Patrick Brown
With opening day of gun deer season on our horizon, I am puzzled by one of the regulations enforced by the State of Wisconsin. That is to leave a semi-permanent blind or elevated structure on state property after legal shooting hours. State law positions the following with regards to gun deer season: “It is illegal to: build or use a ground blind or any elevated device unless it does not damage the tree and is completely removed from the property each day at the close of hunting hours”. This statement is in opposition to Wisconsin waterfowl regulations that state “It is illegal to: Waterfowl blind (S): Establish a waterfowl blind on state property, including the bed of any navigable lake, prior to 7 days before the waterfowl season or leave it established beyond 7 days after the close of the waterfowl season. No person may maintain, occupy, or use any blind left on state property during the season unless the owner’s name, address and DNR customer ID number in the English language and in lettering one inch square or larger is affixed permanently to the blind and shall be readily visible and legible at all times. Remember: Placement of waterfowl blinds on public land does not restrict others from using or hunting on the public land where the blind is located”.
Why is it that waterfowl hunters have the right to build a semi permanent structure and deer hunters cannot? In my opinion, there are a lot more areas to deer hunt than duck hunt in Wisconsin; therefore, deer hunters are more dispersed. Additionally, if semi –permanent deer stands were allowed in the state, I personally believe that more hunters would frequent areas farther off the beaten path because they would not have to carry a stand or blind to their hunting area. However, a change in the current deer hunting regulation would also have to follow similar guidelines that waterfowl hunters have to adhere to. The “change” being that blinds/stands cannot be placed X number of days prior to open season and must be removed X number of days after the close of the season, must be posted with the owners information, must not harm native vegetation, and by having a blind or stand there does not make it your private property. If you are not willing to put forth the effort and wake up a tad bit earlier to make it to your stand at a reasonable time prior to shooting hours, then you should forfeit your right to hunt there. As the old adage goes “the early bird gets the worm” and this should be no different when it comes to hunting. Most hunters are ethical enough to respect their fellow hunters and are able to act like adults when another hunter puts forth more effort and beats them to their area. From my 18 years of hunting experience, I am always impressed when another hunter “outsmarts” me. However, I suppose like anything in life, if you have a few bad apples then it could be ruined for the greater bunch. I would be very interested in the dialogue that will be generated from this discussion to see where other opinions reside.
3 comments:
The early bird does get the worm! Especially when attempting to hunt prime hunting locations on public property. Wisconsin has a generous area of public land for hunters of all types in Wisconsin, but yes, I agree with Pat, deer hunters are more dispersed in Wisconsin, and therefore should be able to have semi-permanent stands for rifle season. However, these stands should follow strict guidelines, similar to the regulations waterfowl hunters currently follow. However, potential problems could arise following the placement of semi-permanent stands. More specifically, how would we enforce semi-permanent stand removal after the allotted time allowed to be in place? I think/hope most hunters are ethical hunters, but sometimes people can be lazy. Can we realistically expect most if not all hunters to take their stands out of public lands before the allotted time? If these hunters do not follow the guidelines set forth, what kind of enforcement would be implemented? I would love to see the use of semi-permanent stands for deer hunters, but with lack of game wardens in our state, I think it would be hard to enforce.
Great thoughts, Pat (and Ross). I think this would be a good rule to propose for the Conservation Congress hearings in April. I expect there would be a lot of support. You can look on-line for the process to propose it for voting.
I do agree that some continuity in regulations of stands and blinds is desirable. Personally I have never had to deal with this issue as I have private land that I may use. The only reason I can think of for the differing regulations is the popularity of hunting deer versus waterfowl. The inability to leave a blind up for duck hunters may be a major deterrence and result in less people hunting waterfowl.
Post a Comment