Deer Herd Impacting Forest Health in Bayfield County

[Terrific_tom]

http://www.fox21online.com/news/loc...ing-forest-health-in-bayfield-county/34679796

And you guys in Minnesota think you have problems with Foresters wanting the deer herd reduced. If they reduce the deer herd any more in Bayfield County there won't be any deer left. This forester's statement is so bogus. I could see this statement coming out 20 years ago. Most of the county land is clear cut, sprayed and replanted in pine. If they would select cut and let the forest regenerate naturally they might get some birch and oak growth. I could take this guy all over Bayfield County and show him lots of oak and birch regrowth with little to no deer browse. Sounds to me like this guy has an agenda.

 

[wiscwhip]

Absolutely no way this has any merit whatsoever. I don't think even homeowners on the edges of the few towns they have get any browse issues on their landscaping unless they are near a yarding area. Guy is a young gung-ho forestry grad who likely wants to make a name for himself. The video was hilarious though, one clip of a buck picking fruit from a tree, not eating browse and the rest were shots of the upper tree canopy?:confused: No photos of a browse line at deer level anywhere in the video. No picture evidence of browsed down seedlings? When did the deer in Bayfield Co acquire jetpacks to be able to feed that high?

 

[Terrific_tom]

The problem is that the County Forester sits on the Bayfield County CDAC and will have a big say in the deer numbers in Bayfield County.

Bayfield County CDAC contact list
TitleRepresentationFirst NameLast NamePhoneEmail
Chair Conservation Congress Karl Kastrosky 715-580-0157
Alt-Chair Conservation Congress Bud Walker 715-798-2396
DNR Contact Forestry Joseph Lebouton 715-373-6165
DNR Contact Law Enforcement Amie Egstad 715-209-7615
DNR Liaison Wildlife Management Todd Naas 715-685-2914
Member Tribal NA NA
Member Urban NA NA
Member Transportation NA NA
Member Tourism Craig Manthey 715-580-0476
Member Forestry Michael Amman 715-209-5871
Member DMAP Thomas Erickson 715-372-4747
Member Agriculture Ben Dufford 715-292-7598
Member Hunt/Conservation Club Larry Loch 715-798-3327

 

[wiscwhip]

The DNR members of the CDAC's are non-voting, advisory members only. If the other voting members of the CDAC choose to see it his way, then they are scr3w3d. The DNR Committee members really have no more sway than the voting members allow them to have, which is exactly the way it should be set up and why it was set up that way in the first place.

 

[Terrific_tom]

The DNR members of the CDAC's are non-voting, advisory members only. If the other voting members of the CDAC choose to see it his way, then they are scr3w3d. The DNR Committee members really have no more sway than the voting members allow them to have, which is exactly the way it should be set up and why it was set up that way in the first place.

Wisc he doesn't work for DNR. He works for Bayfield County and represents the forestry interest so he gets to vote.

 

[wiscwhip]

:oops:Ah, I see what you are saying, that would give him voter privileges, sorry for the oversight on my part. I was under the impression that the voting Forestry Rep had to be from a private forestry firm. I was unaware that they could be employed by any entity of government, be it state, county, or local. At this point, he is but one of 5 voting members, now if they were to fill those Urban and Transportation positions, they would likely side with him on many things, which could mean they are in trouble.

 

[Terrific_tom]

:oops:Ah, I see what you are saying, that would give him voter privileges, sorry for the oversight on my part. I was under the impression that the voting Forestry Rep had to be from a private forestry firm. I was unaware that they could be employed by any entity of government, be it state, county, or local. At this point, he is but one of 5 voting members, now if they were to fill those Urban and Transportation positions, they would likely side with him on many things, which could mean they are in trouble.

Yep, I looked at a bunch of Counties and in reality the way CDAC is set up and if all the positions are filled it works against the deer hunter.

 

[gunther89]

It's sad when the DNR is actually trying to raise the population and then the county forester gets on his high horse and states they need to lower the population more. Maybe the wolves are eating the re-growth of trees.

 

[wiscwhip]

Yep, I looked at a bunch of Counties and in reality the way CDAC is set up and if all the positions are filled it works against the deer hunter.

I have looked at this breakdown of information before TT and even used an example like the one below when I wrote a letter to the DNR and the Conservation Congress about the CDAC's. You will see in the example below the assumed vote tally. I wouldn't say the deck is stacked against the hunter from the get go, but it is very easy to tip the scales heavily the other way if you get the wrong folks(like that Co Forester) on these committees. See below for what most would consider the "assumed" vote tally, remember that 4 members must have hunted deer 3(or is it 4?) out of the last 5 years:

Member Tribal = assumed Increase Voter and hunter
Member Urban = Assumed Decrease Voter equally likely that they hunt or not
Member Transportation = Assumed Decrease Voter equally likely that they hunt or not
Member Tourism = assumed Increase Voter and possibly a hunter
Member Forestry = Assumed Decrease Voter and possibly a hunter
Member DMAP = assumed Increase Voter and hunter
Member Agriculture = Assumed Decrease Voter and possibly a hunter
Member Hunt/Conservation Club = assumed Increase Voter and hunter

As one can see, it is evenly split from an "assumed" perspective. That said, the scales could easily be tipped in favor of the "Decrease" crowd. You would hope that the folks in green would hold their ground, but if the DMAP guy was in the program because he is in a hotspot, look out! He would likely be the one who would vote a decrease to ensure that not only deer on his property were killed with the extra DMAP tags he is issued, it would allow surrounding property owners to by increased amounts of tags to up the kill in his surrounding area. Unless there is truly an overpopulation issue in their county, one would think that the Tribal, Tourism, and Hunting Club members would always vote on the "Increase or Maintain" side of the spectrum and vote for limited tag numbers within those guidelines.

 

[Terrific_tom]

I have looked at this breakdown of information before TT and even used an example like the one below when I wrote a letter to the DNR and the Conservation Congress about the CDAC's. You will see in the example below the assumed vote tally. I wouldn't say the deck is stacked against the hunter from the get go, but it is very easy to tip the scales heavily the other way if you get the wrong folks(like that Co Forester) on these committees. See below for what most would consider the "assumed" vote tally, remember that 4 members must have hunted deer 3(or is it 4?) out of the last 5 years:

Member Tribal = assumed Increase Voter and hunter
Member Urban = Assumed Decrease Voter equally likely that they hunt or not
Member Transportation = Assumed Decrease Voter equally likely that they hunt or not
Member Tourism = assumed Increase Voter and possibly a hunter
Member Forestry = Assumed Decrease Voter and possibly a hunter
Member DMAP = assumed Increase Voter and hunter
Member Agriculture = Assumed Decrease Voter and possibly a hunter
Member Hunt/Conservation Club = assumed Increase Voter and hunter

As one can see, it is evenly split from an "assumed" perspective. That said, the scales could easily be tipped in favor of the "Decrease" crowd. You would hope that the folks in green would hold their ground, but if the DMAP guy was in the program because he is in a hotspot, look out! He would likely be the one who would vote a decrease to ensure that not only deer on his property were killed with the extra DMAP tags he is issued, it would allow surrounding property owners to by increased amounts of tags to up the kill in his surrounding area. Unless there is truly an overpopulation issue in their county, one would think that the Tribal, Tourism, and Hunting Club members would always vote on the "Increase or Maintain" side of the spectrum and vote for limited tag numbers within those guidelines.

From what I understand the Tribal member is only present on counties that have a reservation in that county, so in most counties the deck is stacked.

 

[wiscwhip]

From what I understand the Tribal member is only present on counties that have a reservation in that county, so in most counties the deck is stacked.

I'm not sure that is entirely true, see the following statement from the DNR website:

members must be residents of the county in which they wish to participate (exceptions for tribal members), own land within the county or work professionally for the county agency/organization which appointed them to the CDAC;

That sounds to me like tribe members can sit on any CDAC committee whether they reside in that county or not. You just have to find one that cares enough to actually show up at the meetings. Although I have seen other information that says this only applies within the Ceded Territories, which Bayfield Co. would be a part of?

 

[wiscwhip]

In the infancy of the CDAC formation, it was proposed that no Ag Rep would be allowed in counties with < 30% ag lands and no Forestry Rep was to be allowed in counties with <30% forested area. They likely threw that out because it would have surely stacked the deck toward the "Increase" voters and we can't have that now can we.