Wisconsin bill would eliminate doe harvest in part of the state

[Ben Lamb]

When you make wildlife management a political issue, politicians will oblige.

Bill would prohibit hunters from shooting antlerless deer in northern Wisconsin

A group of Republican lawmakers introduced a bill aimed at increasing the deer herd in northern Wisconsin.

www.jsonline.com

 

[Bigjay73]

I'll always be a huge proponent for cutting or eliminating doe tags for troubled herds when the biologists call for it. I'm not a fan of this course of action, politicians should stay out of the wildlife conservation business, feels like the proverbial slippery slope

 

[Treeshark]

No doe harvest up north for a few years is a great thing! It’s about damn time.

(WDNR supporter).

 

[seeth07]

No doe harvest up north for a few years is a great thing! It’s about damn time.

Yes, its very likely needed but it shouldn't be done this way. WI already has all the tools it needs to properly manage it's herds at a county level which is extremely powerful. I have sat and aided in those county advisory council meetings for the county in which I own land and hunt and they are extremely productive. Biologists are great but a county board of delegates that know the land better than anyone that doesn't live there is even better.

"Since 2014 the state has used a county-based system to recommend antlerless kill quotas and permit levels. The County Deer Advisory Councils (CDAC) emerged from the Deer Trustee Review initiated by former Gov. Scott Walker.

The CDACs are led by WCC delegates and include local citizens who each year advance recommendations to the DNR and Natural Resources Board.

Last year, for example, the Iron County CDAC recommended a zero antlerless quota for its county. The recommendation was supported by the DNR and NRB and no antlerless permits were issued there last year.

Jeff Pritzl, DNR deer specialist, said given the results from the 2023 deer hunting season he anticipated more CDACs in the north would also opt for zero or low antlerless quotas in 2024."

 

[Treeshark]

Yes, its very likely needed but it shouldn't be done this way. WI already has all the tools it needs to properly manage it's herds at a county level which is extremely powerful.

I get your and Ben’s point for sure and I agree it’s a slippery slope.

But these two sentences are a direct contradiction of one another and speak to the issue as a whole- If the tool to manage the herd was functioning properly throughout the north, this wouldn’t have been needed in the first place. I’m not thrilled about the mechanism being used either, but it’s hard to argue that the goal isn’t a good one here in my opinion.

 

[seeth07]

I get your and Ben’s point for sure and I agree it’s a slippery slope.

But these two sentences are a direct contradiction of one another and speak to the issue as a whole- If the tool to manage the herd was functioning properly throughout the north, this wouldn’t have been needed in the first place. I’m not thrilled about the mechanism being used either, but it’s hard to argue that the goal isn’t a good one here in my opinion.

I think you need to ask yourself and research a little bit more into this. The WDNR from my experience locally is very good at listening to and adopting the county recommendations.

Heck look at how much effort they put into this webpage explaining the process: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/deermanagement

There is one county where after county recommendations, the WDNR did remove doe harvest - Iron County. For some reason I can't find the 2023 meeting notes right now from those county meetings but take a look at the meeting notes from 2022 here: https://widnr.widen.net/s/xfcfdmsqk5/2022-may-11-dac-minutes What stands out to you from reading those northern county meeting meetings? Some very interesting things can be drawn from reading those minutes for the northern region.

Take a look here at the amount of bonus antlerless harvest permits were issued for those northern forest units. The county recommendations are resulting is very limited bonus antlerless permits.

Antlerless deer harvest authorization availability 2023 | | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

 

[Treeshark]

Thanks seeth- I understand how it works, I’m just not sure it has been working well.

Check out the Bayfield County recommendation- that is insane, and it’s not because of the DNR. Bad info in is going to equal bad decisions being made, as we both acknowledge they have been.

It sounds like the Iron County group you were a part of (I assume) was responsible in their recommendations- unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

 

[coleslaw]

Just going to feed more wolves. Stop trying to over-manage the deer herd when you can't manage predators.
Sad that our deer hunting has become so political now. It's not even fun anymore.

 

[seeth07]

Thanks seeth- I understand how it works, I’m just not sure it has been working well.

Check out the Bayfield County recommendation- that is insane, and it’s not because of the DNR. Bad info in is going to equal bad decisions being made, as we both acknowledge they have been.

Compare Bayfield discussion to Burnett.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks seeth- I understand how it works, I’m just not sure it has been working well.

Check out the Bayfield County recommendation- that is insane, and it’s not because of the DNR. Bad info in is going to equal bad decisions being made, as we both acknowledge they have been.

It sounds like the Iron County group you were a part of (I assume) was responsible in their recommendations- unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

Using the existing means saves a ton of time and energy over trying to get a bad bill passed. Allowing politicians to set seasons and bag limits is far worse than a slippery slope because we've seen what it leads to in many other places. The bill may be a big enough threat to get the agency to do more in terms of working towards abundance, but that could likely be done with a phone call instead of the nuclear option.

 

[Treeshark]

Using the existing means saves a ton of time and energy over trying to get a bad bill passed.

No doubt that the current framework theoretically could help solve this issue, but it probably won’t. This is not an acute problem in northern WI by any means, the population overall has been in the tank for several years now.

I appreciate your perspective Ben (and seeth) and I’m glad this is being discussed on here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No doubt that the current framework theoretically could help solve this issue, but it probably won’t. This is not an acute problem in northern WI by any means, the population overall has been in the tank for several years now.

I appreciate your perspective Ben (and seeth) and I’m glad this is being discussed on here. @Big Fin we need a Wisconsin section!

The immovable object generally succumbs to the unstoppable object.

 

[seeth07]

No doubt that the current framework theoretically could help solve this issue, but it probably won’t.

I'm going to totally disagree here with you unless you can prove to me that what the county recommends is ignored by the WDNR or that what the county is recommending isn't in the best interest of that county.

I don't live in Bayfield. I don't hunt there either. Those comments from in 2022 seem bad. But I'm not a resident of that county. I don't attend or participate in those county meetings/discussions. I have no right to judge them.

Do you attend the county meetings or provide comment via email when its open for the year to do so for the county[ies] in which you hunt?

I do and we here have been holding our ground to prevent allowing the holiday antlerless hunt in our county because a lot of us feel the deer numbers could use some improvement. Guess what? The WDNR keeps listening to us.

 

[Treeshark]

Yes, its very likely needed

Dude. We covered this all already.

 

[seeth07]

Dude. We covered this all already.

So just because the two of us have an outside hunch that something should probably be done, they should do it? Even though we have zero stake or involvement in that area?

Alright, hey Wyoming - your NR PP system for Moose and Sheep absolutely suck and just about everyone knows it sucks. Lets change it up, pass a bill doing so please.

 

[seeth07]

Point is, I don't want representatives in our state government system from Kenosha, Madison, La Crosse, etc. voting on a bill that will impact the constituents in Ashland and Crandon.

 

[Treeshark]

Alright, hey Wyoming - you're PP system for Moose and Sheep absolutely suck and just about everyone knows it sucks. Let’s change it up, pass a bill doing so please.

Now you are just toying with me!

I get your perspective on this, I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Nick87]

I'll always be a huge proponent for cutting or eliminating doe tags for troubled herds when the biologists call for it. I'm not a fan of this course of action, politicians should stay out of the wildlife conservation business, feels like the proverbial slippery slope

Who's to say politics wasn't already in it, prior to this decision. Insurance companies sure do hate deer, almost as much as they love politicians.

 

[seeth07]

If I had a hunch, I would suspect that during the Bayfield meetings there are members on the council that don't think the deer numbers are too low like you and I are currently influenced to believe.

 

[Treeshark]

For sure, that’s how this system is designed to work. The question is if a Balkanized structure like this is an effective way to manage this issue (We both agree it has not been overall).

Regarding your Bayfield County comment, and this would apply to any: it could also be that they just like to shoot does, and no matter how low the population gets they still aren’t going to recommend that away for themselves. See also: Montana.