Things are looking up Wisconsin. Sorry about your luck Pennsylvania

Other than putting counties instead of wmu's, I don't hunt or live near the "special" 3 wmu's mentioned. I live/hunt in the "experimental" 2D wmu.
I don't know the reg/harvest report in Wisconsin either.

Like I said, the supporters of Mr. Alt will have your opinions and I will have mine.
Take a drive up to the north western tier of PA and do some spotting. In my youth when we had a camp up north it
was common to spot 300 deer in an evening. You'd be hard pressed to see 20 now.

Wisconsin is going to have two, maybe three people deciding the future of their sport. It would be in the sportmans best interest to
find out which side they are really on and then run them out on a rail, like we did in PA !!!

As I was typing the people from 5C joined in, so I"ll add:

so 107,157 hunters went into the woods in 5C and took home 24,000 doe that's only a 22.39 success rate.
To me that means 83,157 hunters paid for a doe tag and got nothing. Yep, Mr. Alts plan seems to be working just fine.
Let's see, 83,157 x $6 = $498,942 now work those numbers for each wmu's and we're getting somewhere.

Maybe this is the first time reporting rates have been accurate, even the people doing it say it's an educated guess.
I went to the PA game commission website and saw clearly that the deer harvest has been steadily on the decline since 2003 in 5C.
2003 = 54% dropping every year to 2010 = 36 % (I brought up a pdf chart that was submitted to Harrisburg.)

For those that hunt Pennsylvania: Do you honestly feel that hunting is better now than before certain plans were instituted?
(I know youth have more opportunities, but I'm talking about you as an adult hunter.)

I can clearly say that the deer are not in our area like they were before. Msestak, I too get off the road and did find that hidden treasure this year.

This thread has served it's purpose and I hope the Wisconsin hunters read it carefully. I can only pray that my childrens children will have some deer left to
hunt in PA. They'll be able to buy a license I'm sure, but there will probably only be 2 deer per wmu.

 

"AR" has been good to me. Getting in bigger and better deer each year, but i think we are still killing the youngest deer. Just think if we would let them 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old deer get to maturity in PA. Each year we have less and less hunters so its hard to tell if "AR" is the reason I have seen better deer or less hunting pressure ? The population in my area is healthy, see deer every time I go out, but less hunters.
In the USA, deer population is no longer controlled by what the hunter wants, but by the insurance industry. If it was up to the Auto Insurance Industry there would not be a deer left in the USA. I fell CWD was introduced into the deer population in some states as an attempt to controll the deer population as well as coyotes.
Each year we lose more and more hunters, and our voice gets smaller and smaller, soon we will have no voice at all.

 

I feel passionately about Hunting and being able to live long enough to see my children pass it on to their children. I'm not really arguing so much as speaking how I feel about it all. I and many many others do feel that Mr. Alts plans changed hunting in PA, and not for the better.

In 2D it has been "brown it's down" all my life. When doe season rolls around there aren't many people checking to see if they're shooting
a button buck or a young doe. I think the mind set has to change to make things better, even my own.

 

I don't know a single person that buys an antlerless tag and passes, or even checks for Buttons. Every single one says they are a prize. The best tasting deer in the woods. "Allegheny Veal". Alt was blowing roses up our asses when he put that forth. He knew that the meat hunters would clean house. I know guys that are big time horn hunters that kill a button or two every year. The thought that they will pass in them is silly. They all say it don't matter to them because the buttons disperse anyway, so it is someone elses problem, not theirs. I have not bought an antlerless tag in I can't even tell you how long. When I see what goes on, I just aint interested. I prefer beef and can afford it, at least at the moment anyway. If I needed the meat I would probably do the same thing.
My brother nearly caught a button with his bare hands a couple weeks ago. Funny story.....

 

Before Dr Gary Alts deer management plan went into effect, I was one of the guys that would shoot the first legal buck that i saw. I hunted archery and rifle season, and saw plenty of doe, but a very limited number of bucks. I welcomed the antler restriction, because i wanted to shoot larger bucks. Before antler restrictions i did not have it in me to pass a legal buck, antler restrictions made me let the smaller deer go. Since antler restrictions, I generally see deer most times that I hunt, but not the numbers that I did before the antler restrictions. Now a larger percentage of the deer that i do see are bucks. In the past few years I have seen more rutting activity than I ever have. I feel that the buck to doe ratio has improved to the point that the rut has intensified.I am a part time taxidermist, and generally mount 15-20 deer a year. Since the implementation of antler restrictions, I have seen the size of the bucks that i mount grow each year, and i hope that the trend continues. I find it strange that the people who spoke out against Gary Alt have very little to say about Chris Rosenberry, even though the deer management plan has changed very little since he replaced Alt. I think Wisconsin is lucky to have Dr. Alt on board. Bob Frye, an outdoor writer in PA, wrote a book called Deer Wars, in which he documented the controversy concerning deer management in Pennsylvania. This is a good read for anyone who is interested.

 

WOW! Do you really think that the insurance industry has control over deer management? If I hit a deer with my truck my insurance company raises my rates. They make MORE money AFTER I have a claim than before. Deer are their reasons for raising my rates and making more money from me. Why would they want deer dead? That statement is so absurd its insulting!

The only thing more insulting was your statement that CWD was "introduced" to control the deer population. Are you out of your freakin mind?!?! I'm guessing you believe the PGC stocked the coyotes and mountain lions for the same reason and it was all funded by the insurance industry. UNBELIEVABLE!

Timwilly.......you killed your biggest buck ever, your kid killed one and you BOTH killed does, on public land, and YOU'RE STILL COMPLAINING! You and jake should get together and come up with some new conspiracy theories! For your information the deer of PA, and most states, are not managed for hunters. They are managed for the overall health of the habitat---deer are a byproduct of a healthy habitat not a reason for its existence.

I'm done with this thread because the intelligence level has receeded below that of common sense---nah....it fell right into outright stupidity! Have fun with your conspiracies and tin foil hats!

 

The concurrent season was done away with in the North for opening week this year and it was a very welcomed change. The fact that they addressed the problem proves my point. I can support the program without agreeing 100% with it. I hope it saved as many buttons as I think it would, and bumped up the density in the future overall. You will not see that big buck rutting in an area where there are no does. He will travel to the private farm where they are. Public forest land becomes very hard to keep deer on.

I NEVER believed the "Insurance Industry" conspiracy theory. It was just about the trees IMO.

Paul, my insurance company writes in my policy that deer collisions are NOT subject to premium surcharge, nor do they count against your accident forgiveness. They don't hold it against you if a deer runs in front of your car. That would be like charging you more when lightning hits your house. LMAO.

 

Hitting a deer with your vehicle is covered under your comprehensive coverage. It does not count as an accident that would raise your rate. I know - I have hit 16 of them in the last 21 years. ;D But it does cost the insurance company money every time they pay one of these claims so it does affect their overall borttom line. They do raise everyone rates across the board to pay for those claims.

Bruce

 

we, as hunters are to take our time, check and double check, then shoot a doe. this, over a period of time if done correctly would increase the buck to doe ratio.

but here in PA with most hunters, subscribe to the mantra..."if its brown....its down" that doesnt help anything


I think this ^ pretty well sums it up. But who is flawed here? The biologist or the hunter that subscribes to the if it's brown it's down mentality.


I am starting to see this mentality in our late winter doe only season, which starts today and ends sunday. We have another season in a couple of weeks that is doe only. It the late one, there were many times mature bucks that already dropped were taken, so people mistakenly started shooting real little ones to prevent this from happening, but instead would decimate the next crop of button bucks.

 

I just read this book b/c I wanted to get a feel for what recommendations we might expect to see in WI after Kroll et al. finish their study. It's a good book and there is a lot more to deer management than satisfying hunters. For you WI guys, if you haven't read the book you should.

 

George re-read my post. I said "they raise everyones rates across the board to pay for those claims".

Bruce

 

Paul I have agreed with everything you said up untill you talked about insurance companies. I believe the insurance companies want to reduce deer numbers. They have already jacked the rates sky high to cover them if they have less claims, that is more money in their pockets, I guarentee they won't say " ok deer colisions are down, we are giving everybody a discount" Hell no they won't that would be like when I switched from having my forms shipped UPS to speedee I saved over 50% on my shipping costs, am I going to go down in my price, hell no! So in this point in the game it only makes sense for the insurance companies to want to reduce claims caused by deer.

 

And I agree with you Harley. However, my point in mentioning it the way I did was to show that the insurance companies DO NOT have a say in deer management---in PA or any state. They provide input, as George pointed out, as to how many deer collision claims they have had but, other than that, they get NO INPUT whatsoever. We have all heard the ludicrous stories that Jake tried to slip in about insurance companies paying to have coyotes and mountain lions stocked. The rumor that these companies are allowed to influence the management of wildlife by deciding how many deer need to be killed is just as ludicrous and is still just a barstool rumor.

The management plans in use by PA and many other states now puts the OVERALL health of the forest first with the thought that if the forest and habitat are healthy the animals that live there will be healthy as well. "Hunter Satisfaction" is no longer found on the list of concerns in the plan. We, as hunters, need to realize that our "job" is to help manage the wildlife so that our forests can continue to sustain life NOT manage wildlife so we can see, and kill, as many deer as we see fit. Hopefully, someday, guys like Timwilly and Jake, will be able to see the big picture and not just the end of their gunbarrels.

 

George please cite where you re getting your facts? Because in 2010 26k deer were killed in WI car deer collisions, by the DNRs own numbers. 26k in a state that is supposed to have a million deer??!! Also only about 12-13% of overall accidents are car deer. So beleive the hype, or beleive the facts.

You must be drinking soem good kool aid George if you wanna keep beleiving that there are 10 deer for every deer seen. I run trail cams 365 days a year. I literally have every deer on them named and can name them on sight. So I'm supposed to beleive there are 10 deer for everyone I have on camera? Why would anyone ever beleive that? And where did these biologists come up with their number?

Whitetail deer are a native animal and have as much right to be managed for a balanced population as any other species plant or animal. Right now the forestry industry is the one with the most say, and they say populations over 10/sq mi damage forests. Yet historical data shows WI supported estimated populations of 50/sq mi in the northern forests before settlement. The problem is forests are being managed for old growth that is worth the most money. Bad economy means less logging too, therefore no new growth from cuts to sustain deer browse= more trilliums and wildflowers being eaten which the nature lovers hate. So it's a wicked cycle, and all interdependant. Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who really speaks for the right of a balance deer population that is sociologically and biologically accepted. And yes hunters are a part of the sociological equation just as much as the sububanites whose garden gets eaten, or the forester. You can't ignore hunters while pandering to other special interests and expect it will go well. Huntes do deserve a say since we are putting the most money into the system to support management.

 

Just to keep things interesting - no one has brought up the powerful farm lobby that wants low deer populations. ;D Between the insurance industry, forestry industry and farm industry, sportsmen and women don't always have a loud enough voice in deer management. I know in our area we had too many deer 5 years ago. I could see really obvious browse lines on the trees. No oak regeneration. Forget about having a garden or flower beds in the yard. Now we have went too far the other direction with our deer herd. On our 600 acre farm, I would estimate that we had about 20 deer going into the hunting season. Our farm is about 200 acres of CRP grassland and 400 acres of rugged bluff country woods with oak, hickory, aspen, ceders and elm. Perfect deer habitat. Plus I have some food plots. We only shot 2 does off our place this year in an effort to increase the deer herd. Luckily I have enough land that we can do some management that will make a difference. Most are not that fortunate.

Coyotes are thick and take a lot of fawns. It is amazing how many does I see in my trail cam pics over the summer with no fawns present.

Bruce

 

I took my muzzle loader for a walk today. Didn't get out until 9:30- had to leave at 2:00. Saw 5 doe and could have taken one..Well, maybe could have taken one. It was only 40yrds ,but When it comes to the smoke pole, me hitting anything is 70/30 in favor of the deer. I wanted a buck though. Those aren't what I would consider prime hunting hours. Although I have killed'em at mid-day several times.

 

Sure. No problem in 2B. Try a walk in 2G or parts of 2F.

2B sells a zillion tags and they are still behind every tree.

 

George what biological facts am I missing? I base my opinions solely on biological facts, and those facts are the habitat can susain by far more deer than we have now, and that the DNRs estimating system is way off base. BTW I worked for the DNR for six years and went to UWSP for wildlife management. I had to leave the DNR because their lies made me sick. So I saw three deer tonight George, are you saying there are 30 there? Because it's the same 3 deer I see almost every night. The big doe, her buck fawn, and the pretty young doe. The other 27 must be awful good at hiding. Checked trail cams today and have 8 different deer in a week on two cams. So you are saying there are 80? this is the same flawed logic that led the DNR to grossly overestimate the population. They so grossly overestimated that they had recind their estimates.