Jump to content
Dave Quindt

Wisconsin DNR shortens Ruffed Grouse season

Recommended Posts

MNice
53 minutes ago, WI Outdoor Nut said:

 

I received my first three and sent them in ride away.  The biologist I work told me if I "fill" them, to call him back.  So I did.  They just wanted to make sure I harvested birds from different areas.  I hunt 9 different counties, so that was not an issue. 

Interesting...MN was only looking for samples from within a 50 mile radius of Grand Rapids. The same parameters as the national hunt. You'd think the MN DNR would want a broader sample size..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Treerooster

I got 2 of my kits when I got to Wis, then picked up the 3rd when I visited a DNR office. The biologist happened to be there and he seemed to want to get more kits out so I took another. My grouse we're killed over a few weeks and about 6 miles (as the grouse flies) or so apart.

 

I do wonder how many kits that were distributed and not sent back in. It was a bit of a pain for me to UPS the kits as I did not have an office near my cabin. USPS would have been more convenient.

 

MNice that is strange on the MNDNR only wanting a small area. I wonder what their reasoning was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GB Jack
9 minutes ago, Treerooster said:

 

 

MNice that is strange on the MNDNR only wanting a small area. I wonder what their reasoning was.

 

04BA9713-9F9E-41C5-BA81-E0C9CB9DBF9F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spin
8 hours ago, WI Outdoor Nut said:

 

And the key words are proper science to be established.  That is where I am at.  I provided 6 heart and blood samples.  All of those birds looked healthy.  Some were YOY which was great to see.  I did return one bird after my sample kits were used up that looked ill.  That bird had EEE, but not WNV.  Not sure if any of this is good or not, but more information is better than everyone, including barstool biologist, making theories. 

Nothing wrong with formulating a theory, nothing at all. as long as you're not concocting false "Facts" or phony scientific conclusions based on said "facts". If you want to take a guess or make a supposition - fine. Just as long as that person presents it as such. Quite a few true breakthroughs have been made and mysteries resolved or at least had light shed on them by "unlettered" individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WI Outdoor Nut
18 hours ago, Spin said:

Nothing wrong with formulating a theory, nothing at all. as long as you're not concocting false "Facts" or phony scientific conclusions based on said "facts". If you want to take a guess or make a supposition - fine. Just as long as that person presents it as such. Quite a few true breakthroughs have been made and mysteries resolved or at least had light shed on them by "unlettered" individuals.

You know, that is a great recap, and you are correct.  The biggest concern I have is using a "theory" and treating like a "law", then making rule changes on the theory.  Let's hope the DNR and legislators make any rule changes based on solid science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×