Go Back   QDMA Forums > General QDM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-17-2008, 02:43 PM
THE, LLC's Avatar
THE, LLC THE, LLC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith View Post
The issue is that there are plenty of irresponsible hunters.

The issue there is we don't need the gooberment regulating everyone to using short range weapons. What we need is responsible people not letting irresponsible people hunt their land. And, when an irresponsible person does something stupid, hold their feet to the fire with full criminal prosecution.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-17-2008, 03:29 PM
smsmith smsmith is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Todd County, MN - (USDA zone 3b/4a)
Posts: 13,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE, LLC View Post
The issue there is we don't need the gooberment regulating everyone to using short range weapons. What we need is responsible people not letting irresponsible people hunt their land. And, when an irresponsible person does something stupid, hold their feet to the fire with full criminal prosecution.


Once again, we agree on most of what you're saying. The issue generally isn't these idiots hunting on private lands, it's the public hunting grounds that cause many of the issues. The other issue is that some of the "idiots" are the landowners. Believe me, most all of the true hunters I know would never allow this kind of behavior. Finally, I agree hold the irresponsible folks' feet to the fire. The problem is, many judges look at fish and game violations as minor infractions. I'll agree the government intrudes on some things it shouldn't, I won't agree that the government has no role in public safety.

Wisconsin has passed a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and trap. This isn't a state looking at taking away rights. Would you agree that restricting hunting within certain developments to bow only makes sense?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-17-2008, 03:35 PM
THE, LLC's Avatar
THE, LLC THE, LLC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 5,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith View Post
The problem is, many judges look at fish and game violations as minor infractions.

Once a bullet, slug, arrow, whatever leaves their property and impacts someone else, it is no longer a fish and game violation. If criminal penalties won't get 'em, I assure you civil ones will. I sure as heck hope you have a safe season regardless of what your neighbors might do.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-17-2008, 04:02 PM
smsmith smsmith is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Todd County, MN - (USDA zone 3b/4a)
Posts: 13,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE, LLC View Post
Once a bullet, slug, arrow, whatever leaves their property and impacts someone else, it is no longer a fish and game violation. If criminal penalties won't get 'em, I assure you civil ones will. I sure as heck hope you have a safe season regardless of what your neighbors might do.

When I said fish and game violations I suppose I should have said crimes committed while fishing or hunting. Yes, there's a difference between fishing w/out a license and "accidentally" shooting a car or home with a hunting weapon. Judges may still look at those things differently than say someone who discharges a weapon in downtown Madison and hits someone else's property.

I think many of us here are unneccesarily arguing over these topics. I didn't see anyone here post that gun hunting shouldn't be allowed. Nobody has stated that they feel hunting with guns in the areas mentioned should be banned. Simply many folks in the areas affected wonder how this rule was changed. Generally, when fish and game rules are changed public hearings are held for the general public to have some input. I'm unaware of that happening in this case. Usually, some valid rationale for the change is given. If increasing the kill numbers in this area is the goal, gaining access to private lands is the key. Allowing rifles won't do much. Public lands during the gun seasons are literally a sea of orange. I don't know how many more deer will get harvested on public grounds because we can use rifles.

I doubt that a huge rash of rifle related accidents will happen. However, it only takes one. It was mentioned previously that this type of discussion fuels the antis. I can only imagine the fuel that a rifle related fatality in the Milwaukee, Pewaukee, West Allis, north Madison area(s) will add to that fire.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-17-2008, 05:35 PM
LongSpur Hollow LongSpur Hollow is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 34
Default

Shotgun restricted areas in Wisconsin for the most part - have been in place for probably over 50 years (basically since the deer "came back" to the area) - and likely because of population and topography issues. Since that time - local populations have risen and farmland has gotten MORE fragmented...with "country houses" on 5 to 10 acre parcels everywhere.

Besides the aforementioned; The - a) lack of "normalizing" the accident data for population and hunter density, and b) using computer models to simulate worse case ricochets, results in the "Pennsylvania slug vs. rifle study" being far from as cut and dried as the WI DNR makes it out to be, and in my opinion - is not even applicable to the SE Wisconsin scenario. In fact - that study was commissioned to counter a Pennsylvania public movement that wanted rifles BANNED in certain areas after a woman was killed by a stray bullet - while in her car . I find it very strange that the WI DNR has turned that study "full circle" as a basis to ALLOW big bore rifles in areas that were previously restricted.

This is irresponsible policy making - plain and simple.

This one needs more time, more data, and more public input here in Wisconsin.


Mike
__________________
Successful QDM on the banks of the Crawfish River in rural Watertown, WI
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-17-2008, 07:51 PM
smsmith smsmith is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Todd County, MN - (USDA zone 3b/4a)
Posts: 13,071
Default

For the sake of accuracy I should point out that I mistakenly included Milwaukee, Pewaukee, and (maybe) West Allis in the new rifle zone. It appears that those areas are still shotgun.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-17-2008, 10:32 PM
THE, LLC's Avatar
THE, LLC THE, LLC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 5,412
Default

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many folks have been killed by "stray cars" in Milwaukee this year, or even Madison for that matter?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-18-2008, 08:14 AM
smsmith smsmith is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Todd County, MN - (USDA zone 3b/4a)
Posts: 13,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE, LLC View Post
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many folks have been killed by "stray cars" in Milwaukee this year, or even Madison for that matter?

That's kind of off topic isn't it? However, using your example: if "gooberment" has no role in public life-why have many states gone to a graduated license for young, inexperienced drivers? In order to reduce or eliminate teen driving deaths and to promote public safety.

The point of this whole discussion was that this change was brought about without any public input. Apparently, this change was introduced due to a recommendation from a CWD group. The point of the rule change was to shoot more deer. That being the end goal, the rule change is really pretty ridiculous. Being able to use a rifle in these areas will not drastically increase the kill.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-18-2008, 09:56 AM
LongSpur Hollow LongSpur Hollow is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 34
Default

Do sabot slugs ricochet? - yes by all means they have that potential. But when looking at the total picture of safety, one needs to take into account much much more just a ricochet.

Slugs even have virtues over a rifle (besides a much more limited total range), that in some situations make them more effective at accurately hitting their target - resulting in a clean one shot kill. One could in fact make a case that a slug in brush - will tend to stay on course, and not be drastically "deflected" by incidental contact prior to hitting the animal.

Reducing the deer herd in Wisconsin is a subject that is often filled with emotion, and sometimes that emotion - obliterates much of the facts. It is also human nature to resist change. The DNR is now in a PR quagmire. Among many emails and phone discussions - I had a very nice phone conversation with Tim Lawhern who heads hunter safety education with the WI DNR two days ago. They firmly believe that the rifle policy decision is a good one, and based on sound data. I did say that I strongly feel that if this whole rule change thing was only given more time, with more public input - it would not (in my opinion) be so controversial, and he did agree with me that communication to the public could have been handled in a better fashion.

I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask the DNR to make a mid season reversal of policy.

Again - This one needs more time, more data, and more public input here in Wisconsin.

Mike
__________________
Successful QDM on the banks of the Crawfish River in rural Watertown, WI
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-18-2008, 09:56 AM
THE, LLC's Avatar
THE, LLC THE, LLC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 5,412
Default

I know Stuart, just thinking on the keyboard.

Using your example though would be like the gooberment saying hunting with rifles is legal, but you must be experienced and careful because if you screw up we will nail you. Just like driving is legal, but if a 13 year old gets caught driving and causing and accident, someone is going to get busted.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-18-2008, 08:27 PM
Chris in WI Chris in WI is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE, WI
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith View Post
For the sake of accuracy I should point out that I mistakenly included Milwaukee, Pewaukee, and (maybe) West Allis in the new rifle zone. It appears that those areas are still shotgun.

The areas with higher populations aka. metro units are still shotgun. Also I believe that there is no gun hunting allowed in Milwaukee county-I think it is illegal to fire a gun in Mil. county unless at a firing range.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-18-2008, 08:47 PM
fiveyear fiveyear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: central florida
Posts: 3,707
Default Rifles OK

I grew up shotgun hunting for deer with dogs in the south. We never had incident even though some of the hunters used rifles. (Doesn't mean I was ever worried about it.) I also hunted mostly private land. I have changed and went through about 10 years of bow hunting. I later moved farther into the rifle arena and utilized areas with private land hunting for deer. I've done mountains and I've done flat farm land. We currently pin in to different areas to avoid any overlap.

Hunting from elevated areas also makes it impossible for the bullets to travel past your line of site without returning to terra firma. Hunter Orange is also a major factor in avoiding any accidents. I never appreciated it more than when I went to Colorado. You cannot miss that Orange in the woods. (Deer aren't bothered by it.)

I've hunted for 40 years in the southeast. (I've been nervous at times but made it through.) My only significant injury in 40 years of still hunting whitetail deer is when I fell from a treestand last year. I broke a rib and collapsed a lung. I'm OK now. I have been more nervous on public land though.

The elevated stand (tripod if no trees) also gets you off the ground and out of the line of fire. Deer aren't usually shot out of trees. HAHA!!!

Good Luck getting the one you want this year.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-19-2008, 08:29 AM
smsmith smsmith is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Todd County, MN - (USDA zone 3b/4a)
Posts: 13,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris in WI View Post
The areas with higher populations aka. metro units are still shotgun. Also I believe that there is no gun hunting allowed in Milwaukee county-I think it is illegal to fire a gun in Mil. county unless at a firing range.

You might be right, but the map on page 7 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...egs/deer08.pdf
sure looks like shotguns are allowed in Milwaukee Cty. Racine and Kenosha counties are now in the rifle area. The only Metro unit that I see that stayed shotgun is the one around Madison. One very interesting part of this deal is that the area immediately around Madison has very high deer densities. Cherokee Marsh, the airport lands, loads of farmland, etc. areas with limited or no public access make up a huge chunk of those lands. If the conclusion of the DNR was that rifles are as safe as shotguns and that the reason for allowing rifles was to increase the deer kill, why was one of the areas with the highest deer concentrations left out of the new rifle zone?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-19-2008, 08:25 PM
Chris in WI Chris in WI is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE, WI
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith View Post
You might be right, but the map on page 7 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/...egs/deer08.pdf
sure looks like shotguns are allowed in Milwaukee Cty. Racine and Kenosha counties are now in the rifle area. The only Metro unit that I see that stayed shotgun is the one around Madison. One very interesting part of this deal is that the area immediately around Madison has very high deer densities. Cherokee Marsh, the airport lands, loads of farmland, etc. areas with limited or no public access make up a huge chunk of those lands. If the conclusion of the DNR was that rifles are as safe as shotguns and that the reason for allowing rifles was to increase the deer kill, why was one of the areas with the highest deer concentrations left out of the new rifle zone?

The eastern part of Racine & Kenosha are in a metro unit. On that map it was probably easier to show Mil. in that zone than try to make another color for areas that cannot be gun hunted. Extreme eastern Racine county also cannot be gun hunted - I belive within city limits. I'm sure there are other places within city limits that firearms can't be used. As to why they left the metro unit around Madtown in shotgun only
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-20-2008, 12:04 PM
J  B's Avatar
J B J  B is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Wisconsin USDA Zone 5a
Posts: 182
Default

Check out a Madison, WI news channel's website www.channel3000.com and search for "rifle". Looks like some individuals are making a difference at the township level. Wish I could do the same in Lafayette County. It's going to be great hunting for one or two years then it will be over. It's too flat and there's not enough cover for the deer to hide from drivers with rifles. Probably 75% tillable and 25% marginal cover in small blocks (less than 40 acres) The rest is tight draws along rivers and streams. The local deer herd is in a world of hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-25-2008, 12:39 PM
LongSpur Hollow LongSpur Hollow is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: South Central Wisconsin
Posts: 34
Default

I heard today from a reliable source (from within the DNR), that Allen Crossely - the Wildlife Biologist that has been heading up the Wisconsin CWD program - has recently quit his position. It is not clear at this time whether or not he is still with the bureau.

Mike
__________________
Successful QDM on the banks of the Crawfish River in rural Watertown, WI
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.