Richfield QDM Co-op

bueller

Moderator
This weekend while driving to my cousins place I saw new signs for a QDM Co-op in Richfield Township Wisconsin. This is in Central Adams County northeast of Adams/Friendship. I have no idea how many landowners or how much acreage is involved. These signs were not up last year.
 
This weekend while driving to my cousins place I saw new signs for a QDM Co-op in Richfield Township Wisconsin. This is in Central Adams County northeast of Adams/Friendship. I have no idea how many landowners or how much acreage is involved. These signs were not up last year.

I would be absolutely floored to see a co-operative sign anywhere near my area. I think as the deer numbers fall some folks are going to be pushed to the next step and taking matters into their own hands even further.

So what is your take on it?
 
I would be absolutely floored to see a co-operative sign anywhere near my area. I think as the deer numbers fall some folks are going to be pushed to the next step and taking matters into their own hands even further.

So what is your take on it?
I believe that's what happening around me. The DNR has not been liked for many years even when the deer population was booming. Now after the crash everyone really is against them especially in the area of deer management. This co-op is about 20 miles east of me. I've seen some other QDM signs in the general area. Some several miles south of this co-op and more about 10 miles southwest of me. These have no mention of co-op though and appeared to me that it was just a landowner or maybe two.
 
I believe that's what happening around me. The DNR has not been liked for many years even when the deer population was booming. Now after the crash everyone really is against them especially in the area of deer management. This co-op is about 20 miles east of me. I've seen some other QDM signs in the general area. Some several miles south of this co-op and more about 10 miles southwest of me. These have no mention of co-op though and appeared to me that it was just a landowner or maybe two.
That area with the signs to the SW of you is an "unadvertised" coop and as I recollect it may be pushing near 2,000+ acres now. I can't remember who it was, but someone involved in that coop is on one of the forums and has posted a few times. If it is the one I am thinking of, they are not that far from badgerfowl at all and just west of stu's parents old place.
 
These signs are along County Road M north out of New Lisbon. We passed through in the late afternoon a month or two ago and the fields around those signs had 15+ deer on them. Don't see groups like that around these parts much anymore.
 
These signs are along County Road M north out of New Lisbon. We passed through in the late afternoon a month or two ago and the fields around those signs had 15+ deer on them. Don't see groups like that around these parts much anymore.
That's where I saw many of them. If you watch the back roads off M you'll see some as well. Its been a couple years since I wandered around the area looking for signs, but there was a pretty good amount scattered through that area. There used to be some south of my folks' place as well, but I think some of those properties sold (or the owners took the signs down for some reason)
Hwy M has always been a hotbed of deer activity, as it is the boundary of where the better ag ground starts back up as you move away from the lake bed and towards the bluffs to the southwest. Much like badgerfowl sees on his place, there is at least a layer of decent dirt(some areas deeper than others) over the top of the sandy subsoil's in those areas along and west of M, mostly deposited by flooding of the Lemonweir River, which is why they can farm corn there with a bit of success. That whole area used to get flooded pretty extensively and cover large areas that I remember as a kid, and it apparently was worse back in the day from what I recall of the old timers talking about it. They talked of the water not receding in some lower areas till late June or even early July some years. They have always had a ton more deer over there than even just a mile or 2 to the east as you get closer to stu's parents place, where the population is more like what bueller and myself experience in the high, dry, sandy areas. Any travel west of M has pretty good numbers, way better than east. If you travel east of Hwy M, you get to see those decent numbers for about the first mile or maybe 2 that you drive, and then the numbers tail off fast as you go further east toward Hwy 80.

I seem to remember some recent reports of road gawkers/hunters in the areas of that coop, especially with trucks of guys making laps around that area during the 9 day. I think that is why some signs were removed and why it is more hush-hush than it might otherwise be. I remember there always being plenty of reports of poaching off of areas of Hwy M, even back to when I was a kid.
 
Yea I don't think I'd want to be the lone wolf out there with QDM signs posted up. I imagine the positives would outweigh the negatives if/when there are enough landowners in the area posting.

These areas have things in common that are lacking by me. The parcels are larger in size and the houses are definitely spread further apart. They also have good amounts of swamp/marsh land mixed in with the woods and farm fields. By me, closer to town, we have smaller parcels, way more houses, and fewer swamplands.

It would be pretty cool though if this type of "movement" catches on in the area. I know if I was closer to the areas with signs posted I would be reaching out to them to find out more of what they are about. I'd imagine others in the area will do the same once they discover that more of their neighbors than not are "doing something".
 
One of the members of the CDAC Committee has parents and a brother(maybe himself as well or he hunts the family lands) that own land right in that area, and my guess is they are a part of any coop type movement in those areas. With owning land that borders Hwy M, it is easy for me to see why he thought the quota numbers were adequate in the Forest Zone portion of the county, because in his general area the deer numbers are very good.

He is the one guy on the CDAC Committee that I actually got a hold of that weekend I went back to Mauston and when I asked him about the no-quorum vote, he didn't have much to say at all. He got sort of apologetic about the whole deal, but it was pretty hard to tell if he was being sincere or not over the phone, my guess is the little puke was rolling his eyes and laughing at me under his breath, because he nor anyone else in his family, save maybe his older sister, have ever really been apologetic about anything. They pretty much think their $h!* doesn't stink, and aren't afraid to let you know it. I asked him if he had any actual first hand knowledge of the deer populations in the northern and eastern areas of the county above Hwy 21, namely the Refuge, the Bombing Range, and areas near the lakes and he embarrassingly admitted that he did not, other than what the other members had told him and he had only personally been in those areas a few times in the last year, other than docking his boat in the lakes area to fish Castle Rock and Petenwell. I said next time he is going to make decisions for the whole county that he may want to take a ride around the whole county and count some deer before he makes decisions for everyone else who hunts there based only on knowledge of his own area. I don't know if that went over very well, but after calling 4 other members of the Committee, I was pretty p!$$*d and didn't really care. I also told him to relay to his cohorts that many guys were unhappy with the no quorum situation and that there would be calls for them to step down if it happened again. I for one will definitely be bringing it to the attention of the NRB and DNR should that ever repeat itself.
 
One of the members of the CDAC Committee has parents and a brother(maybe himself as well or he hunts the family lands) that own land right in that area, and my guess is they are a part of any coop type movement in those areas. With owning land that borders Hwy M, it is easy for me to see why he thought the quota numbers were adequate in the Forest Zone portion of the county, because in his general area the deer numbers are very good.

He is the one guy on the CDAC Committee that I actually got a hold of that weekend I went back to Mauston and when I asked him about the no-quorum vote, he didn't have much to say at all. He got sort of apologetic about the whole deal, but it was pretty hard to tell if he was being sincere or not over the phone, my guess is the little puke was rolling his eyes and laughing at me under his breath, because he nor anyone else in his family, save maybe his older sister, have ever really been apologetic about anything. They pretty much think their $h!* doesn't stink, and aren't afraid to let you know it. I asked him if he had any actual first hand knowledge of the deer populations in the northern and eastern areas of the county above Hwy 21, namely the Refuge, the Bombing Range, and areas near the lakes and he embarrassingly admitted that he did not, other than what the other members had told him and he had only personally been in those areas a few times in the last year, other than docking his boat in the lakes area to fish Castle Rock and Petenwell. I said next time he is going to make decisions for the whole county that he may want to take a ride around the whole county and count some deer before he makes decisions for everyone else who hunts there based only on knowledge of his own area. I don't know if that went over very well, but after calling 4 other members of the Committee, I was pretty p!$$*d and didn't really care. I also told him to relay to his cohorts that many guys were unhappy with the no quorum situation and that there would be calls for them to step down if it happened again. I for one will definitely be bringing it to the attention of the NRB and DNR should that ever repeat itself.
Is that the DMAP guy?

I fired off an email to our Chair and Alt Chair from the Conservation Congress after discovering the lack of a quorom. I also sent it to the DNR contact for the whole CDAC process statewide. I received nothing back from the Chair. The Alt Chair sent back a quick "I would have been there but I had a meeting for work". The DNR contact, I actually spoke with him via telephone. He thanked me for giving the county CDAC hell over this. He said that we weren't the only county that lacked a quorom at the final meeting. And that they, the DNR, have voiced their displeasure to those county CDAC's but he felt they make take it to heart a bit more coming from individual persons in the counties vs the DNR themselves. Some counties that didin't have a quorom attempted to make changes to their original recommendation but those changes weren't allowed by the DNR. The DNR guy was pleasant to talk to and seemed to be taking this process seriously. Only time will tell as this was the first year.
 
That would be the one, kind of an arrogant little pr!(k, but his older brother is far worse. In lieu of what you have said, I will have to email them all and chew some a$$. Hopefully they have all been informed that many have witnessed their over-sight and if they wish to continue with a seat on the Committee moving forward that they had better show up to future meetings. I can't say that I am upset with the DNR for not allowing the changes after the fact, they have been asked to play by a new set of rules and they should fully expect all other players in the game to follow those rules as well. I would like to hear what the NRB has to say on such matters, I may drop an email to Kazmierski as well.
 
That would be the one, kind of an arrogant little pr!(k, but his older brother is far worse. In lieu of what you have said, I will have to email them all and chew some a$$. Hopefully they have all been informed that many have witnessed their over-sight and if they wish to continue with a seat on the Committee moving forward that they had better show up to future meetings. I can't say that I am upset with the DNR for not allowing the changes after the fact, they have been asked to play by a new set of rules and they should fully expect all other players in the game to follow those rules as well. I would like to hear what the NRB has to say on such matters, I may drop an email to Kazmierski as well.
I'd be willing to bet that some of those that volunteered for the CDAC failed to consider whether they would be willing to give that much of their time and effort, not that it is really that much though. And that in the near future several of the CDAC positions will be changing hands as people quit. If the public doesn't stay involved with their counties CDAC some really scary and irresponsible decisions can be made and we will all feel the effect then. The DNR was right to deny their recommended changes because they had no quorom to institute such changes. Unfortunately some of those recommended changes could have been for the better.
 
I would agree bueller, not much dedication in the way of volunteerism these days. The best thing we can hope for is that the ones who are not willing or able to dedicate the proper amount of time and resources to this cause will quit as you have suggested, and then be replaced with folks who can and will put in the effort. I think it might be easier to fill some of those positions now that people who were on the fence about the process have seen it work and now may not be as apprehensive about joining a CDAC Committee.
 
I knew a couple guys from that area who were interested in forming a co-op. Wonder if they got one going.....

I stumbled on a few QDMA signs (not co-op) about 5 miles north of me the other day. Really surprised me to be honest.
I was talking to my neighbor before I left mn and he has some property south of where I'm at and the neighbors he has down there are big into letting the small ones go. That may be them. Lol, he was pissed because they didn't have any food plots or farm land and all the deer were eating his crops.
 
Top