If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

juice777
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:16 am

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby juice777 » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:22 am

I agree with the other frustrating hunters. My zone was in EAB for a 3rd straight year
and this year was the worst season in my 24 years of bowhunting. We did our job,
the population is now reduced TOO FAR, let's get rid of the EAB for a couple seasons.
 

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

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby wack » Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:52 pm

I will be more than willing to take your ideas, facts and proven data into serious consideration. Keep in mind, my argument is going to be solely on the financial aspect, and followed up by tradition, family values, and heritage.

Gafrage, I've done a lot of reading on the WIDNR website and the short simple answer is putting elk back into the food chain. I've done a lot of reading, the DNR has a lot of info, check out my posts on the subject, follow the links, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
The financial aspect? Like investing all your money in 1 stock? Like Wisconsin only having deer, to feed hunters, bears and wolves?
I'm not going to repeat everything here but I will repeat the fact that the DNR and Rockey Mountain Elk Foundation have a plan to get elk from Elk Island Canada but can not go through with the plan because of the Dept. of Agruculture's ban on transporting elk. If you want to save and improve Wisconsin's hunting culture, help to get this 1 thing done. Get elk to improve the Clam Lake herd and start another herd in Black River Falls Area. The only way to save the deer and bear hunting while maintaining a population of wolves is to put the missing food chain links back to take the pressure off from deer. If we loose the deer, it's over. Over for the food chain big and small, over for the economy, over for hunting. The sad thing is we have more domestic elk and buffalo in Wisconsin than wild.
Gafrage, Maybe Wisconsin farmers and land owners could learn a lesson from South African farmers. They learned that it was easier and more profitable to restore natural habitat and harvest the native animals than it was to beat the land into submission to raise crops and beef. A  Northern Wisconsin farmer could do that if we had more than just deer bears and wolves. If we only fight to keep what hunting rights we have, we can only loose. If we fight to expand big game hunting, we can only win, can't loose something we don't have. Fight for the elk and use the save the wolves people to help. 
American by birth, hunter by choice.

User avatar
Gafrage
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:39 pm

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby Gafrage » Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:17 pm

The financial aspect? Like investing all your money in 1 stock? Like Wisconsin only having deer, to feed hunters, bears and wolves?


Yes, the financial aspect.  I'd rather have my money invested in GE, than a lot of small start up companies.  :)  Hope you understood that analogy.

On a serious note though, my pain, is for all of the hunters in Northern WI more so than anywhere else in the state.  I was never for the state re-introducing wolves.  As an avid bird hunter, it made me sick to my stomach.  When I read about people walking their dogs, and them getting killed by wolves, it frustrates me.  Northern WI has harsher winters, less available food sources and wolves that the deer herd has to deal with. 

If we lost 20-30% of the deer hunters (the whole northern 1/3rd of the state), because of people stop hunting deer in this area all alone, that would total about $240,000,000 to $360,000,000.  Let's keep in mind the loss of jobs from sport shops, young hunters not starting because it's not "fun". 

Let's face it, there isn't going to be a bison season, or elk season any time soon.  So the money the DNR figures they might gain from licenses for those animals will never total the loss of deer hunters.  More food for the wolves is going to make the wolves a healthier and stronger population.  With the wolves here as well, the rate at which the elk are re-populating right now is minimal at best.  The amount of area the elk can actually graze, and live isn't that large, without them too becoming an issue to farmers in WI.  With the wolves being re-introduced and exploding to such a high population, it is going to be extremely hard to re-introduce ANY big game animal and be successful.  Am I against the re-introduction of elk and bison?  Not really.  What I am against is how the wolves are taking control of the state and making the sport that has been around in WI for over a century, miserable.

I like your optimistic thoughts, however what you need to look at is long term.  Something the DNR did not do, when they re-introduced wolves.  You can't assume that if you re-introduce other Big Game species, that everything will fall into place, we'll have seasons for everything in a couple of years and the money spent will all be justified.  There is going to be a lot of money spent trying to re-introduce these new species to a greater population, and who's to say that they won't go and do some crop damage of their own?  People will shoot these animals, just like some people shoot Elk and wolves in WI already.  No direct offense to you Wack, but you're making a lot of assumptions.  The main goal here is the Wisconsin Deer herd, and the re-introduction of other big game species isn't going to solve the problem, other than possible cause more.  There is no guarantee that those other species will help feed the wolves, because those other species don't have the area to roam like they once did, also, they don't have the food sources they once had such as the native grasses.  Since Wisconsin has had such a face-lift from what it once was when all of these species roamed the prairies, meadows and rolling hills (which are non-existant now) those Big Game species will not flourish.  I understand what the DNR had in mind about reducing the herd, but I think their numbers of reducing the herd are a little too low to keep people interested, especially in areas where deer sightings are almost non-existant during the hunting season.


In conclusion, the "financial aspect" that I spoke of in my last post, was simply getting what works well to stay the same, since it has changed so drastically in the past few years.  I don't know about your financial advisor, but when so much money is involved ($240,000,000 to $360,000,000), I'm pretty sure they would tell you to put the money in stocks like GE.  I'd hate to wake up, and see that much money per year disappear because stocks like Enron took a dump, even though they kept telling you to buy and reassuring you that everything will be OK.  Once the Deer situation is under control, and figured out, then WI can move on to other topics like Elk, Bison, Water Buffalo and Hippo's.  There's no sense in abandoning Wisconsin's greatest tradition and money maker, to take a shot in the dark and hope it hits it's mark, or surpasses expectations. 

I can see it now, Green Bay Packers, Milwaukee Brewers, and The Milwaukee Elks (can't be the Timberwolves).

I'm sure I left out some topics I wanted to post, but I'm tired, and need to catch a little bit of sleep tonight.  Hope you don't take my post the wrong way, but my priorites and your priorites are different.  Mine is keeping Wisconsin's main big game animal what it is now.  I'm not against giving the other animals a shot, but the habitat doesn't suit them, like so many hunters hoped it would, to get a season for them or to help balance the food chain.

If a harsh winter did that much damage on a "large population" already, I wonder what it would do to a herd of 700,000 animals?  Snow is snow, cold is cold, I doubt there were as many animals that starved over the winter because they couldn't find a food source.  There are plenty of places south of Highway 29 in WI that provide animals lots of food, even many north of Highway 29.  My point is since the gun season is over, and the whole state was saying there were less deer harvested in every zone,  the food source available to these animals wasn't the issue.  They were down just as much in Central WI and Southern WI as Northern WI.

highview72
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:50 am

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby highview72 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:25 am

Excuse my ignorance but how does Minnesota deal with their wolves and what is their deer population? I assume it is less than Wisconsin but how much less? If its fairly close, why cant we adopt their management practices. Deal with wolves the way they do, use their model for the hunting season and population goals. Again, I am totally ignorant on deer hunting in Minn so if it wont work, let me know why.

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

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby wack » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:16 am

First, investing money in GE will do NOTHING for Wisconsin's wild life. The elk "start up company" you have already paid for. If someone gives you stock in a start up company, do you throw it away? Or hope that the stock grows?

"Let's face it, there isn't going to be a bison season, or elk season any time soon.  So the money the DNR figures they might gain from licenses for those animals will never total the loss of deer hunters.  More food for the wolves is going to make the wolves a healthier and stronger population.  With the wolves here as well, the rate at which the elk are re-populating right now is minimal at best.  The amount of area the elk can actually graze, and live isn't that large, without them too becoming an issue to farmers in WI.  With the wolves being re-introduced and exploding to such a high population, it is going to be extremely hard to re-introduce ANY big game animal and be successful.  Am I against the re-introduction of elk and bison?  Not really.  What I am against is how the wolves are taking control of the state and making the sport that has been around in WI for over a century, miserable."

Lots of stuff wrong with this paragraph. No elk season soon? Other states have started hunting elk within 10-20 years. Not so long of a time. Making the wolves healthier and stronger? The only natural way the wolves will get weaker is after they kill off all the deer and small game or they are taken off the endangered list. On again, off again on again, the wolf battle could go on for years at the expense of our deer herd. Tree huggers have made wiping the wolves out not an option, nor should it be. Keeping a wolf population under strict control is the only option for hunters. The DNR should and have set the population goal at 300-500 wolves. Anything above that, wolf tags should be sold. During the short delisted time, the DNR killed 37 wolves and had more on the hit lisT but there hands are tied.
 The rate of elk reproduction? The facts are that the Clam Lake herd has grown at a steady rate of about 12% per year, which is right on track with every other successful elk reintroduction program and way ahead of GE Stocks. We only started with 25. Clam Lake ALONE has 700 square miles of land set asside for the elk. They currently use only 40 square miles. We have plenty of room. Getting them started with the wolves so plentyfull will be a solveable problem. Firtst the excuse that stopped the program, CWD in deer. As everyone here says, there are no deer where the wolves are. Problem solved, excuse null and void. The elk from Elk Island have never been exposed to CWD unlike the elk we were going to get from Mich. in 2002. They spent a lot of time energy and money to locate the safest elk possible. It's going to take careful managment to get through this without elk, or with elk. As is, we have little to loose and a lot to gain.

 "  What I am against is how the wolves are taking control of the state and making the sport that has been around in WI for over a century, miserable." Me too. Why is it miserable? Because our ancestors wiped out all the big game and left us with only deer.

Big picture time. Why wolves? Why didn't tree huggers pick buffalo, or bears?
What's there goal? They are out to save all the animals and protect the ones near eaxtinction. A noble cause, something a hunter should be able to appreciate. In many cases, it was hunters who put animals on the endangered list. That's the case with Wisconsin and a whole slue of species big and small. But then hunters started to get smarter. DNR was formed, we've made huge changes in the past 30 years, have used hunting to return many species back to the food chain. Eagles, turkeys, Ospray, cranes, small game like Pine Martins, bobcat and coyote. We threw a token effort at elk, but we were having so much fun with 2 million deer that we just kind of forgot about them. "Don't need them", "they'll be a hassle", and one of the dumbest "we won't have enough room." I tell ya what, there's plenty of room in MY FREEZER! As far as deer numbers going down at the same rate across the state? The wolf map coinsides with the regular deer zone. Wolves kept up with and killed deer faster than the DNR could in the CWD zone. Only 560 wolves, 142 wolf packs in the north out hunted humans in the CWD zone, reached DNR goal numbers faster. Imagine what 1400 wolves can do next year?
 They chose wolves because they saw how stuck we are on deer. They see our weakest link is the heart of hunting. Deer. 142 Wolf packs in WI today, will have on average 5-6 pups per pack. 560 wolves today will be how many wolves next time next year?  DO THE MATH. 142 wolf packs x 6 pups per year = 852 pups+550=1402 wolves by this time next year. 550x18 deer per year= 9,900 deer eaten. 1402x18 deer per year = 25,236 deer eaten by wolves. 2010?  Our biologists say we have habitat for 500. Could nearly tripple next year, too mind boggling for me to think 2-5 years from now.We either make it right, right now, or we start completly over when the deer, small game, and remaining wolf food is all gone. Problem is, then the wolves will turn on our pets and livestock and will also slow down urban sprawl, the longer they can protect the wolves, the more damage the wolves can do to hunting and our farmers. Nothing PETA would like better than for wolve to kill your livestock and eat your pets. Peta may not have started save the wolves but you can bet they'll push it to the limits.
 We never needed elk more, and if you read the biologists reports, all other excuses mentioned from crop damage to economic impact is in favor of the elk. Asking for Bison is like asking for 2 million in hopes to get 1 miliion. It needs to be studied like the elk already has been. It's a goal for the future only after we establish the elk, get control of the deer and wolves. We've got the whole UW system at our disposal, they did and are doing a great job with the elk with what little funding they have. First things first, put buffalo on the need to research list and finish the elk reintroduction project.
 

 We can't just throw elk out there to feed the wolves. We can't go back to 2 million deer either. 700,000 deer is ok if we also have elk and buffalo with the bears and wolves as long as we can control the balance with hunting. I have not made a lot of assumptions, I only explained little. I've covered every excuse on about every topic in previous posts, and better yet, the DNR has it all in writing for you to read yourself. As I did, you'll find it interesting and eye opening. Here are a few links,
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/wolf_map.htm
you already seen this one I think. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/har ... rpop07.pdf
Start here to learn about elk. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/Elk/
 Wife says I have to go plow snow now. This should keep you busy and stimulate the mind, till next time lol
American by birth, hunter by choice.

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

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby Fish » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:13 am

In respect, Wack, I see your points and appreciate your views.  It would be nice to have a huntable Elk population but in all reality, it probably will not happen, at least in my lifetime(38 yrs old).  A few points I'd like to make.  If you are correct will the wolf reproduction rate, the numbers of this preditor will be increasing faster than the Elk could reproduce. That's unless you introduce 1000's of Elk to balance the food chain.  A herd of 25 in BRF would be short lived.  How many yearlings would survive the wolf packs?  They release 25 Elk in 1995, today's numbers are around 110.  Not the production numbers needed to sustain a fast growing wolf population.  The wolf population will hinder your Elk herd growth, deer herd and it will for sure get into the suburban areas of the state.  Just wait for the scream from the treehuggers when Fido is being ripped apart by two wolves in their backyard.
 
I do have a bit of a problem with some member's posting that WI has 2 million deer, um, sorry...we don't.  I REALLY have a problem of a deer herd of 700,000.  1.25 deer per 40 acres of deer habitat, not worth the time to hunt.  So while it might be nice to dream of a year where you get excited about a deer and elk season, in all reality, it will never happen(unless releasing 1000's of elk).  I'm afraid WI elk will ever fill up your freezer, Wack.  Correction: you can dream of a deer/elk season, just go out west.
 
Although I believe the wolf population is hurting our deer population, I believe the over harvest of deer is more the problem here.
 
 

User avatar
Gafrage
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:39 pm

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby Gafrage » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:01 am

ORIGINAL: Fish

In respect, Wack, I see your points and appreciate your views.  It would be nice to have a huntable Elk population but in all reality, it probably will not happen, at least in my lifetime(38 yrs old).  A few points I'd like to make.  If you are correct will the wolf reproduction rate, the numbers of this preditor will be increasing faster than the Elk could reproduce. That's unless you introduce 1000's of Elk to balance the food chain.  A herd of 25 in BRF would be short lived.  How many yearlings would survive the wolf packs?  They release 25 Elk in 1995, today's numbers are around 110.  Not the production numbers needed to sustain a fast growing wolf population.  The wolf population will hinder your Elk herd growth, deer herd and it will for sure get into the suburban areas of the state.  Just wait for the scream from the treehuggers when Fido is being ripped apart by two wolves in their backyard.

I do have a bit of a problem with some member's posting that WI has 2 million deer, um, sorry...we don't.  I REALLY have a problem of a deer herd of 700,000.  1.25 deer per 40 acres of deer habitat, not worth the time to hunt.  So while it might be nice to dream of a year where you get excited about a deer and elk season, in all reality, it will never happen(unless releasing 1000's of elk).  I'm afraid WI elk will ever fill up your freezer, Wack.  Correction: you can dream of a deer/elk season, just go out west.

Although I believe the wolf population is hurting our deer population, I believe the over harvest of deer is more the problem here.





Quoting Fish here, because I'm too lazy to argue this anymore. 

Added:
Elk are going to be for viewing purposes only.  It would be nice to think of that and to be optimistic like I said.  Reality is reality.  Deer are the GE of WI, Elk are the Enron, and Wolves are the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (which finally caught up to the financial institutes this year).  The habitat isn't here anymore, that it was once we first inhabited WI.  My point of view is the wolf packs are out of control.  If you want the population to be in check, you have to have the habitat and food sources to be there first.  Then release the wolves.  Not the other way around.  If they put the wolves in check, and the elk transportation ban gets lifted, I say go for it, release some more elk, but elk won't be huntable for several years.  Especially if they go about it that way.

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

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby wack » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:50 am

Fish, no our deer population isn't 2 million right now. It was darn close to that a few years ago. You are 100% correct that wolves will reproduce much faster than wolves. We can't have deer or elk if we leave the wolf number unchecked. No doubt about that. One thing about the elk location, they've been living in the area with the most wolves right from the start. There were 25 elk and a few wolves in the beginning. Somehow the 25 elk still reproduced at a 12% rate. As far as 25 elk not lasting long in BRF again you are right but wrong. The original '95 group was 25. It was an experiment. This was/is supposed to be a reintroduction, not an experiment. I'm not sure what the number was or will be but it has to be more than 25 although 25 elk of new blood would be better than nothing. 1000? Probably not but 1000 would have us hunting before we're in the grave.
 I'm not an expert or biologist. I'm 43 and probably wont see elk hunting in my lifetime but that doesn't stop me from wanting to do the right thing and pass on this land to my grandchildren better than we found it. Since I'm not the expert, all I can do is point you to where I found my information. There are many things that we assume that are incorrect when it comes to elk. Check out the info on the DNR website here. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/Elk/  Go through everything and then come and tell me what you think. Also follow the link to RMEF and here's a page I haven't seen yet, RMEF/Wisconsin news http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeWork/Wisconsin/ They too say wolves threaten WI. elk and need to be delisted soon....

 When the state of WI goes to the Feds with a plan that include elk reintroduction to sustain a viable population of wolves, it makes our case that much more credible that we are competent enough to manage the wolves here. It's a stretch, but you know what I mean. Think about the pros and cons of the elk as you research and you will find the answers we need. While researching, we also need to determine a goal. What is our goal in Wisconsin? The goal since 1995 has been to reintroduce elk to the north woods. I do not believe anyone reintroduced wolves to WI.. They were on the protected list and moved in from Minn. and Canada. Fact is they are here, and now they've reached an alarming population, soon to be disastrous. When that happens, I'm going to say I told you so and we're going to have to come up with a bigger more expensive plan to start over. When the deer are all gone, the 150 elk are gone, then maybe people will listen to the biologists?  
 Yes we should look at other programs that work. We should look at other programs that didn't work, figure out what isn't working. My idea is we set the goal to create a working food chain as close as possible to the native food chain that we can. Kind of like other states are doing. The DNR has researched this idea and came up with elk. We're not talking a huge investment needed, it's already paid for. However many elk we could get, what's it going to hurt?
 Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to offend anyone and I do enjoy the debate. The more problems we predict, the better prepared we are to answer the problems, and right now Wisconsin has some pretty big problems to solve as we see throughout the forum.
 
American by birth, hunter by choice.

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

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby wack » Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:34 pm

Here's your investment info Gafrage, http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... consin.htm
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... WIpacs.htm

I'm not a financial wizard so explain what that word GRANT means? According to RMEF :
  "Many other sources provide funding for programs that benefit elk and other wildlife. Federal laws such as the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act place taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management match funds with contributions from conservation groups like the Elk Foundation, state agencies and individuals. States also raise money through personal income tax wildlife check-off programs, special license plate sales, wildlife stamp and artwork sales and other innovative methods." REMF has spent over $5,000,000 in Wisconsin for elk habitat restoration and reintroduction. 5 million dollars! We can't afford to let it all go down the tube now!

Fish, you want to copy other states good examples, here's one, "the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma is home to anywhere from 380 to 800 elk, the maximum number that this small remnant of wild prairie can support.  Refuge managers use hunting to balance the elk population with the prairie resource."   This could be copied in Some Southern Wisconsin's State parks with both elk and bison and If I'm not mistaken, I think there is A state park in Central WI. that already has a few buffalo...? Yep, sure enough, check it out....  http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/rec ... /bison.htm

 Anyway you cut my plan up, it's better than going hunting with a video camera or a weapon all day and not see a thing. If our goal is to have a lifeless empty north woods, then we are well on our way to meeting that goal.
My goals would be to get the wolves under control, get the elk started, spend as much as I could on CWD research, get bison reintroduction research started, adopt a better way to count deer, I'd stop planting cash crops on DNR public hunting grounds and restore those fields to prime habitat. I'd make the Dept of Ag work with the DNR to find a better solution to Ag tags and crop damage and make funds available to turn northern farms into good habitat to make it possible for a landowner to profit from good land and wildlife management. Texas has some good ideas in this department that we could pattern and customize to our needs. If we take the best ideas from the most successful states and apply them here, we can not go wrong. We have people from the Rockey Mountains willing to fund our elk elk research and provide a herd, how can we possibly pass that up?
 I'd also like to point out one more sign of changing times that may have a dramatic impact on our north woods economy. We are now entering the computer age or the paperless age. Paper has taken a big toll on WI.'s natural resources but also provided a huge income for our state. Many acres of trees are slated for the paper industry but our paper mill jobs are going away. As we recycle more, use less, and compete with China, our acres of trees loose value. With out wildlife among those trees, they may have very little value. Just another thing to contemplate.
American by birth, hunter by choice.

User avatar
Gafrage
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:39 pm

RE: If my zone is EAB next year I am hunting with my video camera only!

Postby Gafrage » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:45 pm

Wack, none of us had any real problem with your plan.  The main goal here is getting the money maker for WI to stay here.  None of us want our taxes to go up because people quit deer hunting.  I don't think there is any other income that goes directly to the state that has as much of an impact on our roads, etc.  The over harvest and wolves are taking their toll on the Wisconsin Deer Herd.

Dinosaurs lived in Wisconsin at one point and time, if we're bringing wolves back, let's bring Dinosaurs back as well.  We can't have just one predator that dominates everything.  We need to balance out the predators too.  Let's release cougars, salt water crocs, Bengal Tigers, Brown Bears, Grizzly's all kinds of things.  The predators need to balance out the predators and keep themselves in check too.  The thing most people fail to recognize, is this is WI, not Alaska, or remote parts of Canada.


The problem with the land value, is people buy stuff to sell it for a higher price than they purchased it.  People are greedy, to make a buck or two.  Land prices will drop shortly.  Especially if the deer population drops so fast.  What is the point in owning 40 acres if I only see a deer or two each season?  It's a money pit.  So if you're interested in buying land, get ready to purchase a bunch while the prices are down.  That's what I plan on doing.  Managing my own deer herd if the DNR is going to be so stupid and not listen to the people who actually go out and do the hunting.

PreviousNext

Return to Wisconsin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests