posted
As a member of the EAB alternative committee, myself and the other members of the committee were tasked with recommending alternatives to EAB that were both acceptable to hunters and effective in reducing the antlerless population. I think it's a pretty safe bet that moving up the gun opener is not acceptable to a majority of gun hunters and is certainly going to be overwhelmingly opposed by Bowhunters so from an acceptability standpoint, an early opener does meet the standard. EAB was not acceptable but it was effective at reducing antlerless populations. If the early gun opener is not going to be accepted by hunters it had damn well better be effective or it will fail both standards of being an accepted and effective EAB alternative and it would be a pointless change.
Myself and others that made up a minority that opposed an early opener told the members of the EAB alternative committee that an earlier opener would NOT be effective in reducing antlerless numbers and that it would instead kill more bucks for the first few years. The goal of the committee was supposed to be to find ways to harvest more antlerless deer, NOT BUCKS! To validate that theory one has to look at history and the harvest data for the early and late gun opener. The calendar year repeats itself on a regular cycle in which we have the earliest and latest opener back to back every 6 or 7 years. A look at that history will tell us about the natural, 7 day calendar shift in relationship to the tail end of the rut and what it means to the antlerless harvest. This sort of evaluation will tell us a lot about the effectiveness of the proposed 14 day earlier shift that some on the EAB committee have proposed has a way to harvest more does.
I checked the opening day date of the gun season to find the early and late opener years. Next, I looked at the antlerless harvest data for those years. Here is what the DNR data shows by year.
The early opener in 84 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year but more importantly, the early opener killed fewer does. The next time this took place was in 1990.
Again, the early opener in 1990 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year and once again exactly the opposite for antlerless deer. The early opener killed fewer antlerless deer. It appears that our theory about the early opener being bad for increased antlerless harvest is proving itself to be true. The next time this took place was in 1995.
Once again, the early opener in 1995 killed more bucks than the late opener the following year and once again exactly the opposite for antlerless deer. It appears that what we thought about the early opener reducing the antlerless harvest is more than just a theory.
The next time this pattern took place was in 2001 (Nov. 17). and 2002 (Nov. 23) The problem with the data for those years is that the discovery of CWD in 2002 and the subsequent hype kept many hunters out of the woods so the total harvest of both bucks and does dropped due to lack or participation. The next years in the cycle was 2007 (Nov. 17) and last year 2008 (Nov. 22). We all know the 2008 harvest was the poorest statewide harvest since the CWD year. We have to go back to 1998 to find a lower total harvest. In 2008, both the buck and doe harvests were down so much that it prompted the formation of the EAB alternative committee. The data from those two cycles does not hold much statistical value.
I did however look back at the doe kills for the early and late opener patterns as far back as the DNR provided data. I checked the pattern for 1967/68 as well as 1973/74 and 1979/80. Each and every time, the early opener resulted in fewer does killed than the late opener the following year. As hunters, we know that during the rut, does seem to go into hiding from bucks while bucks are overly active cruising for those does. This is why the rut makes bucks so vulnerable to harvest and car kills and why the gun opener date falls when it does. Moving the gun season up a week earlier into the full rut will certainly result in more bucks being killed for the first few years and as history has shown, fewer does will be killed but instead of waiting 7 years for this cycle to repeat, moving the gun hunt up 7 additional days will in suppressed antlerless harvests annually when compared to the current system.
Moving the season up a week was supposed to be about killing more antlerless deer but data proves moving the date up would result in just the opposite and fewer antlerless deer would be harvested compared to the current season structure. What this means is that the early opener is neither acceptable nor effective in reducing antlerless populations. It FAILS BOTH standards to be an EAB alternative. If this plan is allowed to pass, Wisconsin will become Michigan in as little as 3 years. We will see a landscape with spikes and forks with lower body weights and late fawning with low birth weights due to the gun hunt taking place during the peak of the rut but all these negatives won’t pay off with an increase in antlerless harvest which some used as the reason for moving the gun opener. As a member of the EAB alternative Committee, It’s clear to me that those advocating moving the gun opener were doing so for no other reason than to get more firearm hunting in the peak of the rut but that is a short sighted plan that will ultimately reduce the quality of the hunt in WI.
In the EAB committee final report, I stated that the rushed deadline to create and EAB alternative caused a lack of time to do the proper verification and a critical evaluation of the recommendations. That was a mistake that could have been avoided and one we should all regret. This evaluation of historical antlerless harvests is exactly the reason for my statement. Making this sort of radical change without doing the homework is irresponsible management.
In October, hearings will be held around the state and the sportsmen and women of WI will have an opportunity to voice their opinion of the proposed early gun opener. It’s understandable that many will oppose moving the opener from a social standpoint because of what it means to tradition, vacation and family time as well as the Thanksgiving holiday. Those are all valid and important reasons on which to base your opinion but now you have a biological reason to oppose an early gun opener. Don’t miss your chance to attend these meetings and voice your concerns.
Ron Kulas
-------------------- Member: WI Bowhunters Association Member: WI Traditional Archers Member: American Broadhead Collectors Club Member: Sherwood Forest Bowmen Posts: 887 | From: SE WI | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the report and I for one will take it to heart come October.
Seems like one of the major issues with anterless harvest is the accessibility to the animals themselves.
Given that "food plots" are a large draw and "where the does are the bucks will follow" - there is a clear (to me) issue of people not wanting to harvest does in an effort to draw in the bucks.
Now if the food plots are on tax incentive based properties or if there are issues with crop damage, et al, would it not be an advantage to the anterles harvest if these properties were made more readily acessible to hunters regardless of the time period?
Just a thought.
-------------------- Mississippi Lake Longbow 55#@28" Woodcraft Equip. 30#@28" Wisconsin Traditional Archers
GENESIS 27:3 - Now therefore, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow and go out to the field and take me some venison. Posts: 227 | From: Oostburg, WI | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys I am sorry but I am sooo sick of it all. Yes I know, you can't make everyone happy but man I am done. I don't even know where to begin this and what I want to say. This not a slam at anyone and my intentions are good. I just hope they are being read the way I want them to be.
RGK - I appreciate everything you write and do. The information you present is awesome. You keep everyone abreast and well informed and show a very good intelect but I have to ask questions not only of you, but of everyone. Why does it have to be so complicated? Why do we need EAB or an alternative? Sooo the deer herd stands to be hurt or diseased if they arent thinned? I think we should let nature take its course and stop messing with it or is it truly that the insurance companies are partialy behind it as I have heard and somewhat starting to believe? To me and some others, the DNR has made everything like numbers,information,and the rules confusing and misleading. I sat in a meeting a few years back in Green Bay with Mr. Warnke(sp) and asked how they came up with the herd population or numbers. He went on to explain that its done in grids, mathematics and the use of helicopters etc. It has now been said that the DNR thinks that may not have been the best way to do it. As the numbers have dropped in the northern part of the state and they say they may have figured incorrectly. Why have we lost touch with the passion of being in the outdoors hunting and replaced it with the love of antlers first. Why do you in your statement devalue the taking of a doe like they mean nothing? I have a brother who lives in Holland Mich and has four sons. Yes they shoot spikes, fork horns and occasional six or eights. But you know what, they have a blast! There is bonding like no other. They shoot and fill the freezer. Sure they would love to shoot one with nice antlers on the head but that isnt why they hunt. They keep it simple. Are people bored now if their not shooting jumbos? I am a friend of Mike Mitten and been to his house on many occasions. To hear his stories and see the animals he has taken is UNBELIEVABLE. But saying that, (sorry Mike!) It has gotten to the point where when you open books, read magazines, watch tv those deer are starting to become the norm. I have never shot a giant whitetail and hope I have one pass by some day. But I feel if we continue to mess with things like we humans have a tendancy to do, and don't let things remain the way nature intended it might be real bad for us all. What will we do when 200 class deer are of the norm??? Will we become bored with that?
Sorry for the babbling and rants but I get head aches now with all the information overload in the Wisconsin hunting world.
-------------------- "I can skin a GRIZZ as fast as you can catch um"...HA! stay right there pilgrim I'll be back! JOHN 3:16 Posts: 86 | From: WISCONSIN | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
PASQUINELL I could't agree more....What everyone fails to mention is the kids....My son is getting ready to hunt....He is only 9 but with the DNR changing their minds more than my wife it might be next year. I would love nothing more than to pass on the knowledge and passion that my dad(WHITE HORNS) GAVE ME. It has become all about the BONE. I have been very blessed in the hunting of whitetails in Wisconsin. Yes it's nice to shoot a big whitetail but the taste of the backstraps with the hunting buddies sitting in camp is part of the deal for me. HUNT AND SHOOT WHAT YOUR GONNA EAT. The whitetail Sudden Impact is a prime example of how big can one raise a deer...Over 400 inches...COME ON......
I think directly or indirectly you have hit it on the head. The DNR wants to manage the herd not for the herds sake (mother nature can do that) but for the sake of the almighty dollar. To have 650,000 hunters afield each year represents a large amount of the state budget needs. These needs once planned and therefore budgeted every year need to be there 'cause it is already spent on something (foolish?). I and a significant group of others feel that the baiting issue should cross the boundaries of food plots. We don't need to kill a deer as much has have the chance to be on property that has deer, not already drawn by food plots (bait piles). Food plots are no different than bait piles and offer no more nourishment. But the hook and bullet mags and TV revenues are such that they are treated differently.
-------------------- Mississippi Lake Longbow 55#@28" Woodcraft Equip. 30#@28" Wisconsin Traditional Archers
GENESIS 27:3 - Now therefore, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow and go out to the field and take me some venison. Posts: 227 | From: Oostburg, WI | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can Hahaka - Well after reading my own words I kind of hopped all over the place and showed my ignorance on some things besides spelling! I kind of touched on two topics instead of sticking to the DNR issue. They(DNR)don't care about antler size, only about killing deer and I started down that path but will save my feelings on that for another venting session. Getting back to the EOB or alternative season topic , I dont think you will ever get everyone on board which ever the seasons or alternative will be. The EAB is probably going to be the mosr effective means of the DNR goal of decreased deer herd. People see the deer as kind of their herd, or to take it one step further, their pets. If a EAB situation is put in place again, only the public land will pay the penalty. Michigan had a "doe only" hunt this wekend but... only on private land, not public. In your message you touched on food plot vs baiting. I think land owners with the money or big land are the ones planting these fields with biologic food plots where as the hunter without access to tractors or big money are dumping the bait. That is another topic that has been sliced, diced and gone over. I see no difference between the two either and think it could be a real bee nest when the DNR starts ruling one way or another. I don't see food plots ever going away now, it would be too hard to stop. Like you elluded to in your note : bottom line -it is all about money. Everything is about money in everthing we do now a days. Here it is two weekends into the season and I am not even excited nor planning any hunts soon. I hunt 300 acres of private land in the middle of the state and they call me every Wednesday asking if am coming up to hunt...
-------------------- "I can skin a GRIZZ as fast as you can catch um"...HA! stay right there pilgrim I'll be back! JOHN 3:16 Posts: 86 | From: WISCONSIN | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a tough situation and it worries me. Thanks again to Ron, he has been diligent in keeping many of us up to date. I can only imagine the time he puts into it. Thanks. I share the worries that we are losing what hunting was, or is supposed to be. I don't think Ron's point of us being another Michigan was meant to promote inches of antler at all costs. I think he means that Wisconsin has long been respected for its deer herd, hunt quality, and hunting tradition. In my opinion all of this could be lost by all that is being proposed. This is just for short term gain for some. The private land guys don't care when the gun hunt is, or how many extra hunts there are. They will control who comes on and what gets shot, with what weapon. This state has a public/versus private land deer herd population problem. I will stand by that statement to the end.
I also find it funny, the big push to involve kids. Hunter numbers are down, states are selling fewer tags, and they are all scrambling to increase participation. Well, I have news for them. I don't think it has anything to do with there not being enough opportunity for kids, it has everything to do with the loss of the "dads". The more complex the regulations, the more seasons, the more bickering, etc. has really soured the average hunter. Add to that a lower quality hunt the last few years (percieved or real), and tougher access to quality hunting and guess what, the "Dads" are going to quit going. Besides we all have enough going on and can get our meat at the grocery store. Then with all the sports, video games, and instant gratification of todays society, if you don't hook a kid right away, forget it, it's not going to happen.
I worry about this, a lot. I have 4 kids, my oldest is 5 my youngest (twin boys) are 3 months. I want them to hunt. I want them to love what I love. But I sure hope that when they are old enough I don't talk about these years as the "good old days".
Have a good hunt, remember why we love this, and try not to let all the extra cirricular crap get you down.
Nathan
Posts: 263 | From: Waupun, WI | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Subject: Joint Press Release from Wisconsin Hunting Groups
WISCONSIN HUNTERS RIGHTS COALITION WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION WISCONSIN QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT WISCONSIN BOW HUNTERS ASSOCIATION
September 18, 2009 – Today the Hunters Rights Coalition, the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Quality Deer Management, and the Wisconsin Bow Hunters sent a statement to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board laying out their position on the proposed changes to the state’s deer season structure. The statement is reproduced below.
We would like to thank the Board for allowing our organizations the opportunity to participate on the Earn-A-Buck Alternative Committee. The committee worked very hard to meet the charge of finding alternatives that would be effective and acceptable to hunters.
We believe many of the items put forth in the Green Sheet package meet that standard and have the potential to survive the entire process, including Legislative approval.
However, we have grave concern that moving the traditional gun season opener to a week earlier is an overreach that will garner major resistance from the hunting community. This overreach will jeopardize acceptance of the 16-day gun season as well as the other vital components of the package.
Justification for the early opener is based on the anecdotal belief that the early opener occurring during the rut when deer are more active will result in greater antlerless harvest. The facts, based on historical data compiled by the DNR, illustrate exactly the contrary to be true. Decades of data reveal the latest opening date resulted in overall lower buck harvest and an increased antlerless harvest than did the years with the earliest opening date. The only two anomalies were in 2002 when CWD was discovered and in 2008 with the yet unexplained drop in fawn production (Table #1). Incorporating an earlier opener with no validation of increased effectiveness is not worth the potential downsides.
In Wisconsin the gun deer season opener is a sacred tradition. Union contracts, business shutdowns, and vacations schedules have revolved around our traditional opener for half a century. The traditional opener is the only week that hunters can take three days of vacation time to hunt nine days. A potential downside of the week earlier opener is that gun deer hunting participation may decline to just a single weekend, destroying the tradition of a 9-day event.
The biological ramifications of harvesting 60% or more of the herd’s breeding bucks before the rut is complete will result in many does not being bred during their natural breeding period. The results will be later-born fawns, reduced body size, and an overall unhealthier deer herd. States like Michigan and Minnesota have actually had to reduce buck harvest with antler restrictions and other means to address the biological ramifications of their earlier gun seasons.
Finally, it was determined by the SAK Audit Team that anything that alters the male harvest rate reduces the accuracy and precision of deer population estimates. It is clear that a deer gun season during the rut will adversely affect SAK population estimates and is contrary to recommendations of the Audit Team.
We urge the board to approve a rule for hearings that includes an option hunters can vote for rather than against.
Please vote to include a season structure option with a traditional opening day for the 16 day season, followed by a 7-day muzzleloader hunt.
Together with the other provisions of the rule package, this becomes a proposal that will have the support of our groups and, we believe, many hunters and other stakeholders as a viable alternative to Earn-a-Buck.
-------------------- Member: WI Bowhunters Association Member: WI Traditional Archers Member: American Broadhead Collectors Club Member: Sherwood Forest Bowmen Posts: 887 | From: SE WI | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
