Fixing Western Hunting

[seeth07]

Interesting info about Wisconsin. Thank you. If I understand you correctly, a hunter in Wisconsin can buy 4 deer tags valid for a buck each season. One for each weapon type. A hunter could in theory kill 4 bucks. How many does can they harvest? I wonder what the success rate is if you could take the number deer killed divided by the number of hunters. In other words the percentage of hunters that killed at least one deer.

It's at most 2 buck tags - one valid in archery seasons and one for the 9 day gun deer season. The sports license gives you your gun buck, small game and fishing license all in one. The conservation license gets you just about every single thing the state offers.

Every person that also purchased those licenses would have got a single valid doe tag. The season total of all antlerless deer (which does include bucks as yearling bucks and any buck with broken beams or spikes less than 3" count as antlerless) was 89,237. There are also a bunch of extra antlerless authorizations you can get but you would have had to get one of the above licenses first. The antlerless number you can see is very similar to the buck harvest and this is typical each year where the antlerless is just above the buck harvest.

I cannot find anywhere the WDNR actually publishes the "total hunter" number. They would have that data but I don't see it shared anywhere. An educated guess? Maybe around 600,000. There is for sure a lot of people that end up getting both the archery and the firearm license.

To me it is a little bit silly to compare though with buck and does together. Should we do that in your home state? I'm betting the doe licenses have much higher success rates than the buck licenses?

 

[406dn]

I think that the various western states are aware of the management policies of the other states. They likely look for best practices, and use their discretion for their unique circumstances.

Realistically, the hunting that the western states can provide in a decent amount is for mule deer, pronghorn and elk. Moose hunting in the lower 48 is very limited, as is hunting for bighorn and mountain goat. It would not bother me at all to limit the hunting for them to the residents of the state. The draw odds effectively make it a once in a lifetime opportunity, presently.

The continuing threat to access to big game hunting is the erosion of the North American model of managing wildlife. A percentage of people with considerable means feel entitled to find a way to the front of the line for a limited resource. The Govonor's tags are a perfect example of this. They are couched in terms of raising money for game management, when in reality it is a get to the head of the line program for wealthy hunters. In years ahead, this will likely get worse.

My hunting career is coming to a conclusion @72 years old. I have a few left I hope, but not nearly as many as younger hunters have.

If you want to hold onto big game hunting for everyone, fight like hell for preserving the North American model of game management. Otherwise look to Europe and Texas for how hunting will look.

 

[Treeshark]

Otherwise look to Europe and Texas for how hunting will look.

The challenge is going to be avoiding a scenario in which these options become more appealing than current state.

 

[idelkslayer]

It's at most 2 buck tags - one valid in archery seasons and one for the 9 day gun deer season. The sports license gives you your gun buck, small game and fishing license all in one. The conservation license gets you just about every single thing the state offers.

Every person that also purchased those licenses would have got a single valid doe tag. The season total of all antlerless deer (which does include bucks as yearling bucks and any buck with broken beams or spikes less than 3" count as antlerless) was 89,237. There are also a bunch of extra antlerless authorizations you can get but you would have had to get one of the above licenses first. The antlerless number you can see is very similar to the buck harvest and this is typical each year where the antlerless is just above the buck harvest.

I cannot find anywhere the WDNR actually publishes the "total hunter" number. They would have that data but I don't see it shared anywhere. An educated guess? Maybe around 600,000. There is for sure a lot of people that end up getting both the archery and the firearm license.

To me it is a little bit silly to compare though with buck and does together. Should we do that in your home state? I'm betting the doe licenses have much higher success rates than the buck licenses?

Generally in Idaho we can get 1 deer tag. That tag is valid for a buck or a doe depending on specific units and seasons. If you shoot a doe, your tag is filled and you cannot shoot a buck that year. Most units that are predominantly mule deer are buck only for adults. In the northern part of the state where whitetails dominate, most seasons are either-sex, but again if you shoot a doe your tag is filled. Our success rates include both bucks and does. You can draw a limited quota tag for an extra antlerless deer in certain areas, but that is a few hundred tags compared to tens of thousands of general tags. The only other way to get another deer tag is buy a leftover NR tag at the NR price. Usually this is just a few hundred tags.

 

[BuzzH]

The challenge is going to be avoiding a scenario in which these options appeal more appealing than what things are currently. For many, we are unfortunately getting very close.

WI is way closer to that scenario than any Western state. You working on fixing that, or just leasing a place to hunt?

 

[idahohuntr]

I think 'fixing Western hunting' is way too broad and undefined. I also think, as someone who fully acknowledges how good things 'used to be', there is way too much doom and gloom on social media re: Western Hunting. Not saying there aren't lots of things to do better on/at, or that anything be taken for granted, but my goodness it sure seems a lot of falling skies these days. Also - I don't support any formal collusion of western states on managing NR hunters. Let each one manage their resources for their beneficiaries as best they can...and if you have interest in one or more of those states, follow their processes for making improvements.

 

[seeth07]

WI is way closer to that scenario than any Western state. You working on fixing that, or just leasing a place to hunt?

Sorry but I'll take your creditability on how WI manages its deer herd and hunting opportunities as about seriously as you take any of my comments about how I feel about Wyoming. I have at least hunted in Wyoming multiple times and sent at this point probably close to 100 personalized emails to WY commissioners and legislators regarding dozens of topics. Can you say you have hunted in WI and been engaged at even some level here in WI?

 

[BuzzH]

Sorry but I'll take your creditability on how WI manages its deer herd and hunting opportunities as about seriously as you take any of my comments about how I feel about Wyoming. I have at least hunted in Wyoming multiple times and sent at this point probably close to 100 personalized emails to WY commissioners and legislators regarding dozens of topics. Can you say you have hunting in WI and been engaged at even some level here in WI?

Prove me wrong that WI isn't closer to Texas or Europe than Wyoming in regard to hunting.

The rest of your post in nonsense.

 

[406dn]

The challenge is going to be avoiding a scenario in which these options become more appealing than current state.

It will always be more appealing, but for the portion of hunters with enough wherewithal to pay the going rate.

 

[seeth07]

Prove me wrong that WI isn't closer to Texas or Europe than Wyoming in regard to hunting.

The rest of your post in nonsense.

Whitetail hunting on public lands in both Wyoming and WI are very similar - yes I have done both. Hunting pressure, lower quality of deer to chase after, nocturnal nature of whitetails without food plots/feed to bring them out in daylight hours, etc. Tag availability isnt terribly different either, slight edge to WI.

Seems to me like its often pricy to go hunt a whitetail in Wyoming if you aren't going the public land route.

First three Outfitters that come up on the google machine that list their 2023 price:







Should we next move to comparing hunting land prices in the river bottoms of Wyoming to that of land prices in WI? Or we can move to how it goes when you ask for permission to hunt private property or perhaps offer to lease it to hunt?

 

[Treeshark]

WI is way closer to that scenario than any Western state. You working on fixing that, or just leasing a place to hunt?

I disagree. And don’t have a lease, never have and hopefully never will.

 

[seeth07]

I disagree. And don’t have a lease, never have and hopefully never will.

Most leases that I know of are not expensive in our neck of the woods. At least compared to private land "trespass fee" type hunts out west in like say, Wyoming, or getting access to Texas ranches.

I personally have an agreement with my neighbor of $25 reduced rent on the agricultural land I own in exchange for my recreational access and exclusive use of his properties. Its a trade of $875 dollars I'm giving up in exchange for 450 acres of recreational use.
My other neighbor leases his 160 acres for $1000.
My dad, brother and uncle lease prime habitat in central WI for $250 each ($750 total) for 190 acres.

These are all 365 day agreements for full hunting use.

WI doesn't have the insane demand for use of the land for hunting compared to some places out west so the landowners here can't exactly charge whatever they want to lease their land. We don't have 1000s of NR flocking and asking to use it.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Im going way out of character in making this post. I know there is a good chance that I will regret it. I've been a member here for many years, and have been reading the forum on a very regular basis for that entire time, although I rarely post. I recently read carefully the long thread regarding "devaluing non-resident hunters" and agree with Randy's last post wherein he concluded that not much was resolved on these issues.

I'm a resident of Ohio and a typical mid-west whitetail enthusiast going on 40 years. Over that same time frame I've been blessed to participate in four western hunts (two Colorado and two Montana). I care deeply about wildlife to include the various game species that inhabit the west. In addition to the western hunting trips, I've been taking an annual fly fishing trip to Montana/Wyoming for several years. I have also visited Montana and Wyoming on non-fishing/hunting trips on at least three occasions in the last few years. Put simply, I love the area.

So, if I were king for a day, here are some of the things I would recommend for the benefit of all hunters and outdoorsmen.

1) Form a western States coalition wherein the States would share information regarding hunting license sales, herd health and population, and other critical factors related to licensing. As part of this effort, I would recommend that hunters only be eligible for one western State license per year for the following species - Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Goats, Moose. In the more rare species, I would recommend long intervals - up to one in a lifetime. Hunters would be eligible for a total of two licenses per year for different species, i.e, Elk and Mule Deer.

2) As part of this coalition, I would form an incentive (like draw odds) for first time western hunters, and hunters under age 18. (Get more stake-holders)

3) I would recommend that States issue a "Federal Public Land Only" license, to be allocated without regard to resident/non-resident status, following the theory that as federal tax payers, we all support Federal public lands equally. State public land licenses should be reserved for residents to a very great extent.

4) States would still have full control over the number of licenses made available, and cost. They would also control the idea of land owner tags and outfitter tags. Because they would be competing with other States in the Coalition for out-of-State dollars, this system would hopefully be self regulating.

5) I would recommend a strong incentive (again, draw odds) for persons who participate in "boots on the ground" wildlife projects, with each State recognizing agencies and organizations that would sponsor qualifying events.

These are just a few ideas that crossed my mind as a read the above noted thread. Notice a few things - I left out whitetail deer, bear, and possibly a few more game species. Over the last few years particularly, I have come to the conclusion that nobody really needs to kill three or more Elk in one year (even two is excessive). We all love hunting and the pursuit of game is a true passion, but in my opinion, and for the future of our passion, we all need to show a little restraint.

So, there it is. Let me have it.

 

[BuzzH]

I disagree. And don’t have a lease, never have and hopefully never will.

Disagree all you want, how many whitetail game farms/shooting preserves do you have in WI? How many in WY?

Plus, you never answered the question, how are you helping NR opportunity in WI and stopping it from being more like Texas and Europe?

 

[Treeshark]

Buzz, I’ just not interested in a slap-fight. Sorry man, you’re going to have to find someone else.

We are looking at this from different angles. It’s ok if we disagree.

 

[BuzzH]

Whitetail hunting on public lands in both Wyoming and WI are very similar - yes I have done both. Hunting pressure, lower quality of deer to chase after, nocturnal nature of whitetails without food plots/feed to bring them out in daylight hours, etc. Tag availability isnt terribly different either, slight edge to WI.

Seems to me like its often pricy to go hunt a whitetail in Wyoming if you aren't going the public land route.

First three Outfitters that come up on the google machine that list their 2023 price:

View attachment 314890

View attachment 314891

View attachment 314892

Should we next move to comparing hunting land prices in the river bottoms of Wyoming to that of land prices in WI? Or we can move to how it goes when you ask for permission to hunt private property or perhaps offer to lease it to hunt?

Really going to make that argument?

Hunt Packages - HUNT'S END

huntsend.com

 

[406dn]

Most leases that I know of are not expensive in our neck of the woods. At least compared to private land "trespass fee" type hunts out west in like say, Wyoming, or getting access to Texas ranches.

I personally have an agreement with my neighbor of $25 reduced rent on the agricultural land I own in exchange for my recreational access and exclusive use of his properties. Its a trade of $875 dollars I'm giving up in exchange for 450 acres of recreational use.
My other neighbor leases his 160 acres for $1000.
My dad, brother and uncle lease prime habitat in central WI for $250 each ($750 total) for 190 acres.

These are all 365 day agreements for full hunting use.

WI doesn't have the insane demand for use of the land for hunting compared to some places out west so the landowners here can't exactly charge whatever they want to lease their land. We don't have 1000s of NR flocking and asking to use it.

Deer hunting doesn't command the same price that elk hunting does. For as long as I have lived in Montana (40+years) access to private land for hunting elk has been very tough to come by. Landowners have long known how much a bull elk is worth. They could just give it away by letting the public hunt, or they can capture some of that value. I fully understand that they want some revenue for having elk on their land.

If not for the fairly large amount of forest service land in the west, elk hunting would be a pursuit for the wealthy.

 

[BuzzH]

Guided Deer Hunting Wisconsin | High Fence Hunts WI | Private Hunting

Guided Deer Hunting Wisconsin: Edenwood Ranch & Preserve sits on beautiful forested land. We offer high fence hunts & private hunting Wisconsin trips...

edenwoodranch.com

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, I’ just not interested in a slap-fight. Sorry man, you’re going to have to find someone else.

We are looking at this from different angles. It’s ok if we disagree.

The facts speak for themselves, WI looks a lot more like Texas and Europe to even the most casual observer.

 

[D_Walt]

I like the general idea of #1, but there is unlikely any way to implement something like that across various state agencies without an extremely unlikely and dramatic paradigm shift in conservation thinking among the states.

The problem is, has been, and will continue to be, growing human/hunter populations simultaneous with decreasing game populations. No scheme is a “fix” until those two things come into balance - and they never will, though the rate of change could possibly be mitigated when/if herds rebound.

Then, comparing Whitetail numbers and hunting, (preferably out the truck window over a feeder with a crossbow and a Miller Lite while blaring “Stranglehold”) is downright silly. Scarcity of the Western game resource is going to continue to accelerate in the coming years while eastern whitetails will continue to fill in every wood lot left between subdivisions east of the Rockies.