elk, this is a bad time for those units to be below goal. Better if it's below goal in preperation for more elk, lowers the CWD risk. Does the SAK take in concideration of the predators that are not present in the rest of the state? Has the deer goal or estimate changed when 13,000 bears went to 40,000 bears? When 530 wolves become 1,200 this year? I hope the DNR knows what it's doing because in an area that could be awesome hunting is treading on thin ice.  They've got a fine line and a lot to balance. Those regular zone areas that are below goal need to be protected and managed for quality since quantity didn't work. All I know is the plan was to have nearly a huntable herd of elk by now, and the deer has to make up the slack. The DNR was pretty right on track with predicting the wolves, did a great jog restoring the bear population. Because of the Dept. of Agriculture, the elk part of the plan is missing, and mother nature isn't waiting on red tape.
American by birth, hunter by choice.

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

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby mtnman » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:07 pm

The most accurate count will be based on the smaller units. You can get a unit that is substantially below goal, combine it with others that are at or above goal, and all of a sudden you have a unit that is now above goal, without the movement of a single deer into that unit. And what has changed? Nothing. Setting higher harvests on a unit that already was below goal is detrimental to the herd. It is more like slight of hand. Making any figures say what you want them to say by fudging the numbers. It is an unethical way of doing herd management.

SAK must take in all matters of concerns to the herd, which it does not now. Leaving out even one, or being off, makes a dramatic shift in the dynamics on how SAK is figured. Being honest in how harvest numbers are arrived at need to be first. Like I said before...accuracy and time.
In the units that are in the north...these should be buck only for the next two years minimum...longer if winters continue like the past 2. That goes for bow and gun, and no special seasons. Spring is almost here...bears will be out along with the fawn drop...hopefully the fawn drop will beat the bears out of hibernation this year. So far there has been a big drop in deer survival over last winters numbers. Without a good fawn crop, and subsequent survival...do not plan on seeing much in the way of deer up this way, much less harvesting one...this fall or next.
(Florence Co., WI)

bowhunter53
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:57 am

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby bowhunter53 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:57 am

stumpsitter66, The reason I have a low opinion of our DNR really does not have much to do with deer estimates or SAK, there is much more to the DNR than SAK. It has to do with their policies, what they do with the information they have. The first biologist I contacted was Scott Garrow (not sure on the spelling) the fur bearing biologist from Ill. Serveral years ago I had a calf killed and eaten, a couple days later two wolves were going after my calves. One rushed the cows,while the other one went for a calf. I yelled at them and chased them away. My wife grab the camera and filmed one. It had a radio collar on it. Being naive I contacted Adrien Whiteven (again spelling) our wolf biologist and sent him the film. He told me, it's an interesting video and it does have the same radio collar on it they use for wolves, but he thinks it's a radio collared coyote from Ill., because wolves will never go into southern WI. I then contacted Ill.before they got back to me Whiteven said it was confirmed a coyote from Ill. Later Scott Garrow called me back and said there is no way it is a coyote from Ill. A DNR lie. I contacted both the colo. and Wy. fish and game about CWD after it had been in WI. for a couple years. I had serveral questions and didn't trust our DNR. One email from the CO. boilogist, Paul something, I sent a copy to our CWD advisory committee. It had to do with the statement on the CWD page that said something like, Cwd infection rates have reached 40% in mule deer in some areas of Co. The biologist emailed me back and said this must be computer modeling, because there are no areas with that high of infection rate. Again a lie and now I see it's been removed. That is my problem with the WIDNR. They have infomation, they either put their spin on it, or keep it to themselves, like the spring 08 fawn survival rate, bear populations ( you can't tell me they didn't know) wolf populations, mountain lions in WI, I told them last spring, I found 23 dead deer on my land, they said deer don't die in southern WI from winter kill. I am disgussed with our DNR!!! One other thing don't call me a lair unless you want to do it to my face.

bowhunter53
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:57 am

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby bowhunter53 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:04 am

stumpsitter66 my last comment I should have left out. I know on these forums we get carried away some times, but I don't make things up. There is allot of passion in the hunting world. We need to channel that in the right direction.

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

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby stumpsitter66 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:40 am

Hi Bowhunter53, thanks for the reply. Very interesting notes and reference you provided. I agree with you ... we need to channel this the right way. We are all in it together. And we should consider ourselves all as friends, not adversaries. Yes we sometimes get carried away (I know I do). Thanks for the insights and the interesting and intelligent "debate."

Stump

wack
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:10 am

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby wack » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:13 am

That is my problem with the WIDNR. They have infomation, they either put their spin on it, or keep it to themselves,


I totally agree with this quote. Just like the DNR says that larger units will give a better more accurate count.  Sounds good, it's what I want to here, but is it the truth? Wasn't it Fish who spoke to the DNR and was told " we can't handle the truth" ? I'd really like to know what that's supposed to mean.

I here these stories about Ill. radio collared coyote, " wolves never go south." How about the radio collared Wisconsin Wolf Found in Indiana? Cougar and bear sightings brushed off as house cat sightings or dog sightings, and the list goes on and on. I saw A black bear that was hit and killed by a car on HWY 14 near Cross Plains around 1990. I saw the accident scene minutes after the crash and was on scene before the DNR. The DNR got on scene, covered up the bear, removed it ASAP and then told me it was a pig that got hit and killed. Hmmm, a pig with claws? I put my hands on the bear, looked at it's teeth and claws close up, and I grew up playing around my grandpas farm who had pigs and cows, I know the difference between a pig and a bear. Being so close to Madison, a bear sighting would and should be front page news. I called in the "news tip" to every Madison TV Station and not one could confirm the bear/car crash nor did anyone run the story.  Another example of how the public doesn't get the truth. I didn't get it then, still don't get it now.

 When filling out the DNR surveys, I hope I made it clear to the DNR that I'm for anything that will help the biologists get a more accurate count to better manage our wildlife. I believe the goals are too low and the below goal units are in trouble and is directly related to the delay in the elk reintroduction plan. The current bear population reduction planned for 2009 is also directly related to the delay in the elk reintroduction plan and shows the DNR has concerns they're not talking about. It's like the DNR is saying, " You know, we were going to put the elk back, but you hunters are such a pain that we're just going to let everything go haywire. Maybe they can't get elk so they're going to bring the deer and bear populations down to the elk herd size? That's the basic goal in the CWD Zone isn't it? Kill all the deer? Is it because many hunters left the CWD Zone to hunt up north? Giving hunters a reason to go back to the CWD Zone,? Lack of deer elsewhere sure has me thinking about hunting the CWD zone, that seems to be where the most deer are. Are these some of the DNR's truths that we can't handle? Maybe they're thinking that wolves and bears should now be in the CWD Zone too? Turn a blind eye, act dumb and give answers like, "wolves wouldn't move south." This is Wisconsin, where else are they going to go? Grow fins and gills and jump into the Great Lakes?
 If you look at it in mother nature cycles, usually a 7 year cycle, we've interrupted or stretched the 7 year cycle out for 100 years or more, had an incredible peak in deer numbers, we can only expect an equally low peak, and by Wisconsin's history could mean deer disappear for another 100 years, like the elk, bears, wolves, eagles,.....ect. I don't think Wisconsin residence back in the 1800's ever thought they could wipe out all those species, and history has a way of repeating itself. Balancing a food chain is more difficult than running a petting zoo and the northwoods is going to need more than deer to support wolves bears and hunters too. Maybe the DNR figures there wont be enough hunters so 150 elk, will be enough? They've seemed to figure that into there deer goals. Maybe Doyles budget looks better if all the deer are gone, the bears are gone, so there's no reason or way to save the wolves? Cashing in our wildlife? He's tried cashing in on everything else. He's working on stealing our cell phone rebates as we speak, working on stealing money from legal gun buyers as we speak. I hear that all the planets are going to line up in 2012, the planet's electrical poles will swich polarity and be the end of the world as we know it anyways, what really are the truths that we can't handle? If the planet isn't going to explode in 2012, I think we need as many renewable resources as we can manage and continue to restore the habitat and wildlife that we've worked so hard to get this far. I certainly couldn't hurt the economy or property values. Are we going to have to ask our kids to bail out our wildlife too?
 
American by birth, hunter by choice.

User avatar
Centralwisconsinland
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:38 am

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby Centralwisconsinland » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:32 am

It is to bad that it has become so political.  It is time for the hunter to become educated and informed before the fact and not after.  I want to thank retch, fish, mtnman, stump and anyone else that brings information here for the hunter.  I believe all hunter's should be affillated with a hunting group and become INVOLVED and informed.  Grassroots organizations such as WHU Wisconsin Hunter's United, HARC Hunter's Alliance for Regutory Communication have come to life to inform thier members of what to expect in the future of Wisconsin Deer Hunting.  Others SCI Safari Club International local chapters, Issac Walton chapters, any hunting organization that will inform and allow the hunter to voice thier opinion through political channels.  When I hear boycotting the hunting seasons, I can just imagine Caroline smiling.  Rather than taking a step back, watch what happens, roll up those sleeves dig in and make it better.  According to the poll, I chose, DNR doing a good job, need to utilize hunter input more.  It would be good if the DNR would allow spring observation of the doe/fawn count by hunters.  It is my understanding that they do not want to utilize the hunter in the count.  I am rambling now, that's my two cents.   
It's easier to do a job right the first time than to explain why you didn't.

Whitetailaddict
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby Whitetailaddict » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:38 am

all i can say is... if all of this gets too far out of hand, i think we (all the hunters) should start taking matters into our own hands. i know i will. like hell am i gonna sit back and watch bears, wolves and stuff like eab kill the thing i love the most. if the dnr tells us we need to kill does, i won't do it.  i don't wanna sit by and watch our deer become extinct! i won't let it happen. We need to get those dnr fools out of office and get some educated, passionate hunters into there before it's too late.
While it hasn't come to this yet (and i hope it never does) i'm just saying what i and everyone else need to do. i think we can easily fix all of this (and in a short amount of time too) but we need to start trying to fix it before it can get any better. 
 
 
Sorry, I had to edit it, we cant be promoting illegal activities.
Goose

Whitetailaddict
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby Whitetailaddict » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:40 am

and another thing... that poll doesn't have a "they need to pull their heads from their asses" option. [:D]

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

RE: WI DNR Poll

Postby gunther89 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:28 pm

Wack it doesn't pay to come hunt in the CWD zone because there aren't that many deer here either.  All the deer are on private land that you can't get at or are in the city where hunting isn't allowed.  I was at my grandparents land all week in the CWD zone and seen a whopping 13 deer in 7 days being there.  I would drive around right at dusk looking for deer and not see hardly any.  Now on my way home I get to Middleton and there in a field stands 16 deer.  Of course these deer are on no hunting land.  If you were to get lucky and get permission to hunt private land with deer on it in a CWD zone then congrats to you.

Whitetailaddict:  I hear you on taking matters into your own hands.  I too hope it doesn't come to that but I have a feeling it will.  Wolves are spreading farther south every year looking for more food to eat.  I just seen 2 coyotes on our property so it's good to know that we don't have wolves around our land yet, but our time will come.
Scott

Previous

Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests