A call to action

[wack]

I agree that the deer count has been off for at least a couple years. I was saying that last year but it fell on deaf ears. I still do not know what you are trying to do about it. Are you just bitching about the method or doing something about it? Do you have a better plan than what the DNR does? Show me a better plan.

 30,000 bears? I have yet to see any proof of that. Are you blaming bears for the deer numbers? Is 30,000 bear a bad thing? Is this a part of what this group stands for? ''i'M CONFUSED.

 The message I seem to get is you want to keep it simple. You want more accurate counts on deer and now bears. Let's say we come up with a formula to do that. Let's say we implement this new plan, and find out a few years from now it is flawed, it's not working. We would not have implemented it if we knew it was flawed, we wouldn't know if it was flawed with out giving it a try. Is it better to use the experience to fix the flaws or start over? The DNR knows that the counts are flawed and are working on the problem. What more do you want?
 EAB and T zones are both good tools. They may not have been used correctly in recent years, then again, if you look at the goals and results, these methods may have worked perfectly. I would not vote to ban these methods, but I would like to see the use of these methods used only when it's needed to reduce the herd or even up the buck to doe ratio. Getting accurate data to determine what methods to use in what area's again is the key and we are back to counting deer again.
 If the DNR knew that the deer count was off but found out too late to change the zones and take back tags that were issued, then maybe the DNR should determine the hunting seasons goals much later in the season? What ever method used to count deer has to provide results in time to set the up coming season. There is just no way to keep this simple. Complaining doesn't help unless you can provide clear answers for fixing the problems.
 One good thing I can see happening here is if the website becomes an information center for hunters to get in touch with law makers and organizations. Maybe a slight tweak that would help the name fit the bill is to categorize different hunter issues and list the contacts hunters need for each issue.
 For example, WI. Elk : List the info for elk biologists, List The organization like the RMEF, Jackson County wildlife fund, DNR links, UW Stevens Point links, links to opposition like the Dept. of Agriculture ect. A web page for deer hunting, turkey hunting, bear hunting, A place for all Wisconsin hunters to go for bear bones info and contacts. Where A hunter can find out who is doing what, when and where. If a cross bow hunter wants to know who's fighting for the rights of cross bow users, he can go to a page and find out what groups are for it, who's fighting against it. Where a deer hunter can go to find out who's fighting for baiting, who's fighting against it. You can coincide the forums to each topic to try to sway fellow hunters one way or another, but it's up to the hunter to decide what bandwagon to get on, and give them the contacts to go in what ever direction they choose. Push the United hunters part so that hunters are encouraged not to in fight and for each to choose positive battles to fight.
 An example might be that I hate the idea of enclosed fence hunting. I know it's going on not far from my home. I would voice my opinion in the forums, hope to keep that battle among hunters, but I'm going to go to the elk page and do everything I can to get the elk reintroduction back on it's feet. I'm not going to help anti hunters stop enclosed fence hunting, I'm going to help Wisconsin get elk. The website should be a place for all hunters to gather info on there type of hunting with out taking sides on the issues. If this is what you are trying to do, then I'm all for it.
 I spend a lot of time on this forum because there are a lot of good people here with a lot of hunting passion. I'm not knocking what you are trying to do, just trying to understand. I agree with every one of you on different subjects, and don't think we could get 5 of you to all agree on every subject. Between 5 or 5 million, we all agree we love hunting. I do not think you guys are thinking big enough. What you have is a starting point. Deer hunting/EAB,population management, ect. along with the forum, you may also want to put together a survey section to draw information from hunters and get it organized. I am looking forward to where this is going to go. Good luck.

[buckhunter21]

wack, the way you talk i almost wonder if you're a dnr officer yourself?  lol  i think you've been blinded...the dnr has been off for more than a few years.  most of my hunting life, which is 18 years now, we've had issues with the dnr one way or another.  maybe we need to get some 'actual hunters' in there that know what they're doing, instead of having these ridiculous appointed positions?
 
i'm just saying...

[mtnman]

ORIGINAL: wack

I agree that the deer count has been off for at least a couple years. I was saying that last year but it fell on deaf ears. I still do not know what you are trying to do about it. Are you just bitching about the method or doing something about it? Do you have a better plan than what the DNR does? Show me a better plan.

30,000 bears? I have yet to see any proof of that. Are you blaming bears for the deer numbers? Is 30,000 bear a bad thing? Is this a part of what this group stands for? ''i'M CONFUSED.

The message I seem to get is you want to keep it simple. You want more accurate counts on deer and now bears. Let's say we come up with a formula to do that. Let's say we implement this new plan, and find out a few years from now it is flawed, it's not working. We would not have implemented it if we knew it was flawed, we wouldn't know if it was flawed with out giving it a try. Is it better to use the experience to fix the flaws or start over? The DNR knows that the counts are flawed and are working on the problem. What more do you want?
EAB and T zones are both good tools. They may not have been used correctly in recent years, then again, if you look at the goals and results, these methods may have worked perfectly. I would not vote to ban these methods, but I would like to see the use of these methods used only when it's needed to reduce the herd or even up the buck to doe ratio. Getting accurate data to determine what methods to use in what area's again is the key and we are back to counting deer again.
If the DNR knew that the deer count was off but found out too late to change the zones and take back tags that were issued, then maybe the DNR should determine the hunting seasons goals much later in the season? What ever method used to count deer has to provide results in time to set the up coming season. There is just no way to keep this simple. Complaining doesn't help unless you can provide clear answers for fixing the problems.
One good thing I can see happening here is if the website becomes an information center for hunters to get in touch with law makers and organizations. Maybe a slight tweak that would help the name fit the bill is to categorize different hunter issues and list the contacts hunters need for each issue.
For example, WI. Elk : List the info for elk biologists, List The organization like the RMEF, Jackson County wildlife fund, DNR links, UW Stevens Point links, links to opposition like the Dept. of Agriculture ect. A web page for deer hunting, turkey hunting, bear hunting, A place for all Wisconsin hunters to go for bear bones info and contacts. Where A hunter can find out who is doing what, when and where. If a cross bow hunter wants to know who's fighting for the rights of cross bow users, he can go to a page and find out what groups are for it, who's fighting against it. Where a deer hunter can go to find out who's fighting for baiting, who's fighting against it. You can coincide the forums to each topic to try to sway fellow hunters one way or another, but it's up to the hunter to decide what bandwagon to get on, and give them the contacts to go in what ever direction they choose. Push the United hunters part so that hunters are encouraged not to in fight and for each to choose positive battles to fight.
An example might be that I hate the idea of enclosed fence hunting. I know it's going on not far from my home. I would voice my opinion in the forums, hope to keep that battle among hunters, but I'm going to go to the elk page and do everything I can to get the elk reintroduction back on it's feet. I'm not going to help anti hunters stop enclosed fence hunting, I'm going to help Wisconsin get elk. The website should be a place for all hunters to gather info on there type of hunting with out taking sides on the issues. If this is what you are trying to do, then I'm all for it.
I spend a lot of time on this forum because there are a lot of good people here with a lot of hunting passion. I'm not knocking what you are trying to do, just trying to understand. I agree with every one of you on different subjects, and don't think we could get 5 of you to all agree on every subject. Between 5 or 5 million, we all agree we love hunting. I do not think you guys are thinking big enough. What you have is a starting point. Deer hunting/EAB,population management, ect. along with the forum, you may also want to put together a survey section to draw information from hunters and get it organized. I am looking forward to where this is going to go. Good luck.

Wack..
We are concentrating on Deer hunting, deer management, and conservation of the resource.
Our first objective is to give voice to those thousands of deer hunters across the state, who on their own are not heard.
When it comes to getting our political allies' attention and help, they always say that they need numbers. As the DNR is situated to be the governing agency over wildlife, members of the senate and assembly assume that whatever they do is right. It is not until they hear in volumes, the voices of those that have issues with the status quo that anything is ever looked at or addressed. The squeeky wheel gets the grease, as it were.
Look back a couple of years when the DNR wanted to end all baiting and feeding...well the crap hit the fan, and the legislators heard about it. They, rightly so, overturned the ruling, and told the DNR, as with any agency, that it cannot implement policy or law...that sits with the elected officials. Though feeding and limits on amounts of bait were restored, it showed that if the public was aware and able to do so, they would let their policy makers know of ineffeciencies in current policy and law, and it would be addressed.
I do not disagree with you on the EAB and T-zone hunts..they are needed tools in the management scheme. But they must be used only as needed.....with an end site. As herd populations plummet, there is no need for EAB and T-zone hunts, much less burgening amounts of bonus permits.
I have worked in local, county, and state government (on the representitive side) during my life. I know how things are and are not accomplished. As when any group of citizens is concerned about how things are run, they get together and make their feelings and veiws known to their representitives. The more the individual voices heard, the more attention is paid to the cause, and investigation in the matter.
I will tell you that a legislator will pay more attention to a constituent than a big group or lobbyist. They also do not want to be overwhelmed by too much..simple and to the point. It is far easier to get one or two points addressed by their fellow collegues, than just bitch about a hundred different items.
We as hunters(whatever type they may be) have varying interests and passions and opinions. But the basic that sets apart in our pursuit of deer hunting, is the core belief of making sure that the deer heard is conserved and managed in the best possible way, for our and future generations. To let our traditions continue and flourish.
We are not trying to do anything except protect deer hunting. As the site specifies" The Voice for Every Wisconsin Deer Hunter". While Wisconsin Hunters United may seem broad based, and in hind sight, maybe Wisconsin Deer Hunters United would have been a better choice, the fact that we are as stated a grass roots organiztion for the conservation, management and traditions of deer hunting. To that should be no confusion. Maybe later on, when our goals are met, then we can address other issues. There is difference between postng on a forums board and actually doing something, whatever it may be, to right a wrong that you see. We are trying to do that....as a business owner, I know you start small before you get big.
As far as implementation of a new plan, we are looking at adjustments to the current one...we have went to a new one over the years, and it has not worked all that well, but for a few scattered years.
I love hunting, and the pursuit of game, and being part of nature's plan....but I would no sooner sit by when I see things going arry than I would suggest or support the return to market hunting. It is just a point. Do not read more into our goals than just heer hunting.
Good people of the same mind, can disagree. We are looking at a limited scope here...not the broad spectrum as you seem to be. I am not knocking others outlooks either. I would love to see the implemation of huntable elk population and others. I as you find it odd that we have had a longer period of elk reintroduction than say Tennessee, yet they have a far larger herd and actual hunting season.
I hope, this helps clarrify our intent, purpose and goals.
And thanks for the atta boy...we need all the help we can get*S*

[Osty]

My 2 cents:
 
Depending on where you go, bigger chunks of land either owned or under a co-op can be managed more strictly than public land.  I know there are guys who won't shoot anything under an 8 point or has to be as wide as the ears.  Back in the 80's and 90's they either got a big buck or they didn't get one that year.  That was when it was one tag for bow and one tag for gun.  I always hoped for a doe permit so I could have a better chance of harvesting a deer.  I think some of that feeling of one-and-done may have been lost now that you can buy unlimited tags.  If you don't shoot 3, 4, 5 or more deer, I guess the population is down seems to be the thinking or that every time I go out I should see deer or get a deer.  Like I said, bigger property you can control what/how many deer you take.  Other areas, like public lands I've hunted or hunt nearby, if it's brown it's down because you never know what the next guy is going to do.  This year was rather quiet for a gun season. 

[mtnman]

Wack...the 13,050 bear population was the initial estimation im 2007 for the 2008 hunt, Since then, the DNR and others have decided that the bear population is more likely over double the intial estimates...closer to 30,000.
Knew I forgot to address omething in the last couple of posts.*S*

[wack]

First, let me say I am not nor have I ever worked for the DNR. I do believe that for the most part, the DNR does a pretty good job considering the monumental tasks they have to do. I do understand the squeaky wheel concept and agree with it. I'm just not clear on exactly what you guys are squeaking about. What exactly is your goal? What's your mission statement? Exactly what do you want the government and DNR to do?

Mntman, where did you get the info on bear population numbers? I do think what you are saying somewhat compliments what I've been told. A part of the reasoning behind the 6000 extra tags. I think we each got a small part of the truth. More bears than thought, fewer deer than thought, and wolf numbers in limbo and red tape. Now that the red tape has gotten cleared away, they have one less unknown variable in the equation. I assume that they know how many wolves since most of them are wearing radio collars. So just how do we find out for sure exactly how many deer are left? How many bears?( Wouldn't hurt to know how many turkeys we have too.)  If this is a group of hunters who are demanding accurate numbers for better management, I'm all for it. It's a good place to start.
 

[Fish]

I don't sign in for a week and we are completely under a Wack attack.  As I said before, not every group is a right fit for everyone.  So if our group isn't your thing, let it be.
 
But I do have to clarify a few things.  Our mission statement is clear and to the point.  We are not anti DNR, we want the DNR back in control.  Special interest groups and Dept of Ag are controlling it now. 
 
The SAK model is an effective estimation model.  If you would take the time to read the report on the DNR website, you will learn their is some serious flaws with it.  Up to a 60% variation in population when using EAB, T-zones and excluding fawn data.  Also, the small zones cause a larger error.  The DNR can make these changes which will eliminate the variation and provide a fairly accurate herd estimation.
 
I've responded to all of your questions/issues in previous post and threads.  You want Elk, buffalo and deer in WI....great...good for you for having that passion.  It is just out of the scope of our group and it's gaols.
 
I'm sick and tired of trying to prove/validate my points on the direction of this State regarding it's deer herd.   I have cooresponded w/way too many people.  If you don't want to take it for face value......then do it yourself.
 
Or better yet, sit back and do nothing.  It is quite obvious some people are quite content on letting things be directed by the powers to be.  Hey, they know everything and are making the right decisions.  I guess I have to believe them when they say elk and bison are not good for WI.
 
Maybe it will take a good dose of reality.  Well.....it's on it's way.....  There will be little change in season structure from last year.  Deer hunting is a dying sport, the herd needs to be cut down otherwise, it will be unmanageable because of the lack of hunting.(oh, the DNR wouldn't lie to us, would they?)
 
To quote the movie "Tommy Boy"; "You can take a good look at a Tbone by sticking your head up a steers butt, but wouldn't you rather take my word for it?"
 
So when you sit back and think, "what reason would the DNR lie to us"....think about who is in control.   Oh, yeah...I have everything reason in the world to provide false info to everyone.......there is great benefits for me to have a bunch of people join a free site, spend countless hours working, writing and responding to people.   Great pay too.  lol

[mtnman]

Good points Fish, but we have made them all before.

I spend countless hours of my time and use of my equipment and server space, not including purchasing the URL for our organization. Anyone that has developed a web site or had one made, knows the time and costs involved. As this all volunteer, I am doing this in between my regular occupation and other duties to my family.
I would love to be out hunting now, or snowmobiling...but dedication to and ideal and seeing it implemented takes time. Usually the things that benefit the whole are carried out by the few. Usually behind the scenes, without bringing notice to themselves. Hunters do not push the fact that they pay for all the wildlife that everyone enjoys, but that is the fact. And many take it for granted or do not even know. That is fine. Nobody is beating their chest and saying "look at me and what I did". We do it for us first...it is our passion. If others benefit, then all the better.
I am not going to push the buttons of anyone to agree with me or not. Our organization is voluntary...hopefully there are those that agree with our basic phylosophy. If you want to address elk or moose or bison, I am sure that are groups or those like minded individuals that share your passion.
As of now...we only are dealing with the deer situation in the state...no more..end of story.
BTW..Fish, I am out of town again until tomorrow eve. Tough getting stuff done when you are not home.

Bear population info was taken from the DNR web site.

[buckhunter21]

Heck of a job guys...Props to all of you!  I'll be sending that website out to all friends and family to get some support drummed up!!!

[Fish]

Maybe instead of Mtnman, you should have been Udaman.  But seriously, Mtnman has work very hard on this site, thanks
 
What has surprised me so much in this whole endevor, is the hesitation and questioning of mission statements, opinion and direction of the group.  I wonder if everyone does the samething when they vote. lol
 
Realistically, everyone has different positions.  I have mine.  The true nature of a group like this is banding together, unifying and representing each other.  Representing the WI deer hunter