WI Minimum Antler Restriction Petition on Change.org

[Wolfie417]

I like the idea of antler restrictions, but I don't like the idea of the DNR forcing people to not shoot young bucks. Especially on private land. With that being said I wish here in Minnesota more people would let young deer walk, or at least open up to the idea. I've faced a lot of backlash from the oldtimers I hunt with up north. At the same time I did shoot a buck bigger than any of them had ever gotten this year. Yet at the same time when I get a text that one of them shot a spike I still get super happy for them. The trophy is truly in the eyes of the beholder.

[Swampbuck]

Around here I would be happy if they just cut the limits from 6 down to 3 deer!! Some areas x as n handle it but most cannot. And since everyone around here needs to feed their family the standard protocol is to try and shoot 3 does and 2 spikes and then use that 3rd buck tag to hunt a big one... or a forkie lol.... and that's for those that know what their doing, many have trouble killing a deer.

And I hear that argument about hunting harder and if it was easy it wouldn't be fun, etc... which may be valid for some folks but if you spend enough time in the woods and have seen what healthy populations look like you know when things are out of whack.

The hardest part is definitely changing people's mindset. People have a resistance to change even when it's for the good

[tim]

How about just call a buck a buck and be done this stupid 3” antler rule . Which makes any broken/shed/fawn buck a doe. If that was changed people would have to know their target instead of not worrying about it. And the Dnr wonders why no one believes their numbers??? They are making folks register all those Deer a s does because that’s the tag a hunter uses. That completely skewes the numbers. And then be done with the does hunts, if folks want does there are tags available it doesn’t have to be done with a gun in a special season

I agree. If it has nuts your buck tag is considered filled. If you don’t have a buck tag well then you better be ready to suffer the consequences. Betting people will be much more careful about what they shoot and far less lead slinging brown is down stuff. Same goes for bowhunters. Better be 100% sure of what your releasing an arrow on if you don’t have a buck tag left. It’s ridiculous that shed bucks can be registered as an “antlerless” deer. Time to change the terminology.

Yes, imagine how many deer this would save just by doing this. Would be a game changer for sure

[bucksnbows]

How about a one buck per hunter state? Buck tag good for bow or gun, but you only get one?

In the UP of Michigan, not saying it's the best herd but there are a lot of factors for that, you can choose when buying a tag to shoot 1 buck any size of your choosing or 2 bucks one with 3 point on a side the other with 4 points on a side. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this in WI, still give an option but meat hunters can be pushed to shoot more does.

Data shows most UP hunters buy the single tag.

[thepennsylvanian]

See the thing is, no matter what the DNR does it'll never please everyone. They do what they do for a reason. Antlered and antlerless is the termenology because it's more general, there can be a buck that lost its antlers, there can be a doe that has antlers. Things happen in nature. Case in point, the mamajammer is these pics had no twig and berries, yet sure did look buckish to me!



Soooo all I am trying to say is you are not victims, you are blessed. We can hunt relatively freely. Embrace the suck and enjoy it. just my thoughts, which will more then likely offend someone at some point too.

[Robert]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

[dan]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

I would actually like to see that cost lowered to promote more hunters and promote family hunting trips. Not price people out.

[Robert]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

I would actually like to see that cost lowered to promote more hunters and promote family hunting trips. Not price people out.

If your talking the other states being lowered I agree with you Dan. I feel if they came down to say $300ish, that would promote more people to go and take some of those trips out of state. But I also feel Wisconsin could raise there price to roughly the same as that.

[dan]

Just my opinion and I know this is a little off topic. But I think the WI DNR should raise the cost of non resident tags. It would keep some guys from coming in from other states to "just shoot a buck." Non resident tags I believe are $160 in Wisconsin. I know Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are way more than that, I bet most states are. Just my 2 cents...

I would actually like to see that cost lowered to promote more hunters and promote family hunting trips. Not price people out.

If your talking the other states being lowered I agree with you Dan. I feel if they came down to say $300ish, that would promote more people to go and take some of those trips out of state. But I also feel Wisconsin could raise there price to roughly the same as that.

$300 is pricing out kids, wives, and families hunting and is promoting only professional hunting IMHO. I would like to see all states be in the $80 range, or less.

[hunting_dad]

How about a one buck per hunter state? Buck tag good for bow or gun, but you only get one?

This is what Indiana did years ago and I like it. The only exception is for designated urban deer zones. You can take 1 additional buck but have to take a doe first. I’m sure others have different feelings on it but I really like it. You can still shoot whichever buck you want, but you only get one.

[Kraftd]

I've seen this petition pop up a few places and the discussions have been interesting in all cases. After reading a lot of comments and thoughts, one thing that strikes me is that a one size fits all approach to deer management in any state, but in particular a state like WI with so much variation in habitat, just doesn't work.

My opinion is the current deer management structure in WI does a pretty good job at recognizing that, and that the goals are just way too varied, even just amongst hunters, to ever have a perfect system. Start factoring in farmers, the insurance crowd, impacts on other ecologic management goals, etc. and the goals are all over the map.

Selfishly, I wouldn't be opposed to APRs, but I'm also someone who is dedicated enough that I'm willing to travel and bounce around to find deer and hunt 30-40 days a year. We here at the beast aren't "normal" when it comes to deer hunting. I just don't think heading down the path of what is at its core, a forced attempt at trophy deer management, is a good path for the sport we love. We always say on here, shoot what makes you happy, and are very supportive of guys killing younger bucks, doesn't this kind of fly in the face of that ethic? You can make an argument that it is to try and improve herd health, but by what metric? Is the herd really healthier if its mostly 2.5s getting shot instead of 1.5s? Doesn't this introduce the liklihood that more does get shot all while a lot of use are complaining about the late antlerless seasons and deer numbers?

I'd also argue that you can absolutely make hunting an economical choice to get your meat. I'm not a gear nut at all. My bow and entire set-up, other than a new string every few years, is 10 years old this year. I lost an arrow on my first buck, but had killed my last four deer with that arrow and head. My camo ranges from 5-25 years old, and every piece came from a clearance rack. I still hump a $60 gorilla hang-on around as my mobile stand, but did invest in XOP sticks when they were on sale five years ago. I did some math and I probably have about $2,000 in gear over the last 20 years, $230 in tags a year (2 IL combo tags at $25 each for two bucks and two does, and one WI archery tag at $160 1 buck, 1 doe, one extra private land doe tag for central WI), and call it $300 in gas. Been averaging two deer a year for the last quite a few years so 150-200 pounds of meat in the freezer (usually put the time in to shoot at least one 2.5 year old buck so more meat), and I'm well under $5 a pound for good organic red meat that I would much prefer to eat when compared to anything at a store. Point is, if it really is about the meat to you, you can counter the argument of the cost pretty easily. I also shoot a fair bit of small game and waterfowl to a negligible cost every year.

In the north there are so many factors at play, but one that I don't hear enough coming up is hunters have to have more self-control and integrity in managing their own herd. I think the biggest issue is really the lack of logging in the way it was done in the past limiting good habitat and forage, but hunters have also been on about a 25 year run of killing way too many deer in that part of the state and it has started to show dramatic results. Predators certainly play a role, but with less habitat, there will be less deer. Plain and simple, don't kill does in areas that you think the deer herd can't take it, and work with the other hunters in your area to do the same. I think at some point the doe killing approach that fits a good chunk of WI from a management perspective bled over into the northwoods and took hold, which doesn't work up there. Look at other northern tier areas with limited food and hard winters like ME/VT/NH, northern MN, Ontario, even parts of the rockies. Shooting does just doesn't seem to come up when you look at what hunters are doing there. It's not part of the hunting culture in those areas, but kind of is now in northern WI. I think in the heyday of deer hunting in WI in the late 90's early 2000's people got spoiled a little too, and came to feel they deserved their deer. That's never really what northwoods hunting was about, imo. If you want venison, there are still plenty of areas of the state where that is a pretty easy goal to achieve. I don't think APRs solve these problems, they may just make them worse. For real change, I think frankly the northwoods if WI needs a step back and total rethinking of management approach. Also, hopefully the pending delisting of the wolves helps a little, but people complaining will have to be willing to put the work in to getting their wolf for that to matter too.

In the SE corner of the state, I have been buying public land doe tags for the last three years, but after realizing I wasn't really having much success getting an opportunity to use them, passed on two this year and decided by October I wouldn't even try and use mine based on the sign I was seeing. I plan to keep picking up a tag in each of the two counties I hunt most to hopefully prevent them from getting filled.

I guess my main point is, don't rely on others to manage your herd, act locally and get involved and maybe we can change things. I think we have to realize that the DNR's goal, especially as an organization that is much more politicized than not all that long ago, may not align with hunters in general, and certainly not trophy hunters. I can't say there aren't some things about where hunting is heading that scare me as far as privatization and lowering chances of success on public lands, but we still have it pretty decent, and its no fun if its easy!

[dan]

Kraft, cause of the length of your post I won't quote it. You make some great points... I do think APR's "could" be a good thing for everyone, even meat hunters if done right... But sadly, I don't think it would be done right in this state. The real way to fix the heard is to educate hunters and get them on the same page... An APR will not make hunting better if they continue to kill those bucks once they shed, and continue to kill most button bucks in this state with late gun seasons that stop bow hunters from being able to hunt. 1st... We need to actually learn to manage deer. Then we can look at things like APR's. It really shouldn't even be in the discussion yet. Much bigger management issues than that have to be resolved 1st.

Now, go back to the heard we had back in 2000 and certainly some areas would of done great with APR's and within a year some of those areas would of had plenty of big bucks for the so called meat hunter too... I know it would of made my area better back then. But not now, now it would make it worse. As you stated, it don't fit every area of the state.

[Kraftd]

I do agree that in many areas of the state, APRs could certainly be beneficial to most, and very much subscribe to the idea that bigger buck equals more meat for the true meat guys. What I have heard in places where they have them is guys settle in and realize that usually. The breakdown in WI as you noted is that I think APRs combined with the nearly mandated doe slaughter in many areas where it is not needed, especially on public, is a bad recipe for guys killing does and fawns because they want meat and won't wait for a legal buck. Things could really take a nosedive if that happened. The far SE is taking close to a decade to recover from the CWD masacre, and I think the first couple of years of APRs in that area would be similar.

All fun stuff to think about. Seeing a select couple of counties try it in WI woud be interesting. Much of the SW/W part of the state is probably functionally doing it on most of the private ground anyways,a nd producing some giants. Picking some counties there to give it a try would be cool, but also contradictory to the continued CWD management approach in that area, so unlikely to occur. Trying in one or two Northwoods counties with no doe tags issued would also be interesting to see. People would complain about not being able to shoot a deer, but within a year or two I think the change would be dramatic up there. Frankly, having one no harvest season in some areas up there and revamping regs may be a good start to reestablishing that tradition, but will never happen politically.

[krent12]

I know a guy who lives in SE MN and he said people hated it the first year they implemented it. Now his said people have warmed up to in and really like it.

[Hawthorne]

I’ve heard mixed reviews about the APR area in Michigan. It’s a 13 county area in the northwest part of the state where the soil is generally poor and it could be considered big woods even tho there is some ag in that area. Doing my own research, the biggest bucks and higher deer densities are still shot in the southern half of the lower peninsula in the farm belt where there are no aprs except voluntary and where the least amount of public land is