QDM continuation…. EAB thoughts????

  • whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69491

    Sipple…

    I’ve heard similar things from “Up nort”… I don’t hunt up there, but at least based on hunter dissention, it does seem like deer numbers aren’t exactly preferable, at least based on hunter’s wants. That does stink… Between the bears, the wolves and the tags, its sounds like they are down. But again, how difficult is it for the DNR to base decisions on word of mouth and hunter dissention?? Pretty tough, I’m sure. I assume they ARE listening (contrary to popular belief), but I also assume it takes a ton of time to assess, make policy changes, and see results (unfortunately).

    Numbers have been so high for so many years, though, that we are used to such great hunting. I wonder how close to the DNR goals the population actually is?? (regarless of any population estimate error arguements…) Populations at goals very well might mean much crappier hunting than what we are used to based on the banner populations of the 2000’s.

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69492

    Moss… I agree that its seems the majority of hunters are happy.. But is that the reality?? Like I said, if you don’t like something, you complain about it (not YOU, you… I mean YOU meaning people in general)… If you like something, you may or may not tell anyone. Human nature to complain, which is why this this thread has so many posts. Just kidding…

    But anyway, my point.. We hear the complaints much more readily than not. We assume then that the complainers are the majority, when in fact they very well might NOT be.

    (I’m not saying the complainers are necessarily wrong, its just a very unscientific way of estimating goals and herd populations).

    So, I agree with you that by hearing so many complaints, the DNR should definately acknowledge them… But I’m not sure change basond on said complaints is always necessarily the answer…

    darin_rs
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Posts: 550
    #69494

    Mossboss,

    My point exactly. There just is not a good population of animals in many areas because of this. Certain areas get hit harder than others due to the type of hunter mentality in the area. I think if they limited the number of tags to be had, a good balance could be obtained, but the goal the way it is is for eradication, not control. No I am not in the eradication zone either. But that is what is happening in our area, people can argue all you want on this issue, but you can not dispute data collection samples on cameras and time in the woods. We have seen numbers dropping drastically for the past 5 years.

    Darin

    Darin

    sipple31
    West Central Sconni
    Posts: 415
    #69498

    Quote:


    Sipple…

    I’ve heard similar things from “Up nort”… I don’t hunt up there, but at least based on hunter dissention, it does seem like deer numbers aren’t exactly preferable, at least based on hunter’s wants. That does stink… Between the bears, the wolves and the tags, its sounds like they are down. But again, how difficult is it for the DNR to base decisions on word of mouth and hunter dissention?? Pretty tough, I’m sure. I assume they ARE listening (contrary to popular belief), but I also assume it takes a ton of time to assess, make policy changes, and see results (unfortunately).

    Numbers have been so high for so many years, though, that we are used to such great hunting. I wonder how close to the DNR goals the population actually is?? (regarless of any population estimate error arguements…) Populations at goals very well might mean much crappier hunting than what we are used to based on the banner populations of the 2000’s.


    Yeah I think it’s a difficult area to manage. Wolf populations have gone done in the last year or two, or so i’ve heard. About 4 years ago I had one sprint past me to join the rest of the pack on a kill that I overheard. Didn’t see any that day – wonder why? And yes – bear are high as well. We recently had one do a bunch of damage to our cabin. One night we weren’t inside but for 4-5 minutes and we had one scratching down the side of the cabin and banging the shutters. It’s a bit creepy. Add those factors to a derelict crew nearby who puts corn down by the truckload – and it’s no wonder, really. I need to get the DNR to catch and fine them… but it makes it hard since cell service is a 20 minute drive.

    darin_rs
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Posts: 550
    #69499

    Another thing that was said here earlier has me thinking now too. QDM in my understanding does not equate into small numbers of deer. I do not know of many properties that practice QDM that have next to no deer o the properties. It is about the ratio and being balanced with food supply.

    In SW Wisconsin food supply is NOT an issue. Can not tell you about the ratio as we do not see enough deer to give an accurate count, but from what we have on cameras, I would guess about 3 bucks per doe. Hard to say though as we only have a few does on 7 cameras that have been out since the first week of Oct this year.

    Darin

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69507

    Again, QDM principles are mixed both with biological and socially derived motivations. Need to manage on many, many levels, not just based on carrying capacity and food sources. I would argue that QDM is exactly about smaller numbers of deer. You are right, obviously we don’t want zero deer. (maybe we can agree to leave the CWD zone out of this discussion as I think that is a whole separate issue…??) One of the core principles, though, is usually herd reduction and/or control. Reducing herd size to both biologically and socially acceptable levels… Not always about just what the hunter wants. Sure there is plenty of food in SW WI, but how much of that is corn and beans “stolen” from the farmers?? Just one of the many considerations…

    Again, though, I’d argue micromanagment by the parcel is not an option, and individual observations don’t mean a whole lot until you start recording everyone’s individual observations… Even then, its still very unscientific. If you have 10,000 acres to manage and know how to go about managing it, thats one thing. 1000 separatedly owned 100 acred plots is another animal altogether.

    Regarding the baiting up nort… I understand both sides of it. Following QDM practices, though (I’m not saying you HAVE to follow them, but for those that buy into it…) baiting would be right out the window, and food plot preparation and maintenance would be the new baitpile. I argue it would be waaaaay more enjoyable and rewarding to go the food plot route, too. Although, I don’t live or hunt up there, so take my opinion with a huge grain of salt.

    I certainly not saying any of you guys are wrong… There are some great opinions being put out there, and I’m just giving mine.

    Good points, guys…. Great discussion

    darin_rs
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Posts: 550
    #69517

    Whittsend,

    Not trying to be difficult here , but I would love to bring up another question for you. Why are the deer being accused for all the crop damage, racoons and turkey do their fair share, but no one complains about those.

    Whittsend, I do not disagree with all you have to say, just that EAB has been misused in certain areas. I agree that the CWD zone is another area to discuss. Another screw up by the DNR.

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69520

    Just as an aside, here is a description of the area that I hunt….

    I hunt a private 160 acre piece. Its maybe 70% open farm feilds in the middle of the property. The north and south woods connect some bigger woods sections, but are bordered by other private owners (who also hunt). a nice ridge runs the north side, but the south side is flat. Corn and hay is what is being grown this year by the rent-a-farmer, and the landowner is a deer nut but doesn’t gun hunt opening week on that property (which is great for me! ) He has put in a small pond on the property, 20,000+ trees and shrubs and actively manages 20 or more acres of food plots solely for the deer. He has a few acres of turnips, 7 or 8 acres of beans, 5+ acres of corn, plus rape, chicory, oats, etc… He lets this stuff stand all winter for the deer. He logged this year solely as a method of providing more bedding and hiding cover for the deer in his north woods. The only thing it is lacking (besides about 10,000 acres of surrounding QDM cooperation) is bedding cover in the middle of his property. A large patch of some sort of thicket or big bluestem or something would really help to attract and hold the deer on his property while they are resting between meals.

    Anyway, the neighbors all hunt and usually shoot a number of deer… Most of them roughly follow QDM principles and generally shoot some really nice deer, a few shoot anything. He sees TONS of deer in the evenings/at night. I don’t always see tons of deer during the day because they are often on the neighbors thicker areas, waiting til dark to come into the fields. So based on my experience actually personally seeing deer while hunting, I might be inclined to say the population is so-so at best. But every night you can shine his food plots and see 20-40 deer no problem. We shined one (of the many) of his food plots the other night and saw 20 sets of eyes. Those were just the ones looking at us, I’m sure there are more around. Obviously this is way above carrying capacity for 160 acres, but they certainly filter in from the surrounding areas to feed. Tons of food. Surrounding landowners have food plots as well, so I’m sure they also have a similar situation.

    I know some other hunters who hunt the county forest land and see few deer some years, then shoot a bunch every so often. Usually, though, I just hear about how bad it was simply because its more fun to complain about a bad hunt then it is to say, “ya, we did fine this year”. All of this is in zone 59A near EC.

    My point, I guess, is that perceptions about deer populations may or may not be accurate based on cameras, deer sightings, word of mouth, etc… I may not see a ton of deer while hunting, but I know they are there. And my eperience is obviously different than my buddy’s who hunts some bigger pieces of timber just to the north. Again, impossible to micromanage by parcel, so the next best (or should I say “practical” option is to do so by DMU.

    Anyway, so many eperiences and so many opinions… None of us are really wrong I guess… Neither, though, are any of us probably 100% right….

    Maybe the ultimate point of all of this is simply to realize that the issue is so much bigger than we probably realize…. While the DNR is far from perfect, I’m sure constructive critisicm, guidance and well thought out input would help much more than bashing, badmouthing or simply quiting hunting altogether. None of us (including the DNR) want any of these negative things, and I would think working with (in hopes of change, if needed) instead of against the DNR would be a better option???

    Anyway, very glad to see all the input.. great discussion!

    docfrigo
    Wisconsin
    Posts: 1564
    #69523

    Personally, I loved Earn a Buck–it was just an idea that was not set up properly.
    It is the only way to control the deer herd on private lands and yes, does effect outfitters adversely-sorry Buffalo County, join the rest of the state.
    That aside, EAB just needed some minor tweeking and then would have been a viable, long standing deer management tool that people could live with.
    First the good moves:
    1) Allowed bucks to reach a level of maturity.
    2) Balanced the buck to doe ratio.
    3) By allowing one to qualify a year in advance, it kept people out in the woods after shooting a buck to requalify for the next year—something longer seasons will never accomplish.
    4) Really, backdoor QDM.

    Now,the rotten stuff:
    1) Promoted the shooting of fawns and desperation hunting.
    2) Rewarded a buck tag for shooting a buck fawn.
    3) No seperation between buck fawns and female deer.
    4) Improper management of antlerless tags, really promoted
    overshooting of our deer herds and brown it’s down
    mentality.
    5) Way too much flip flopping, rather than sticking to true biological facts, they allow subjective sociological
    bunk to factor into deer management.

    The Fixes:
    1) Don’t reward a buck tag when someone shoots a buck fawn, let them register it with an antlerless tag, just don’t give them a sticker–make them go back out and shoot a female deer.
    2) Make EAB permanent and allow the prequalification for the next year–this will keep people hunting thru the 9 days.
    3) Better regulate the doe tags, give out the two with the regular buck tag like is currently done and go back to lottery system for the rest-if deer herd is way down-no extra doe tags other than the ones with your license. This also gives people two opportunities to qualify for their buck tag. The gross reduction in the deer herd had nothing to do with EAB, but had everything to do with people having 4-10 antlerless tags in their pockets and shooting everything that moved–mainly being fawns(which in current years, made up a vast amount of the antlerless kill). We did it to ourselves, yes, the DNR issued unlimited amounts of antlerless tags–but we are the ones that used them. By blasting off all the fawns, well, we shot tomorrows trophies today. By just issuing 2 anterless tags per person, that would better maintain proper buck to doe ratios, esp. if people used more restraint since not being able to shoot a buck fawn and get a adult buck tag anymore for doing so.

    This would consistantly keep things on track and would be easy to monitor and adjust as necessary.

    The only ones that would scream at this proposal are the fellas that feel they have to shoot the first spiker that walks by or the outfitters that are willing to put their business ahead of what is good for the herd—Buffalo County big buck outfitters and spike buck hunters united, who would ever of thought

    Have a safe season and have fun.

    Jeremy

    darin_rs
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Posts: 550
    #69524

    Thanks whittsend for the topic, has been interesting to say the least. Hope you did not take offense to any of my ramblings. I am a science teacher with a strong bio background and I am always playing devil’s advocate with my students on both sides of debates like this. Sorry if a litlle too much of that rubbed off in this thread.
    Darin

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69525

    Darin – good points! I’m certainly not disagreeing with you, either. (nor anyone else here… we have a great discussion going, though!!!)

    I’m not so sure that they aren’t being accused, at least in part. They are all to blame, and I think everyone knows that. There is basically an open season on coons (sorry, don’t know what the limits/seasons are, but I think its pretty liberal)… I would bet EAB regulations with the “earn” portion stipulating the shooting of a coon before you could shoot a buck wouldn’t be very popular with hunters. Kinda funny to think about though. Of course deer do damage, and of course so do bears, turkeys, coons, squirrels, atv’s, cranes wind, floods, etc… Most of the biggest wildlife factors that are somewhat controllable are at least trying to be controlled to some extent. (which brings up the idea of man trying to control nature, which I realize is one huge impossibility… You might be able to steer it in the right direction, but never totally control it. The DNR gives it their best shots, given many constraints). Bear seasons, turkey seasons, etc… They are all allowed a margin of damage, which has been deemed socially acceptable I guess by the DNR. Same as deer. So no, I don’t think they are being ignored. IT all factors in I guess. (There is not ATV season, I don’t think… )

    Deer also probably get more attention because deer would be the easiest to control possibly(?) given their/hunting’s popularity, not to mention the multiple other social factors involved. Turkeys don’t cause near as many collisions, nor are they as damaging to cars. I’m sure there are many other considerations. Coons are just soft roadbumps when you hit ’em, so other than rabies, not to many other overpopulation considerations for coons?? (duck/pheasant hunters here is your chance to comment… I’m a bird hunter, too. Earn a buck via dead coon (or via dead cat) might just do wonders for the chick survival rates!!) ok, ok, don’t hate me for saying the words “dead cat”, but I would certainly support removing feral cats from the protected list.

    I don’t disagree that EAB might have been used incorrectly in some circumstances… But from all the people that openly complain about the DNR and its actions, I wonder how many of them have contacted the DNR, talked to legislators, gone to input meetings, etc???? My guess is some, but not many.

    darin_rs
    Glen Ellyn, IL
    Posts: 550
    #69526

    I am all for earn a cat! Sign me up, but I was unaware they were protected

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69527

    Hey Darin – no offense at all!!!

    This has been one of the best posts I’ve ever read on IDO!! Thanks for all the input!!!

    Doc – Great points… Very good suggestions…

    Two sides of some of these points.. Those that argue against will whine about things being “too complicated” and whey they need all these rules. The old timers and brown its down crowd won’t like it obviously.. I’m sure the QDM movmement is growing, and the more people that buy into it, the more socially acceptable these regulation changes would be. Do “we” (as in QDM’ers have the power yet??) Certainly wouldn’t hurt to talk to the powers that be about it. The other side of this is that our regulations are already pretty complicated, so why not add another 3 or 4 stipulations? Not really going to change the overall complexity by much.

    WI regs ARE way more complicated than they were 15 years ago… However, when I compare them to the regs of other states (i.e. out west, etc), WI’s reads like a childrens book.

    Great points DOC

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69528

    Quote:


    I am all for earn a cat! Sign me up, but I was unaware they were protected


    Earn a cat… Soooo, shoot your doe, and you can get a sticker for either a buck or a feral cat…. Watch out deer population, we might not have any left if this law goes into play!!

    (cat lovers.. that was a joke… kinda…. )

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69531

    Maybe the whole point, then, is to hopefully realize that the DNR is not out to kill all the deer (CWD zone discussion off limits ), but instead might be managing certain areas of the state in an ineffectual or not optimal manner. Working with, instead of against, the DNR cetainly seems like a better option.

    We’ll never please everyone, but maybe we can work towards generally acceptable compromises? And I certainly love QDM principles. Never will happen, but can you imagine if the whole state of WI bought into the logic?? There would be world records behind every [socially acceptable carrying capacity governed] tree!!

    (oh ya.. and Earn a cat would be all the rage…LOL )

    mossboss
    La Crescent, MN
    Posts: 2792
    #69540

    Doc Frigo:

    Some very good points in your piece, except it doesn’t address the true issue, for me in my area at least – the managament goals are too low. Thus, the rules will always strive to kill more deer, thus always pushing the herd level too low.

    To me it’s all a bunch of useless debate when the real issue is the goal all this is trying to achieve is out of whack.

    I am curious, so others think a goal of 15 deer per square mile is reasonable? And for this excersize, let’s assume the 15 number is NOT BASED AT ALL on biological factors (which I am 95% sure it isn’t), that is a sociological number.

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69547

    Quote:


    I am curious, so others think a goal of 15 deer per square mile is reasonable? And for this excersize, let’s assume the 15 number is NOT BASED AT ALL on biological factors (which I am 95% sure it isn’t), that is a sociological number.


    I don’t think the DNR is trying at all to hide the fact that goals are set based on a number of factors, and social considerations are a huge priority. You posted that link to the DNR harvest model information. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/deer/Deerbook.pdf

    Its actually very informative, and really gives you an idea of the extreme complexity of the situtation. Did you get a chance to read the whole thing at all? It also states that deer density is based upon habit, (which will actually probably make you even more upset)… For example, your 15 deer per square mile is not actually per total square mile. Its per deer range/habitat. In otherwords, if your zone has 50% of the land in crops, water, metro, or other unuseable habitat, their population goals are set to 15 deer per square mile of that 50% of useable habitat… So actually 7.5 deer per sq. mile. Of course, this is an over-winter population, so actual deer populations will be closer to twice that many come fall due to yearlings born in the spring. If your actual hunting area has a higher percentage of “deer range” than the zone average, your land might very well be attracting more deer than others.. The converse is true also – If you hunt marginal deer habitat, you might be seeing way fewer deer than others in the same zone.

    Anyway, if you have a beef with how the numbers are set, I wouldn’t be afraid to give the DNR a call and discuss the matter with them. Either they could shed some light on the subject and give you some justified reasons, or maybe you might help them to see your point of view… When you do, post back here and let us know what you find out!!

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69554

    Moss – I know this is old data, but based on that website your zone (61) is one of the higher deer/car collision zones as well as high is regards to crop damage expenses and shooting permits issued due to excessive crop damage. I assume those factors (et al) weight heavily in the decision making process.

    However, zone 61 is Buffalo County… Just based on the number of world class deer that come out of there consistantly every year, maybe overall, that population goal (which I believe has been the same for over 25 years (?) ) has been working for that zone???? Maybe not the popular choice among some folks, but I’d still jump at the chance to hunt zone 61, regardless of if they set a goal of 15 dpsm or not!!

    (I know you disagree, but I thought I’d just throw that out there…) You’d probably agree with me though, that the information from your DNR link is certainly outdated. A lot of it is from the 90’s. Maybe that is just the only publication that they have made on the topic. I would hope (assume) that there is more up to date information that the DNR is basing decisions off of.

    Either way, best of luck this weekend. Shoot a big one! (no EAB to worry about this year!! – CWD excluded )

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69558

    DOC – I re-read your post… Great stuff. DNR should reintroduce EAB in the consistantly over-goal units, but call them QHM units (Quality Herd Management) so you get rid of the EAB stigma (theoretically). Change the name to a more popular title and you might have something!!

    Anyone have any clout with the powers that be???

    (wishful thinking, I know…)

    chippee
    sw wi
    Posts: 488
    #69595

    It seems that most people who saying they like eab, have either never been it or are no longer in it. I am still in it and will be the first to say I hate it. Comparing qdm to eab is like comparing apples to oranges, you can not do it. If you are practicing qdm and a 150 class or bigger buck walks by, you have the option to harvest it, in eab if you do not have a sticker yet you can not. I competely disagree with the dnr being in control of whether or not you can take a buck of a lifetime, many will say it is no problem getting a doe where they hunt but for some of us it is not always a given, and I have had to let 2 wall hangers walk by because of not being qualified, I agree it has helped the mature buck numbers, but think it has hurt the overall numbers in my area. What I would like to see is giving everyone one buck tag with their license purchase and from then on eab which would allow the opportunity for a trophy, but also allowing for the additional harvest of does by people who want and can use more deer.

    huntfish42
    SSP, MN
    Posts: 234
    #69598

    Could we possibly find a compromise in this situation? For instance, if a hunter were to have the option of participating in the EAB program for a reduced license fee I think people would be more on board with it. If I was offered the option to participate in an EAB program in MN and have to pay $20 for my either sex tag and $7 dollars for my doe tag the cost stays the same, but I must take a doe first. This gives the option of hunting for meat and antlers for the same cost. If I choose not to participate I could still purchase my either sex tag at $27 and if in a management or intensive harvest area purchase that additional tag at face value and be able to use either tag in any order. The area I hunt is currently a two deer zone so I could choose to buy both tags at face value, or choose the EAB program and effectively shoot two deer for the price of one as long as the doe tag is used first. I am sure in todays economy this would bring a value to those not wanting to fork out more money for extra tags and are willing to gamble on passing a buck to shoot a doe first while maintaining optimum price per pound of venison. If we give people the choice, it takes the sting out of it. I know several hunters who hunt along the lines of “fill the freezer with a doe early, then hit the bucks during prime time”. It seems like a good compromise to me.

    sipple31
    West Central Sconni
    Posts: 415
    #69692

    Sat 16 hours over this weekends opener… didn’t see a deer from my stand. I was 16 feet up in a tree with a really neat blind around me… really well concealed. All of the bait I had put out was gone. I heard one to my south opening morning in the dark. My worst opening weekend ever.

    Call me ignorant – but I blame EAB and the DNR in general. With those deer numbers and they’re giving away 8500 doe tags in my zone? Are you kidding me?

    whittsend
    Posts: 2389
    #69709

    Well, I didn’t see a deer from my stand either. Well, check that… Saw one tail as it ran away just prior to seeing 3 bears walk through. The sow and 2 cubs were pretty cool, though. The split pea soup fog on Saturday really sucked though.

    The only deer I saw was a 2.5 y.o. buck that I passed on. Jumped it as I walked out near the side of a ridge, it ran 20 yards, stopped, and stared back at me. Had a nice shot opportunity, but it wasn’t a shooter on this property.

    So, saw near zero deer all weekend. I know there are plenty of deer there, though. Shine the fields on any given night and there are 20-30+ deer out there. Just not moving or coming out during the daylight.

    Good luck the rest of the week, guys.

    Good points again about EAB. Cool post, definately some stuff I’d never considered.

    docfrigo
    Wisconsin
    Posts: 1564
    #69781

    Mossboss,
    You are right 15 deer or less per square mile of habitat is artifically and unobtainably low-my zone of 59B in Dunn County has been suffering this same demise. If people realized just how few deer are out there they would be floored and would not even waste their time. Most deer in our area shot at during the day are just the same deer running from woodlot to woodlot-sometimes a mile or two before stopping and getting popped at along the way-in other words, we are all hunting the same family groups of deer.
    One thing that has to be realized is EAB was not the reason for the deer herd to be cut to pieces–it was years and years of antlerless tags being given away or sold for next to nothing. Rather than having disgression, hunters all had multiple tags, and for years now, have shot at everything that has walked by–EAB was just the straw that broke the camel’s back and now is getting the blame. Look at the meat poles loaded with does and fawns, this has been going on now for over 10 years–not that donating is a bad thing–BUT THE FOOD PANTRIES WILL SURVIVE WITHOUT YEARLY DONATIONS OF VENISON! People are just shooting and not hunting anymore in many parts of WI–if it jumps out and is brown there is a tag for it and it’s getting shot.
    Gluttony has led to decay and now we are seeing the results.
    This has now led to more desperation, as now guys are saying “you better shoot the first thing you see, otherwise you might not get one” or “we have to drive deer, otherwise we will never see one.”
    Unfortunately, with much of WI, the above statements are true due to the low numbers of animals–bad weather this past weekend just compounded the situation.
    On a postive note, I did pass on 47 animals the first day–all squirrels.
    For the time being, simply take matters into your own hands and bypass the DNR. Get together with your neighbors, have a meeting at a local tavern or town hall and talk about your local herd. The easist thing to do is all agree that everyone can shoot one doe and one buck and try your best to discriminate out the fawns(accidents happen)-that way everyone does get some shooting in, the herd remains balanced, if EAB comes back people are prequalified and you and your neighbors have decided on how to micromanage your family groups.

Viewing 24 posts - 31 through 54 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.