The Cost of Hunting

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

RE: The Cost of Hunting

Postby mtnman » Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:51 pm

Wack...you are preaching to the choir. I have been involved im many organiztions for decades. SCI, Ruffed Grouse Society, RMEF, NRA, NSSF, NRKBA, and others. Plus I belong to other local clubs and chapters of national organizations. As a sporting goods dealer I am involved directly with introducing new people to hunting and shooting, both in volunteer hours, financially and providing goods and equipment.

As I said....I am a hunter, not a shooter, and will do what it takes to do my part to see that our deer herd survives and prospers. I also enjoy partridge hunting...and may very well take on coyote hunting to help with the over population there.
(Florence Co., WI)

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

RE: The Cost of Hunting

Postby Fish » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:01 am

Wack, I know your passionate on the elk situation and admire your interest in elk.  If they release 50 or 2000 elk in WI, it will do absolutely nothing for the deer population in WI.   Small numbers will not offset the wolf deer kill and not allow elk to be a huntible species in WI.  A large number of elk will allow the DNR to state deer numbers must be kept down since there is another species using up the land.  Elk and buffalo will use up more resources.  Just face it, any additional elk or buffalo in WI will only be for viewing purposes.  You will not hunt elk in WI in your lifetime.  The added number of elk will not reduce the effect wolves have on the deer population, if anything it would give more reason for the DNR to keep deer numbers down.  Elk would be only present in 1 to 2 area whereas, wolves are a statewide problem.
 
I believe we are all active in local and national groups.  Some of us take extra action by writing the DNR and legislative branch.   Although I respect you didn't hunt the 4 day T-zone as a somewhat protest, I'm not sure the donation to the Rocky Mnt Elk Foundation will really do anything for our current whitetail population problem.
 
I have no problem getting involved, donating for a cause and paying for a license to hunt.  But when I'm spending money to hunt something I have very little chance of seeing OR being told what I must shoot, I believe it's time to reallocate my spending.

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

RE: The Cost of Hunting

Postby wack » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:56 am

Fish, I respectfully disagree with you and point many other states who are now hunting elk. The bison you may be right about but there is no way of knowing for sure without trying.  I would only study the bison reintroduction and if it's not to be, at least we tried and know why. The elk is a different story. 2000 elk would have us hunting elk in 20 years. The research has been ongoing since 1995 and nowhere where elk have been reintroduced has the elk made a negative impact on the deer. Even if just for viewing only, every tourist dollar they bring in will help our economy and help the natural food chain.
 I also think that no matter how long it takes to get to the hunting of elk, it's worth it. I do not care if I ever get to hunt elk in WI. as long as there's a good chance our grandchildren will be able to hunt. At this point, we can't even promise that there will be deer to hunt in Wisconsin in 20 years and bear hunting in Wisconsin will never get better with out elk.
 One thing I think Fish and others may agree with, is if we do not get control of the wolves, nothing will survive. Not, deer, not elk, small game or game birds. To me right now, that's priority #1. Without control of the wolves, nothing else matters. There are a lot of groups fighting to delist the wolves, find one and join in and keep the choir singing. 
 
American by birth, hunter by choice.

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

RE: The Cost of Hunting

Postby Fish » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:27 am

Wack, take a look at the thread " The DNR is not giving up and neither should we."  It has my correspondence with the top wolf biologist.  Are wolves a problem "yes", anymore of a problem than bear and coyote...not really.  In my own opinion, our deer numbers are down because of one major thing.....over harvest.  Weither it is the DNR setting the quotas or irresponsible hunter shooting the deer or Ag tags, the over harvest IS the problem.  Elk, bison or dinasours being reintroduced will not help our deer numbers until we stop shooting multiple deer a season.  That's my 3 cents worth.  lol

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

RE: The Cost of Hunting

Postby wack » Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:01 am

If you had multiple species to hunt every year, I wouldn't need 6 deer a year to fill my freezer and help feed the hungry.
 Far as the wolves, 560 this year could be 1400 next year. Not much of a problem now, 3x's the problem next year. 1.7 million deer could be 700,000 now. DNR is scared, so they cut 6,000 more bears out for next year. That's a drastic measure, nearly 40%. It's not even winter yet and we're getting pounded by snow. If there aren't enough deer to feed the bears and wolves deer hunting up north is done and won't be long before bear hunting is gone too, and we still have to maintain x number of wolves. The ONLY way to make the deer herd stronger and maintain a huntable bear population and maintain a huntable wolf population is to also maintain a huntable elk population and if that isn't enough, a huntable bison population.  By huntable, I mean strict balanced to scale populations. Like the wolf population now, pushing the limits, a season should be opened next year and closed when goals are met. Like Sturgeon season. Or maybe your EAB sticker could be earned by tagging a wolf.  The deer herd should be managed for quality not quantity, and a quality deer herd is part of a quality food chain and a quality food chain has the right numbers of the right species and those numbers generally run in cycles. Used to be 7 year cycles, we've turned it into 100 year cycles and at the brink of change or collapse. Assuming we get control of the wolves and If we have to sit back and wait for the deer to rebound, and the bears to rebound, we might as well plant the seeds for elk and bison to rebound too. We've paid for the elk already, paid for the research, DNR IS TRYING and not giving up no doubt. Biologists are screaming for the elk, DNR has a plan, yet not even hunters back them up because we don't have a clue what a real big  game food chain is or how it works. Elk and deer don't eat the same food, they don't affect deer populations in a negative way, deer benefit from elk trails, and elk fawns are better timed for bears than deer fawns. Everything has it's place and purpose. Bison is mother natures rototiller and fertilizer, when they're missing, native plants don't get planted, invasive plant species takes over and habitat is useless. What some call damage is actually mother natures plan and design. The closer we return everything back to natural, the better it takes care of itself, the more productive it becomes and the less we have to do.
American by birth, hunter by choice.

Previous

Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests