Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2016, 10:04:03 AM
As you may know, WI has a lot of deer and quite liberal deer seasons. In fact, where my parents own a large piece of land, they are in an "earn a buck" zone where a doe has to be taken during one of their seasons before a buck can be harvested. However, apparently in some of the larger public hunting areas, the hunters have an if it's brown it's down perspective on deer hunting which has really thinned the deer in those areas. And, according to my dad, a lot of private land owners will go to these areas to shoot their does so as not to reduce the numbers of deer on their own properties. These private land owners will also file claims of deer damage while not allowing access to other hunters.
The State's solution is to prohibit, or greatly reduce doe hunting on these public hunting areas but allow the liberal harvest on adjacent private land to continue. I think this is wrong, this is not how the North American Model of Wildlife Management is supposed to work IMO.
I think, if there are population problems, they should deal with them on a larger scale since those private land areas will provide a source for deer to move onto the public lands. WA hunters often complain about all of the different regulations in GMUs, but this seems to make more sense to manage in moderately sized areas versus vast areas with often hugely different habitat types.
Thoughts?
Post by: bobcat on January 03, 2016, 10:09:54 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2016, 10:35:21 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2016, 01:47:09 PM
Kind of sounds to me like if you want to get a tag to shoot a buck on private land, you should have to shoot the doe on that same piece of private land.
Yeah, my dad didn't agree that landowners then should only be allowed to hunt on private land. :dunno:
Post by: fishnfur on January 03, 2016, 04:02:19 PM
Post by: REHJWA on January 03, 2016, 04:20:58 PM
Post by: 92xj on January 03, 2016, 04:32:17 PM
Kind of sounds to me like if you want to get a tag to shoot a buck on private land, you should have to shoot the doe on that same piece of private land.
Yeah, my dad didn't agree that landowners then should only be allowed to hunt on private land. :dunno:
I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that if you own private ground you should only be allowed to hunt that private ground and not be allowed to hunt public land?
Post by: Brad Harshman on January 03, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
I bet that was a difficult conversation to have. Why on earth wouldn't they want to go along with the strategy?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
Sounded to me like he was describing a situation where the private landowners complain about high deer population in order to get more tags. That the state abides and says you can get the buck tag you want, but you have to shoot a doe first. Then the landowners go to the public and shoot a doe, get a buck tag and head back to private land. So, the 'problem' of high deer population remains on private and they now have the opposite on public--not enough deer. The guys are wanting to keep a really high doe population on private (draw in more bucks? produce more bucks?) for personal management while telling the state something different.Kind of sounds to me like if you want to get a tag to shoot a buck on private land, you should have to shoot the doe on that same piece of private land.
Yeah, my dad didn't agree that landowners then should only be allowed to hunt on private land. :dunno:
I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that if you own private ground you should only be allowed to hunt that private ground and not be allowed to hunt public land?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to hunt the public lands. They could shoot a doe on private and hunt bucks on public and it probably wouldn't be an issue. Or doe and buck on public. Just suggesting that to curb the 'abuse?' maybe they should require the does be shot on the same private that these guys plan to shoot bucks. Sounds like the state made a system that is easy to take advantage.
Post by: lokidog on January 03, 2016, 06:06:00 PM
Supposedly large (for WI) public hunting grounds are having their deer populations being pummeled by hunters using the public land. This is partly due to limited amounts of public land and very liberal seasons/bag limits, including some zones that are in "earn a buck" management status. Population management is most effective when does are targeted as one doe out = two or three less the following year, so they do this to encourage hunters to take does. Part of this high doe harvest allowance is due to landowner complaints of deer damage.
The proposed solution to this dearth (shortage) of deer on public land is to reduce the allowed harvest on those public areas. This would not include the surrounding parcels of private land where the harvest can continue unabated.
Why would it be OK to essentially penalize hunters that have no private land access? I was also told that many property owners near public hunting land will go to the public lands early in the seasons in order to get their doe without decreasing their own herds. These same private land owners will also file damage complaints without allowing outside access for hunting to reduce the damage potential.
My solution to the low deer numbers on public land is to simply reduce the number of doe tags available throughout the area as increasing numbers on private land will lead to deer spreading back to the public land. Personally, even though I am a property owner (and will someday inherit at least a part of my dad's property), I don't feel property owners should be given special dispensation when it comes to the potential to harvest more publicly owned wildlife than someone who can only hunt public land. Now, before the property rights folks jump on me, I am not saying you should be ordered to allow public access. However, you should not be given more potential opportunity even though access technically does give you more potential. I also feel that if you are to be given compensation, you should have to let the state manage the wildlife, which would include having more hunters on your property. If you don't want more hunters, don't file for damage payments.
To me, this is about fairness. If Joe Blow can harvest three deer on his property, I should be able to at least have the potential to harvest three deer on the adjacent public land. My comment about only allowing landowners to hunt on private land was to show that this is as unfair as the proposed restriction on the public land but not private.
Hopefully, this clears up some of the apparent confusion :dunno: of my original post.
Post by: fishnfur on January 03, 2016, 09:17:24 PM
I have a couple of additional comments:
- WI has one of the highest success rates for deer hunters in the state (if I remember correctly) and certainly so on the west side. I can't imagine anyone complaining about the lack of deer on public land there, unless the majority of the high success rate comes from private land owners ( :dunno:). Since there isn't that much public land, if those hunters using the public areas are not seeing deer, they should go somewhere else, just like the rest of us do. I hear Decatur Is. has a lot of deer! :chuckle:
- By nature, deer disperse in order to find less populated areas with more opportunities for food (and likely to minimize crossbreeding). Private land owners are not really capable of sustaining large populations of deer while the surrounding areas have few. Every spring to early summer, most of the yearling does disperse to nearby areas and bucks disperse to whatever area they decide they like. A public hunting area may become depleted of deer for short periods of time, but there will always be new deer moving in to utilize those same spots in the near future. Unless those land owners are managing their properties specifically for BT deer, they will end up with approximately the same number of deer every year on their land (and continue to have deer damage).
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2016, 09:25:32 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 03, 2016, 09:28:56 PM
I think I got it right after reading that explanation, and I agree with you.
I have a couple of additional comments:
- WI has one of the highest success rates for deer hunters in the state (if I remember correctly) and certainly so on the west side. I can't imagine anyone complaining about the lack of deer on public land there, unless the majority of the high success rate comes from private land owners ( :dunno:). Since there isn't that much public land, if those hunters using the public areas are not seeing deer, they should go somewhere else, just like the rest of us do. I hear Decatur Is. has a lot of deer! :chuckle:
- By nature, deer disperse in order to find less populated areas with more opportunities for food (and likely to minimize crossbreeding). Private land owners are not really capable of sustaining large populations of deer while the surrounding areas have few. Every spring to early summer, most of the yearling does disperse to nearby areas and bucks disperse to whatever area they decide they like. A public hunting area may become depleted of deer for short periods of time, but there will always be new deer moving in to utilize those same spots in the near future. Unless those land owners are managing their properties specifically for BT deer, they will end up with approximately the same number of deer every year on their land (and continue to have deer damage).
Yea lokidog, quit killing all the public land BTs out there, and saving the ones on your property for your personnel big buck game preserve. :lol4:
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 04, 2016, 04:28:00 AM
Sounds similar to Wyoming. Where we hunt in NE Wyoming, doe mule deer tags are only valid on private land. They also have similar rules for doe antelope and cow elk in many units.IMHO this works very well in Wyoming, but there are profound differences too. There are no restrictions on filling buck tags with regard to having to kill a doe first, that would not sit well in Wyoming either. Also, the major public land in NE Wyoming, the Black Hills NF, has primarily migratory deer that winter on private land.
However, I have no problem with limiting harvest opportunity on public land relative to private. For one thing, it concentrates allowable antlerless harvest on the properties that claim damage, and for another it protects deer that produce future deer that are more likely to be available for harvest on public land. This relates a great deal to the vulnerability of deer on the public land to harvest; an any deer, general season in the Desert unit, for example, would have much more dire population consequences than a general any deer season in the Clark or Pasayten units.
Post by: lokidog on January 04, 2016, 08:38:32 AM
WI I'm thinking meant Wisconsin, not Whidbey Island.
;)
Sounds similar to Wyoming. Where we hunt in NE Wyoming, doe mule deer tags are only valid on private land. They also have similar rules for doe antelope and cow elk in many units.IMHO this works very well in Wyoming, but there are profound differences too. There are no restrictions on filling buck tags with regard to having to kill a doe first, that would not sit well in Wyoming either. Also, the major public land in NE Wyoming, the Black Hills NF, has primarily migratory deer that winter on private land.
However, I have no problem with limiting harvest opportunity on public land relative to private. For one thing, it concentrates allowable antlerless harvest on the properties that claim damage, and for another it protects deer that produce future deer that are more likely to be available for harvest on public land. This relates a great deal to the vulnerability of deer on the public land to harvest; an any deer, general season in the Desert unit, for example, would have much more dire population consequences than a general any deer season in the Clark or Pasayten units.
I don't think it is an accurate comparison between WI and WY, the public land available is much smaller in WI.
Post by: bobcat on January 04, 2016, 08:45:32 AM
Post by: lokidog on January 04, 2016, 08:14:32 PM
Actually the area in Wyoming that I'm thinking of is about 95% private, 5% public.
But how big is the public.
My problem with this is that it seems to privatize wildlife which, IMO, is not a good thing. Well, I guess it is if you are a land owner. :rolleyes:
Post by: huntnphool on January 04, 2016, 11:09:33 PM
Sounds similar to Wyoming. Where we hunt in NE Wyoming, doe mule deer tags are only valid on private land. They also have similar rules for doe antelope and cow elk in many units.IMHO this works very well in Wyoming, but there are profound differences too. There are no restrictions on filling buck tags with regard to having to kill a doe first, that would not sit well in Wyoming either. Also, the major public land in NE Wyoming, the Black Hills NF, has primarily migratory deer that winter on private land.
However, I have no problem with limiting harvest opportunity on public land relative to private. For one thing, it concentrates allowable antlerless harvest on the properties that claim damage, and for another it protects deer that produce future deer that are more likely to be available for harvest on public land. This relates a great deal to the vulnerability of deer on the public land to harvest; an any deer, general season in the Desert unit, for example, would have much more dire population consequences than a general any deer season in the Clark or Pasayten units.
+1
Post by: flcracker on January 05, 2016, 08:58:47 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 05, 2016, 09:18:14 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 05, 2016, 09:31:01 AM
It's actually getting to the point in western Washington, with most timber company land being closed to the public, that we're going to need different hunting seasons on public land versus private land.Even if the access was equal, I would think the difference in land stewardship would necessitate different seasons. Forest Circus land being unthinned even age monoculture for the most part. About the only area that has enough light to grow forage reliably is the roadside. Quite a contrast from the tree farms. The access issue is only speeding up possible future season differences.
Post by: bobcat on January 05, 2016, 09:34:32 AM
It's actually getting to the point in western Washington, with most timber company land being closed to the public, that we're going to need different hunting seasons on public land versus private land.Even if the access was equal, I would think the difference in land stewardship would necessitate different seasons. Forest Circus land being unthinned even age monoculture for the most part. About the only area that has enough light to grow forage reliably is the roadside. Quite a contrast from the tree farms. The access issue is only speeding up possible future season differences.
I was thinking of DNR land mainly, which is now certainly receiving much more hunting pressure now that the majority of timber company land is closed to the public.
Post by: lokidog on January 05, 2016, 06:18:21 PM
Post by: northwesthunter84 on January 05, 2016, 06:30:33 PM
Post by: northwesthunter84 on January 05, 2016, 06:34:39 PM