Post by Ron on Dec 28, 2009 21:45:23 GMT -6
During the 2009 deer season, 13 units were listed as "Zero Quota" units and did not allow gun hunters to purchase an antlerless deer tag. In those same units, Bowhunters were issued a free antlerless tag that was good statewide. This brought about questions of fairness and the ability to bring deer populations back to goal in those units so far below goal.
On Saturday the 19th I was at CC Big Game committee meeting where this came up. This is going to be front and center in the minds of all bowhunters in a very short time. More on that in a bit.
After the CC meeting, I contacted Keith Warnke to get the archery antlerless harvest numbers for this year in the 13 units that did not allow for antlerless harvest by gun hunters. He gave me the totals for the data that had been entered thus far with a date of Dec. 18th and the comparable archery antlerless harvest data thru the same period last year. In the interest of full disclosure, the email carried this qualifier from Keith so I will pass it along.
"Ron - here are the results of archery stubs to date in units with Zero antless tags. Just as a precaution, remember that this will change and reflects only those stubs that have been entered to date and none of these data have been reviewed."
2008 early archery kill........................|................2009 early archery kill
Unit..........Antlered........Antlerless..........|......Unit...........Antlered............Antlerless
7..................10....................1.............|........7................7........................4
29B..............36....................79............|.......29B...............22....................24
31.................178.................428...........|.......31.................181................194
32.................217.................340...........|.......32................315.................210
35.................105................160...........|.........35................112................132
36..................128...............210............|.......36..................118................153
38...................181..............248............|.......38...................118...............165
39...................92................88..............|.......39....................84.................61
40..................143..............156...............|......40....................92.................69
42...................158..............290..............|......42....................112................81
43..................114.............158...............|.........43...................114...............116
44...................106............169...............|.........44..................127................80
50...................96..............133...............|.........50...................82................92
Total.............1,595..........2,460.............|..............................1,564..........1,381
end email.
So while the buck kill remained pretty stable (less than 2% change), the voluntary antlerless harvest dropped 45%. I fully understand that this low harvest total (1,564 antlerless deer from 13 units) It is unimportant to the gun hunting archer who could not buy an antlerless tag since he could harvest one with his bow but may be upsetting to the non-archer who is a gun hunters and an outrage to a gun hunter who is anti-bowhunting. I discussed this with Keith and he said that there is no biological reason to remove the antlerless tag from the archer's license and that it is a social issue and that he would opt out of the discussion of fairness and only talk about the biological consequences of such a change but he felt the numbers were too small in each unit to be of concern from a biologist's standpoint. He didn't see the need to make a change.
Now, back to the CC big game committee meeting of Sat. the 19th. This issue came before the big game committee because of a floor resolution back in April. This resolution ended as follows:
"Be it resolved that the Conservation Congress at it's spring hearing in Florence County on April 13, 2009 recommends that the DNR take action to change the issuance of antlerless tags with bow license from a state-wide method to a method by unit that matches the desired management of the deer population in that unit"
end resolution but it you care to read the full text, you can do so at this link.
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2009/resolutions/190409.pdf
The CC members voted to table this resolution to allow one of the delegates to re-write the resolution to read as returning the archery licenses back to being an either sex license rather than the buck tag that comes with a free doe tag that we have now. It was thought to be a good choice since many would not burn their either sex tag on a doe (thus solving the problem). That resolution failed so another resolution was written on the spot to make the archery deer license a buck only license. If archers want a doe tag, they would have to purchase one (if one is available in the unit they hunt). This would be a state wide change and not simply for units with a zero antlerless quota as the original floor resolution was worded. From a monetary standpoint, this is a big deal since 250,000 bowhunters would need to spend either $2 or $12 on a doe tag on a statewide level when it used to come free as part of the Archery tag. This was not discussed by the members of the CC big game committee. In fact, very little of the details that will go into this were discussed but they had much to do that day so this is understandable and it is hoped that more time is spent at the CC executive committee level.
That 3rd resolution (archery license is buck only, statewide) passed by the big game committee and will now be forwarded on and addressed by the CC Executive Council on Jan. 8th to see if the question makes it to the state wide ballot for next April. As you can imagine, I was a bit shocked that a citizen resolution addressing DMU specific rules for archery antlerless harvest could morph into a statewide change into the bowhunter's license becoming a buck only tag. I thought that was quite a diversion from the original intent but after a few phone calls I learned that was perfectly acceptable and within the scope of the CC committee to do so.
It's clear that many folks who hunt units with depressed deer populations are paying closer attention to antlerless harvest and it's understandable that they object to the archers ability to harvest antlerless deer when gun hunters cannot. This matter will be taken up by the WBH board and we will communicate with the Conservation Congress on the matter but I felt it important to at least give some information on how we got here and what a change like this might mean to you. These meetings are open to the public but like most wildlife policy meetings, most hunters don't bother to attend or get involved.
The issues at hand.
1. Fairness, should a statewide change be made because of 13 units or should it be dealt with at the DMU level?
2. Harvest totals, does the number of antlerless deer taken by archers warrant such a change?
3. Dollars, excluding the CWD year (2002) Wisconsin sells about 250,000 archery tags annually. If each were to be a buck only tag and we each bought 1, $12 antlerless tag, that would equal $3 million in new revenue to the DNR (excluding NR hunters at $20 each). If all were $2 antlerless tags, it would add .5 million new dollars but since the state is a mix of $2 and $12 tags, it would be about $1.5 million in new revenue.
My suggestion would be this. Currently the Allis system has the ability (and does) issue antlerless tags based on the DMU you ask for. It keeps track of the number of tags left available. In addition, the system also prints out a free antlerless tag that clearly states that it is good for herd control and EAB units statewide. Since the system is already set up to issue antlerless tags at the DMU level, it should be altered to address the archery deer tag by simply asking (at the time of purchase) which unit you will be bowhunting. If there is a quota for antlerless tags, you will get one with your archery tag as you do now, if it's a zero quota unit, you would not get an antlerless tag. If you plan to hunt several units, you can simply purchase an antlerless tag for any unit that has antlerless tags available. Currently every tag that is printed from the allis system has the following printed on it:
"See Deer management unit map in deer regulation book"
Each also says:
"Valid only in the following units"
Within the deer hunting regulations booklet in the tagging section and on the DMU map would be a listing of all the units in that year that will not allow bowhunters to kill an antlerless deer. It can simply read:
"The following units have a zero antlerless quota for this year and the harvest of antlerless deer by gun and bowhunters will not be allowed"
Unit 7, 35, 36, 38, 40, and so on.
It is my opinion that this need not be a statewide change to the archery license into being a buck only license but that it be handled at the DMU level via tagging issued from the allis system. This will address the core of the issue, that being fairness to gun hunters and restricting antlerless harvest in units below goal.
For a better understanding of the tagging system by DMU, view the attached link.
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/tags.pdf
Lastly, If we are unable to resolve this matter as I describe above (or some variation) and this question (as currently worded) makes it to the statewide spring hearing, it would be in your best interest to turn out next April and vote NO!
Since this affects you, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Ron
On Saturday the 19th I was at CC Big Game committee meeting where this came up. This is going to be front and center in the minds of all bowhunters in a very short time. More on that in a bit.
After the CC meeting, I contacted Keith Warnke to get the archery antlerless harvest numbers for this year in the 13 units that did not allow for antlerless harvest by gun hunters. He gave me the totals for the data that had been entered thus far with a date of Dec. 18th and the comparable archery antlerless harvest data thru the same period last year. In the interest of full disclosure, the email carried this qualifier from Keith so I will pass it along.
"Ron - here are the results of archery stubs to date in units with Zero antless tags. Just as a precaution, remember that this will change and reflects only those stubs that have been entered to date and none of these data have been reviewed."
2008 early archery kill........................|................2009 early archery kill
Unit..........Antlered........Antlerless..........|......Unit...........Antlered............Antlerless
7..................10....................1.............|........7................7........................4
29B..............36....................79............|.......29B...............22....................24
31.................178.................428...........|.......31.................181................194
32.................217.................340...........|.......32................315.................210
35.................105................160...........|.........35................112................132
36..................128...............210............|.......36..................118................153
38...................181..............248............|.......38...................118...............165
39...................92................88..............|.......39....................84.................61
40..................143..............156...............|......40....................92.................69
42...................158..............290..............|......42....................112................81
43..................114.............158...............|.........43...................114...............116
44...................106............169...............|.........44..................127................80
50...................96..............133...............|.........50...................82................92
Total.............1,595..........2,460.............|..............................1,564..........1,381
end email.
So while the buck kill remained pretty stable (less than 2% change), the voluntary antlerless harvest dropped 45%. I fully understand that this low harvest total (1,564 antlerless deer from 13 units) It is unimportant to the gun hunting archer who could not buy an antlerless tag since he could harvest one with his bow but may be upsetting to the non-archer who is a gun hunters and an outrage to a gun hunter who is anti-bowhunting. I discussed this with Keith and he said that there is no biological reason to remove the antlerless tag from the archer's license and that it is a social issue and that he would opt out of the discussion of fairness and only talk about the biological consequences of such a change but he felt the numbers were too small in each unit to be of concern from a biologist's standpoint. He didn't see the need to make a change.
Now, back to the CC big game committee meeting of Sat. the 19th. This issue came before the big game committee because of a floor resolution back in April. This resolution ended as follows:
"Be it resolved that the Conservation Congress at it's spring hearing in Florence County on April 13, 2009 recommends that the DNR take action to change the issuance of antlerless tags with bow license from a state-wide method to a method by unit that matches the desired management of the deer population in that unit"
end resolution but it you care to read the full text, you can do so at this link.
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/nrboard/congress/spring_hearings/2009/resolutions/190409.pdf
The CC members voted to table this resolution to allow one of the delegates to re-write the resolution to read as returning the archery licenses back to being an either sex license rather than the buck tag that comes with a free doe tag that we have now. It was thought to be a good choice since many would not burn their either sex tag on a doe (thus solving the problem). That resolution failed so another resolution was written on the spot to make the archery deer license a buck only license. If archers want a doe tag, they would have to purchase one (if one is available in the unit they hunt). This would be a state wide change and not simply for units with a zero antlerless quota as the original floor resolution was worded. From a monetary standpoint, this is a big deal since 250,000 bowhunters would need to spend either $2 or $12 on a doe tag on a statewide level when it used to come free as part of the Archery tag. This was not discussed by the members of the CC big game committee. In fact, very little of the details that will go into this were discussed but they had much to do that day so this is understandable and it is hoped that more time is spent at the CC executive committee level.
That 3rd resolution (archery license is buck only, statewide) passed by the big game committee and will now be forwarded on and addressed by the CC Executive Council on Jan. 8th to see if the question makes it to the state wide ballot for next April. As you can imagine, I was a bit shocked that a citizen resolution addressing DMU specific rules for archery antlerless harvest could morph into a statewide change into the bowhunter's license becoming a buck only tag. I thought that was quite a diversion from the original intent but after a few phone calls I learned that was perfectly acceptable and within the scope of the CC committee to do so.
It's clear that many folks who hunt units with depressed deer populations are paying closer attention to antlerless harvest and it's understandable that they object to the archers ability to harvest antlerless deer when gun hunters cannot. This matter will be taken up by the WBH board and we will communicate with the Conservation Congress on the matter but I felt it important to at least give some information on how we got here and what a change like this might mean to you. These meetings are open to the public but like most wildlife policy meetings, most hunters don't bother to attend or get involved.
The issues at hand.
1. Fairness, should a statewide change be made because of 13 units or should it be dealt with at the DMU level?
2. Harvest totals, does the number of antlerless deer taken by archers warrant such a change?
3. Dollars, excluding the CWD year (2002) Wisconsin sells about 250,000 archery tags annually. If each were to be a buck only tag and we each bought 1, $12 antlerless tag, that would equal $3 million in new revenue to the DNR (excluding NR hunters at $20 each). If all were $2 antlerless tags, it would add .5 million new dollars but since the state is a mix of $2 and $12 tags, it would be about $1.5 million in new revenue.
My suggestion would be this. Currently the Allis system has the ability (and does) issue antlerless tags based on the DMU you ask for. It keeps track of the number of tags left available. In addition, the system also prints out a free antlerless tag that clearly states that it is good for herd control and EAB units statewide. Since the system is already set up to issue antlerless tags at the DMU level, it should be altered to address the archery deer tag by simply asking (at the time of purchase) which unit you will be bowhunting. If there is a quota for antlerless tags, you will get one with your archery tag as you do now, if it's a zero quota unit, you would not get an antlerless tag. If you plan to hunt several units, you can simply purchase an antlerless tag for any unit that has antlerless tags available. Currently every tag that is printed from the allis system has the following printed on it:
"See Deer management unit map in deer regulation book"
Each also says:
"Valid only in the following units"
Within the deer hunting regulations booklet in the tagging section and on the DMU map would be a listing of all the units in that year that will not allow bowhunters to kill an antlerless deer. It can simply read:
"The following units have a zero antlerless quota for this year and the harvest of antlerless deer by gun and bowhunters will not be allowed"
Unit 7, 35, 36, 38, 40, and so on.
It is my opinion that this need not be a statewide change to the archery license into being a buck only license but that it be handled at the DMU level via tagging issued from the allis system. This will address the core of the issue, that being fairness to gun hunters and restricting antlerless harvest in units below goal.
For a better understanding of the tagging system by DMU, view the attached link.
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/tags.pdf
Lastly, If we are unable to resolve this matter as I describe above (or some variation) and this question (as currently worded) makes it to the statewide spring hearing, it would be in your best interest to turn out next April and vote NO!
Since this affects you, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Ron