General Hunting Discussion
Frustrated with deer hunting in Wisconsin?
12/2/13 @ 11:05 AM
Displaying 1 to 15 of 133 posts
'If you want more deer on the landscape, you improve the habitat, keep the deer fed, reduce antlerless harvest, and control predators.'
I agree with that, I think that's what most people want in general. Of course improving habitat and keeping deer fed is more of a private land thing currently. Not much is done on public land anymore.
'If you want bigger deer, you simply don't shoot smaller deer, and make sure you provide the habitat and food sources necessary to ensure needed nutrition is met.'
This is true but also the main issue here. Guys who want big deer make it pretty clear in their comments that they think they are right and everyone else is wrong, even if its not directly said. The issue is that there are guys who could give a damn about that, they just like hunting deer. So I get the idea, set some land aside to cater to the trophy guys and setup a permit system for it and leave some setup for the regular hunters.
In a state with so many hunters, I would think if we really start restricting areas then non-restricted areas will just be overcrowded. Plus our DNR is not in the business of maintaining a high deer population (which is most of our issue, let's be real) so they will continue to issue tags to keep it at their level. I'm sure the people who had better hunting in the past can see that as a main factor. Hunting getting worse and then leveling off is right in line with the way antlerless tags were dished out. Lots for a while, free I think even for a year or two with T-Zone. Then cut back slightly but still high, to make sure the population didn't rebound to previous levels.
"Wouldn't it be nice if each county had some land set aside for QDM?"
It would be nice. Currently, if you fish for muskies, northern pike, walleyes, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, etc, there are trophy and quality State managed opportunities available. However, those similar type of managed opportunities for whitetail deer only exist on some private lands in Wisconsin. Of course, areas where there are large concentrations of these lands are the highest in demand for where people would like to hunt in this state. No coincidence there. Just as in trophy and quality fish regulations where not all lakes are created equal, no lands are created equal. There is no reason why some counties can't be managed for something better than mass slaughter. Start with maybe 10 counties. There are 72 counties in this state, so the brown is down folks would continue to have most managed for low grade hunting. Start drafting proposals and submit them at the spring hearings. Year by year, more people want a quality hunting experience, so if you don't get needed support now, you will get it in the future.
Kind of sad in a state blessed with great genetics and many areas with ideal whitetail habitat that we pi$$ it away with poor management. Many other states are much more restrictive and are able to provide better opportunities despite not having the habitat that we have. I have hunted other states and dealt with draws. Sure, you get disappointed when you don't draw for a certain tag or hunt, but when you do get it, the opportunity is almost never disappointing. The same can't be said about deer hunting in Wisconsin. While I am fortunate to a degree, and have sunk a lot of money and time/work to another degree into great hunting property, a lot of people I know have had their hunting go to hell the past decade or so. Things have leveled off for the past few years, but unfortunately haven't improved as fast as it dropped off. The most frustrating part is that when you boil it all down, it is not that difficult. If you want more deer on the landscape, you improve the habitat, keep the deer fed, reduce antlerless harvest, and control predators. The deer will take care of the breeding on their own. If you want bigger deer, you simply don't shoot smaller deer, and make sure you provide the habitat and food sources necessary to ensure needed nutrition is met. They will age and get bigger on their own. There are no magic formulas in play here. Just some sacrifice and hard work.
Living in Sheboygan county and now Oneida I've never really had much opportunity to scout. Usually I just spend some time on google earth and check out any potential new areas the week before gun with my bow. Add a 9 month old in the mix and I'll be lucky to get all opening weekend this year. But my years of hunting the area has yielded several spots where one can get away from atv's and bait piles and be successful..... Even after this winter so I'm not too worried about seeing deer, I'm worried I have to find one with antlers.
"The new hiring rules of getting approved by he majority of the other biologists currently working there ensures it. "
I don't know where you heard that but it's not like getting accepted into your local lions club. All hires are approved after at least two rounds of interviews by the division administrator, who reports to the secretary who is appointed by the governor. You'd be surprised but the vast majority of fisheries and wildlife staff are avid hunters and anglers.
Finally saw two fawns when I was cutting a food plot....unfortunately, mom was laying dead in the bean field by the road.
Suggestion:
Wouldn't it be nice if each county had some land set aside for QDM? Currently, 100% of county, state, federal and MFL open lands are managed for BROWN IS DOWN. What IF...and this is a big IF, in each county a percentage (say 5%) of the land that is open to deer hunting had to be set as QDM and it was managed with limited draw tags to reduce hunter density, antler restrictions, and limited doe tags???
95% of the land stays brown is down....kill them all. 5% QDM. After a few years, I wonder how hard it would be to draw a tag for these public QDM hunting areas?
Sorry, been on vacation. You'd never get 2-3 does each, I don't have that many around LOL. Been that way though for 15 years. Always deer around, just not 100's of them. Of course if you guys didn't have those doe tags, you wouldn't hurt anything. That's the whole point. Can't shoot what you don't have a tag for (talking legal here). You aren't going to change mentalities of hunters. We need regulation. If we didn't we would not have it in the first place, could put the DNR budget to use somewhere else. Just not reality though. It sounds good to say but will never happen, hunters are too diverse a group. Trophy/meat/slob/lolly-gagger/joker/bad/good/etc.
This past week while vacationing in the northwoods I saw 2 bucks and 4 different does. Not really concerned about this upcoming season being a whole lot different than last year so far. I think the year after or so will be down since none of the does I saw had fawns so nothing is up and coming. I did talk to a few people who saw a couple fawns though, so there were a few around I guess. Just none that I saw, which would be odd in a normal year.
I do get what you are saying though and the concept is true. I think there are times when people do that year after year and keep seeing deer, so they think its no problem. Those situations would be places where the habitat is good and deer want to be there. People might shoot a bunch during the season, but then in the off season other deer move into the area and sort of repopulate it. That hurts the surrounding areas, but the guys hunting the good habitat won't notice a difference. I saw that happen every year at one place I hunted. We'd get a few during bow season and then come gun that woods was surround and it was brown is down from all those guys. We avoided it during that time. You could walk in on the second weekend of gun and not find a fresh track, it was drove daily. But come next fall, a bunch of deer were back again. Year after year. But they had to come from somewhere so I assume other spots were down then in the area.
"It is more than just less doe tags....we need to change the brown is down mentality of Wisconsin hunters."
That is impossible, and history has proved it. The only way to stop the slaughter of does is to stop providing so many freakin' antlerless tags. Hunters will always fill their tags as long as the DNR says there are plenty of deer, and hand out tags like candy. Without the tags, the deer won't be shot. If we relied on hunters to self-regulate the herd, why would we even need game managers? The DNR simply has to do a better job.
Lake
Let's try a little experiment.
Send me the gps coordinates to your best hunting locations....where you are seeing deer. I will get a few buddies and bait the hell out of a few spots (legal or not) and in Sept 4-5 of us will come in an smack 2-3 does each. I am sure it won't effect the deer population....right?
Ok....enough sarcasm. I would never do that.
However, this has happened for years on the public land where I hunt. A decade of over-harvesting does, wolves, and back to back tough winters should make for very few does and fawns or mature bucks that were low on fat reserves from the rut.
I am normally not a "the sky is falling" person. But I hung 3 trail cameras on public land to see if I could get some fawn and other deer pictures this spring. In places where I have done this in years passed and got tons of cool pics. Guess what?? Very few pics of deer and no fawns.
It is more than just less doe tags....we need to change the brown is down mentality of Wisconsin hunters.
Time will tell. Hope I am wrong. Any odds on the total deer harvest in Wisconsin dropping below 325,000? 300,000??
Oh brother, the world is ending. Many guys have success on public land, they just don't post or whine. Its not terrible like some make it out to be.
I don't really care much about the wolf thing, I'm not overly concerned about them. Do I see them? Sure, but I also see deer. They do live in the same woods.
Shooting less does is a solution though. Its the whole reason the DNR regulates it. Buck harvest is not key to population control, its all about the does. Shooting less will increase the population so yes that is a viable and proven solution.
No baiting vs baiting is not a viable solution. People think it is because TV and magazines told them so one way or the other, but its not as big of deal as people think. I say that from baiting for a number of years and no longer baiting now. Comparing my experiences doing both, not much of anything changed. Not as drastic as people will try to make you believe. People tend to get overly dramatic when they are against something (just read through these forums). Also if you look back to when people were happier in general, baiting was legal then. The only difference from then to now is liberal doe tags. The issue seems pretty obvious.
As far as a quality hunt, most just consider that as seeing deer. If we increase the population I think that would help. Can't see more deer without more deer, last time I checked anyway.
I think overall quality of the hunt is what the author was going for. He listed a number of items that he and his staff believe contribute to a quality hunt. Hunter density is one as is chance at a Booner (extremely hard in any state based on his stats) as are other items.
I can't believe that there are forum after forum on the internet talking about too many doe tags, frustrated with deer hunting, don't bait, kill more wolves, I didn't see deer but I did see wolves...ect. yet very few suggestions to improve the quality of the deer hunt. Yep...no doe tags, kill all the wolves....keep everything else the same?? And then when there are suggestions, the same people who were crying too many wolves and they didn't see any deer....they say....hunting in Wisconsin is great.
I would hate to be stuck hunting public land in Wisconsin....WAIT UNTIL THIS FALL AFTER TWO HARD WINTERS and a decade of over-harvesting does....you thought you didn't see deer in the past...wait until this year.
Displaying 1 to 15 of 133 posts
