WARNING WISCONSIN REGS CHANGED

I just got off the phone with my county warden

17hmr and everything under 22 cal for any small game or other is a huge grey area right now.

the regs got consolidated and they state reasonable equipment as 22 caliber or larger

and the catch that applies to all small game also meaning a 204 ruger could be considered not reasonable equipment for a fox , coon, or coyote
and the way it reads they will tell you 17hmr is a no go for small game and 204 ruger is a no go for coyote and fox.

so while the service center won't say it is a grey area , my county warden had to deal with a poaching case this September guy shot a nice buck with a 17hmr he couldn't right the guy a ticket for using the 17hmr as unreasonable equipment because it took down that buck right there. said the policy guy and deputy chief.

the other Warning and we need this written out in every county come spring hearings

Possession of any shot larger than T is illegal while hunting. Including coyote hunting in any form. this one the wardens were given strict orders they will be enforcing this. My warden gets how crazy this is since no one is making BB or T shot in lead and #4 buck and , 00 ,000 buck were common for use in coyote hunting.

no buck shot of any size for coyote or any type of hunting. unless maybe it is a nuisance kill on your property.

this was an ugly consolidation of regs and not brought up in the spring hearings.

hey on the up side it is now "legal" to hunt bear with a 25acp pistol, 32s&w short, 380acp , 38spl snub nose or any other 22 caliber or larger handgun with no barrel length requirement at all however if you fail to kill the bear well thats on you.

also 410 shotguns firing slugs are also now legal for the first time in more than 30 years go figure.

he is running this up the chain of command for clarification on <22 cal for small game, he has already gotten clarification on buck of any type for coyote and we need to challenge that come spring hearing.

Sounds like wisconsin has it all figured out. I'll never forget the year that indiana decided they were going to make 5 calibers or so legal for deer hunting on private ground. It was like the politician's got together and pulled out thier hunting rifles and made those legal and omitted the rest. You could use a 243 and a 300 win mag, but not a 270 etc. As long as we have a law for everything, things will be ok.

I've heard horror stories when it comes to 410 slugs on deer. I shot a 410 slug into a soft maple tree. Half of the slug was sticking out of the tree. Penetration was about 1/2 an inch.

I read the regulations last night and noticed the minimum as .22 cal. I also read about no T-shot or larger allowed. Should have clarified that to read no T-shot or larger for waterfowl as that was the intent. Sometimes simpler is not better. Needs to be revisited for sure.

Chris

oh I know , I don't think they are a good idea and it doesn't specifically say you can but since any 22 or greater single projectile round is legal they unknowingly apparently did a 180 on the 410 thing after more than 30 years


What this get at is in their quest to make all the general regs fit one page did they over trim?
did they intend to do all these things or did they oops it ?
will they admit any oops ?

at this time command is telling wardens no leeway we don't care how stupid you think this is you will enforce it.

so I think this is going to require a fight.

Am I to understand it is legal now to hunt bear and deer with a regular .22 rimfire?

sorry half way across the page it states no rimfire of any type may be used to hunt large game.

so if you had a 44 rim fire lever gun sorry you can't hunt it in WI

you can how ever legally hunt with your 25acp pistol bad of an idea as it is.

22hornet however is legal for deer and bear under current regs

Sure hope Not

you can look it over yourself prepare for spring hearings writing down all the stuff they seem to have missed in consolidation

here are the regs in pdf https://widnr.widen.net/s/z9kfb1yqcw

Shakespeare would say "This is a crocketh of dung and it stinketh."

I use #4 Buck a LOT while coyote hunting. It does look to me like some cubicle-dwelling, erudite Yuppie confused waterfowl hunting loads with loads allowed for hunting other game.

Not much sense in making contacts till next week but I can assure you there will be noise from me on this, starting with the NRB and through every avenue I can think of. Rule simplification is one thing but messing up like this is not excusable.

Moosetrot

What a mess

I talked to my warden yesterday, specifically about the buckshot issue. I was told that the buckshot issue was a victim of the "simplification" and that there is already action in the works to reverse that particular issue.

i sure hope so but that is not what the Green county warden was getting from "the policy guy" and his chief they seemed to be doubling down on that as a rule

if we get loud enough about it I think it is something that can get reversed

there are places they can simplify and this could work on the 17hmr for small game or a 204 ruger for deer anything that you can reduce a target wild animal into possession

the issue is decades of programming employees to not think beyond what the book says is or isn't so when examples are given they take the examples as the only legal option.

they could say something like coyote may be taken by any means of firearm or archery they could open trapping coyote year round same as hunting.

you can now take deer with your 1911 45acp before it had 1/4 of an inch too short of a barrel 1/4 wasn't making a big difference in anything.

There are thousands of laws on the books that don't get enforced, no reason enforcement can't "overlook" this mistake until it's corrected.

On another note I hear Wisconsin is going to away with having to present animals in person that requires tags for a final sealing or CITES tag and instead simply mail out those tags.

That would be nice!

Chris

Bobcat will still require an in person visit but otter and fisher should be going to mail next year. Progress.

The wardens should look the other way on buckshot, but they have been doing lots of education on this side of the state. I guess that gives them an excuse to ticket for it now.

Justin, let me know when it's a for sure on the tagging. When you guys doing it I'm gonna ride as many as I can to get MN to follow. Aint happening though lol.

the warden I spoke to said they could do a lot of educating and giving warnings for buckshot.

I told him education is when they send out an email or put a whats changed document out that prints with you tags

education by warden is not education it is a failure of education .

they can market all sorts of things how about they start marketing the rules changes. they found a way to send me an email about the lake trout limit changing. yet never an email about the other changes

unless they had no intention of changing them and it is simply by omission if that is the case they could just admit that and fix it for next year.

When you have 30+ pages for deer and 30+ for small game, another 30 plus fishing regulations, etc, the wardens job becomes education. Sure we are heading in the other direction, but that just gives us that much more that can change and there has been lots of it over the last few years. Look at social media today and any group. There are thousands asking to understand the rules. Most just don't do enough to care to know the rule book inside and out.
Take a couple years off and the person returning would be lost.

Even when they do highlight a new rule proposal, most miss it because they don't think it through. Take the wording change on submersion sets. Even Muskrat missed it and he teaches trappers ed.

One thing is if they get rid of the 22 caliber part then the hornet would be legal, and the buckshot part is really dumb, I hope you guys can get it fixed.

the hornet is a .22 caliber bullet

the 204 ruger is not

it is intended to be an example of reasonable equipment not the definition of reasonable equipment but it isn't how it is being read by dnr staff.

they could not fine the poacher additionally for unreasonable equipment because clearly it worked.

I’m sorry I meant the 17 hornet.

I have not had time to digest this whole thing and do not know if this is part of the rules process or it is legislative.

The next meeting of the Natural Resources Board is January 26 & 27.That would be a good start for a flood of emails addressed to the members of the NRB. I think what may be a good direction to take on this is what hopefully something that was overlooked or in error in the 2021 Regulations that has serious impacts on hunters in Wisconsin. Many coyote hunters use shot sizes larger than T as they are very effective and have been used for a long time so arbitrary or erroneous restrictions will impact a large percentage of Wisconsin coyote hunters. Further we also ought to bring up the restrictions on large-bore rimfire rifles, etc. appearing to also be an error or oversight in the 2021 Regulations pamphlet.

It must be noted to the NRB that we have been informed that Law Enforcement will be actively enforcing these regulations and so a large number of Wisconsin hunters are very concerned about these restrictions on ammunition that has historically been used, in some cases rendering rimfire large-bores obsolete unnecessarily.

We must ask the NRB to address these errors (hopefully) as quickly as possible. It would not be a bad idea to also cc your State Representatives as they will be heavily involved if it is a legislative rather than a rules issue. We fully understand the movement to simplify regulations, however this process has had unintended consequences or errors that must be corrected for the hunters of Wisconsin.

Get on this folks!

Moosetrot

it is a number of cartridges all very capable of taking small game

the center fire
17 hornet
17 ackey hornet
17 ackey bee
17 Remington
17 Mach IV
17-222
17-223
17 Remington fireball
20 tactical
204 ruger

rimfire
17HMR
17 HM2
17 Win super mag
17 pmc

Keep posting that stuff, Pete. The better-informed the writers of emails, etc. are, the more they will be taken seriously by the NRB.

Moosetrot

That’s the problem...there is absolutely no reason for 30 plus pages for the regs let alone 30 for trapping, 30 for small game and 30 for big game! And that’s only the stuff in the handbook...

Better to simplify it and make it illegal to use .17 hmr for squirrel?

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. It doesn’t take 30 pages and a Philadelphia lawyer to go hunting or trapping. There are tons of laws that are not published in the handbook that the common folk don’t know about. If they want to give you a little love, BOCHICA! Maybe leave something to common sense is all I’m saying.

BTW, the .17 is an outstanding squirrel gun!

We need to simplify it like South Dakota. Short, sweet and simple...even I can understand the regulations when I'm out there.

If I were a warden, I would inform the people in violation of the stupid law and that would be it.

I would say "I won't ticket you over this dumb law, but be careful if you're in the next county over cause that warden might... Carry on..."

Actually, there is quite a few other laws I'd have a hard time enforcing.

Probably wouldn't win the "warden of the year award" from the state DNR or keep my job very long... Lol.

I am beginning to think our wild life department are getting to be like car manufactures, they have to keep making new rules etc. to show the boss they are doing something to keep there jobs. JMO

They just made it more complicated here in maine when they did that.

Truth

I don't think a total re-write is necessary and departmental education of even a thousand people state wide who can be given an email a memo . trained by their supervisor , ect.. while at work will be much easier than the better part of a million who really just want to get to their hunt.

I have written a few local ordinances I work really hard to make things enforceable yet extremely clear without a deep dive into nuance detail.
Starting by stating the intent is a good place it put the officer , judge and citizen in the right framing.

one of my pet peeves is poorly written instruction and procedure. demands and details with no explanation of the goal.

the goal here is, to reduce a target wild animal to possession.
to kill a game animal in an effective and humane way so that it can be taken into possession and made a part of the bag limit. no one wants a bunch of wounded game running around it's wasteful.
the issue is examples were given and personnel in the department took them as the only reasonable options

here is the text


Reasonable equipment
It is illegal to hunt with any weapon or ammunition that is of inherent design, or used in such a manner, as to not be reasonably capable of reducing a target wild animal to possession.
The following are presumed reasonable equipment:
• A firearm with a caliber of at least .22.
• A bow with a minimum draw weight of 30 pounds.
• A crossbow with a minimum draw weight of 100 pounds.
• A raptor, as defined in s. NR 18.01 (10).
• Commercially manufactured or similar hand-loaded or re-loaded ammunition.
• An arrow or bolt with a sharpened broad-head blade. MuzzleloadersMuzzleloaders may be used statewide during any firearm deer season.
During the muzzleloader-only deer season,all muzzleloaders must have a solid threaded breech plug making them capable of being loaded only from the muzzle. Black powder revolvers are not legal during the muzzleloader-only season because they are capable of being loaded by the cylinder instead of the muzzle.
2020 Wisconsin Hunting Regulations4

the addendum I think needs to be added for this section
this is not an extensive list. these are simply examples of equipment that can be considered reasonable
- a bow of lesser poundage 20 or 25 pounds for small game at reasonable distances would also be considered reasonable
- a .17 caliber rim-fire for small game would also be considered reasonable.
any equipment that is reasonably capable of reducing a wild target animal to possession is reasonable equipment.

Don’t forget the 5mm Remington Magnum, smaller caliber than 22 but more powerful than the 22 Magnum. This is a rimfire cartridge and an excellent small to medium size game cartridge. I’ve harvested many coyotes and bobcats with it while living out West. It’s sort of obsolete but from time to time there is ammo available.

I am not sure large bore rimfires for deer/bear/elk are worth messing with since technically they have not been legal for deer for a few decades maybe longer.


buck shot for coyote being a separate issue I just don't understand what they are trying to do there.

I think what they were trying to get at is they want you to declare what your hunting before you step foot in the field and not have both types of shells in your possession.

i can understand that but saying no buck at all ever doesn't seem right.

if your night hunting , running dogs or calling buckshot is a good tool.

possessing buck shot and a game bird , small or large game other than coyote or other animal that is not legal to shoot with buck shot should be the violation.

coyote should really become an unprotected species like skunk and possum
they already place uprotected species , coyote , racoon and fox in the same category repeatedly.
Night hunting Unprotected species (as well as coyote, fox and raccoon) may be hunted without shooting hour restrictions except if hunting with a bow or crossbow

with all the sub 22cal rounds that do or could exist naming them for the rules is pointless. however yes there are definitely ones even I missed and I though I had them all.

Coyote became a de facto protected species when they closed the season on them in the northern counties to protect the wolves. That was back in the 80's.

I really think that if enough folks...on here and elsewhere...point out what could very well be a correctable error in development of the current regulations, that we may make a difference. At this point I think we should concentrate on specific issues rather than a total re-write.

All it will take is well-thought, respectful emails directed to the NRB through their liaison. The address can be found on the DNR website.

Moosetrot

I'd say half of the squirrels I shoot are taken out by a .177 pellet gun.

I got an email back today

thanking me for contacting the DNR Natural Resource Board and stating this

Department staff are aware of the buckshot error and are in the process of working on an expedited rule.

kind of funny they are working on an expedited rule yet my warden was told to enforce it , strange.

They can probably make the change/correction via Emergency Order. I am sending mine to the NRB as well as the DNR secretary, Preston Cole.

A Warden I talked to said "I don't think anyone is going to worry about it since we've been able to use it for so long." Not trusting that.

Moosetrot

Its all in their interpretation now, at the Wardens discretion

I haven't contacted a warden yet, but these are some of the same questions I had when I started collecting the reg bulletins during hunting season, prepping for next year. Since all the offices are closed to the public, the customer service number is all but useless regarding regulation questions in my opinion. When I trapped and hunted (15 years ago) ... There were 4 1/2" min barrel length for small game handguns and the 17 Rem was legal for all small game. I'm not sure if that is true the way it's written today. I know I'll put up my 17 Rem against a 22lr for dispatch energy any day of the week for yotes at anything greater than 10 yards.

Anyway thanks for the heads up, guess getting some written clarification from a warden on Department letterhead would be timely at this point in time and a CYA document.

I believe that I saw in the regs the min barrel length for big game hunting was 5 1/2" muzzle to firing pin, so no snub nose revolves/compact pistols. For big game any .22 caliber centerfire or larger is legal, handgun/rifle. Gone is the 1000 ft-lb muzzle energy reg for handguns or does it still exist and just not written in the condensed bulletin?

This is what I sent about the 2021 Regulations:


To the Members of the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board and Secretary Preston Cole:

Several restrictions in the types of ammunition allowed for hunting in Wisconsin have appeared in the 2021 Game Regulations that have caused confusion, primarily for those of us who hunt predators and other small game in Wisconsin. I personally have received several telephone calls from hunters concerning these restrictions and their impact across the State.

There is currently a 2021 restriction on the use of buckshot, or any shot larger than T shot for hunting. I fully understand the need for this in waterfowling, however buckshot has been used for coyotes and other predators as long as I can remember. #4 buckshot and other buckshot is very efficient for Coyote and is used universally across the State, except in areas where non-toxic shot is required under regulation.

The regulations also prohibit the use of many small caliber rifles that have commonly been used for taking predators and other small game. Anything under .22 caliber is now prohibited, thus making many rifles, used for so many years by so many hunters, obsolete.

I have been involved with creation and setting regulations for many years. I can only assume that this was some type of oversight or error that placed these regulations in effect for 2021. These, hopefully erroneous regulations must be addressed as quickly as possible, as they are causing a lot of Wisconsin hunters frustration and confusion not only in the effects of these regulations on their treasured pursuits but also in the process of setting regulations with public comment.

I am requesting that the NRB, in their January 2021 meeting address and revert these regulations via Emergency Rule or whatever means possible, and correct the errors that affect so many of us across the State. This should not be something that we need to wait for the next regulation cycle.

Thank you for your consideration and fast action on this request.

Moosetrot

In addition, any comments for the NRB January 2021 meeting must be received by 11:00 a.m. on January 20.

Moosetrot

FYI-"Buckshot usage while hunting" has been added to the NRB Agenda for the Jan. 27 meeting.

Moosetrot

Thanks Moosetrot!

Chris

This is what I received as a reply from a DNR staff member in reply to my email to the NRB:

Thanks for your comments. I just wanted to point out that your statement that all calibers under .22 are now illegal is inaccurate. In fact, all minimum caliber restrictions have now been removed from administrative code. The new standard is that hunters must use a weapon or ammunition that is reasonably capable of reducing a target wild animal to their possession. We are currently working on rule-making to correct and restore allowing buckshot for furbearers.

I replied back with this:

The line that is causing the consternation and confusion is “A firearm with a caliber of at least .22” in the section titled “Reasonable equipment” It says “The following are presumed to be reasonable equipment:…”

If calibers are under .22 folks are under the impression, given the wording, they may be presumed to be unreasonable by LE, etc., or whomever made the determination that “A firearm with a caliber of at least .22” was to be the standard within the regulations. There are a ton of rifles currently being used for small game that are under the .22 caliber standard, and many folks are afraid and upset that they may be seen as “unreasonable” which brings them into the realm of being “illegal”.

I have been involved in this stuff for a long time, and even when I read it, I interpreted that anything under .22 caliber could be interpreted as being unreasonable, and thus illegal. Also, I did not see anything in there about the use of air guns (pellet guns) for use in hunting small game. Air guns are truly growing in popularity and should be addressed for hunting. Many of those are .177 caliber and under the current unclear wording in the regulation, they are also being construed by some as “illegal”.

Thanks for taking action on the buckshot issue but I truly think the small caliber(“..under .22 caliber…) rifles need to be addressed as well.

We'll see where this goes,,,

Moosetrot

It important to understand that the 'worst written Wisconsin hunting handbook for 2020' is not the law regarding hunting. It is only suppose to be a summary. Actual regs are a conglomeration of state laws and administrative codes. I question if all of these have been gone through and modified to reflect the language in the current handbook. But who knows what our democratic governor has instructed the DNR to do???

I know fully well that the regulation booklet is a summary of laws, etc. What happened is someone's interpretation and dissemination of the regulations messed up royally in describing the types of ammunition that can be used to take game, This is a rules issue, not a legislative issue, and the the DNR, under the direction of the NRB can and apparently are already in the process of review and hopefully correction of the erroneous language in the current brochure. The brochure is what the public goes by in determining the various aspects involved in hunting in Wisconsin, and how they are to comply.

They have already acknowledged the buckshot issue and I am trying to get them to use different language concerning the size of "reasonable" cartridges for taking game. The current language is very muddy and as I read it, cartridges under .22 caliber may be interpreted as being not reasonable, and thus illegal. Too much room for erroneous LE discretion in my mind.

Moosetrot

the ladies answering phones at the Madison DNR service center told me it stated nothing under 22cal.

if they can't straiten them out how is anyone else supposed to get a strait answer.

Pete-That is further evidence that the language is deeply flawed. When the ladies are answering phone they are most likely referring to the language contained in the booklet. The email I received was from a high level DNR staffer who apparently disagrees with them.

We will get this straightened out.

Moosetrot

Pete-I sent an email again to this guy explaining what happened concerning this on the DNR phone line. Pardon the pun but this is good ammo for us.

Moosetrot

If anyone wants to watch the discussion at the NRB meeting, you can do so at the link below. It's towards the end.

https://dnrmedia.wi.gov/main/Play/d...talog=9da0bb432fd448a69d86756192a62f1721

Using education instead of enforcement right now and trying to figure out the fastest way to fix. As someone that writes the rules, you would think they would already know the answer to that question. I am sorry but I have little faith in Keith Warnke. Sounds like it needs to be a emergency rule proposal.

Completely off topic, but if someone from Rusk or Sawyer county wanted to try to get bear trapping legalized, watch the meeting above. That is about as good of an avenue as you can ask for. Message me if you have an interest and I will gladly try to help.

There was no mention of the sub-.22 caliber language in the regulations either. That language has many people confused. I will be following up with the NRB, Scty. Preston Cole, and Keith Warnke on that issue.

Moosetrot

Email sent to all above reiterating my comments concerning the sub- .22 calibers. Was told it has been distributed to the NRB as well as appropriate DNR staff. We will have to stay on top of it and see where it goes.

Pete-I also included a description of your experience with the DNR call line.

Moosetrot

Moosetrot, are you saying I can't use my daisy pellet gun for rabbit hunting? It has taken lots of them in the past so I think it fits the reasonable part. Probably need to stick with stationary shots though. Maybe I will need to drive a little more attention to it.

All I can say is that your Daisy pellet gun does not fit the definition of "firearm" in the Regs. Have not delved deeply into the air/pellet guns but at first reading they appear to be not legal. It is not my word you should worry about. It is the decision of whatever Warden you encounter.

Moosetrot

The dreaded warden interpretation stipulation. If only it was consistent from one warden to the next. From my experience, any rabbit hit in the head with a single pump Red Ryder BB gun will flip over dead so a pellet gun should meet the reasonable stipulation. But even then, I wonder if I have to limit myself to stationary shots at close range to ensure I have a reasonable chance of hitting in the head. So many questions and few answers. I wonder if the wardens are getting sick of fielding these calls?

Wisconsin is a mess. Once no more Thompson, all down hill. You are almost as bad as Colorado.

Signed into law by our illustrious Governor on March 26. No more restrictions on using buckshot for predators.

Senate Bill 54, now Wisconsin Act 16:
• Prohibits the DNR from limiting the use, possession, or control of shot shells based on shot size for
hunting fur-bearing animals during the designated open season.

Moosetrot

good news I was out patterning buck shot today , I found some good stuff to 50 yards 8 inch pattern at 25 yards

Took a little longer than I thought it would but it's done. I have the feeling that the language regarding appropriate rifle calibers will also be revised in the next game regs. brochure.

Moosetrot

2 3/4 or 3 inch ?

2 3/4 Fiochi 00