2016 WI Spring CDAC Meetings

[wiscwhip]

I didn't think so, so that threat isn't going to hold much weight with current contract holders, they will still do as they please unless something else is put in place to force them to harvest more does. The MFL thing is useless in that regard, as there isn't much land changing hands up there that would be affected anyway.

 

[Tree Spud]

Sorry to burst you bubble Spud, not a fan of Bernie giving my sh!t away or that treasonous b!t(h Hillary.

As far as me being angry, hell yes I am! We all had an opportunity to make something good out of this new system and some have failed for their own selfish reasons. The State/DNR/NRB did not put in this system for it to become a free for all for every Tom, Dick, and Harry armchair deer manager/landowner to expand their deer herds on their own property to unrealistic levels. This was put in place to allow the hunting public to have a say in RESPONSIBLE deer management. No one other than the "spoiled brats" who have never known what it is like to hunt an area with an acceptable population in the 20-25 DPSM range think that 45-80+ DPSM is "responsible" in any way. What, you afraid if you only have 20 DPSM that you might find out you aren't as good a hunter as you thought you were? That kills might not be so easy when the herd is at a more "normal" level? When are all the idiots going to realize that the word "hunters" does not mean what it did back in the "Clan of the Cave Bear" days. We are not some "heroes" going out to provide sustenance for the tribe. All we are is a "tool" for the DNR's to use for animal population control, nothing more, nothing less. If game populations did not need to be controlled, or had enough of their own natural controls, there would be very little, if any hunting at all. It is really not all that hard of a concept to grasp. The Gobbermint, States, DNR's, etc, do not give a tinker's damn about your enjoyment of the outdoors, contrary to popular belief, that is just a byproduct of them using us to serve their needs. When a tool in your toolbox is broken, you replace it with another tool, the hunters in areas like Waupaca that refuse to keep their herd numbers under control are just a broken tool as far as the DNR/NRB is concerned, and now the DNR/NRB will replace that broken tool with something that will get the job done, since those hunters are unwilling to do it themselves. What they replace it with is yet to be seen, but it will happen, those deer will die one way or the other. Whether it be season after season of antlerless only deer hunts, sharpshooters, the DNR "encouraging" the return of wolves and higher predator populations, the return of EAB or some form of it, or the hunters actually deciding to step up and decrease the herd of their own accord, it will happen. The DNR/NRB will not let the status quo remain unchecked, those deer will die. I just wish the hunters would have set the precedence, not forced the DNR to react in a knee-jerk fashion with rules like they are now proposing. Those hunters forced the DNR's hand and now they are crying in their cereal. I feel no remorse for them, they dug their own grave, now they must lie in it.

gwm, facetious, maybe? Here's the thing, everyone knew they were going to be getting scrutinized heavily during this first go around, if you didn't, you were a fool. This was the "litmus test" by which our(the CDAC's and the hunting public) decisions will be judged moving forward. Greed and horn porn drove some to make irresponsible management decisions. I said earlier that Waupaca should have followed Buffalo Co's lead with the "Decrease" status and reducing their deer density. Waupaca really should have been leading the charge on the "Decrease" herd designation and should have done their best to see that come to fruition, but they choose to follow their greed. Whatever fate the DNR/NRB decides for them now is exactly what they deserve for their decision to thumb their noses at them the first time and I refuse to feel sorry for them or make excuses for them, that is what liberals do. Maybe those guys should be voting for Bernie, he will give them all the "free" deer they want. Or maybe Hillary, she will be happy to know that the lady deer are getting the "protections" that she so adamantly thinks everyone needs.

I am pretty confident that I would be able to harvest a deer in 20-25 dpsm or less conditions. Hunted many years in Vilas county and multiple other areas of the state and always brought home venison.

Anytime someone advocates the use of armed Gov't personnel entering private property for an issue such as this is socialism. What is next, raiding the land owners buildings to see if they have food plot seed? LOL!

To accuse folks who are participating in CDAC for the 1st year of failing is pretty over the top. These are citizens learning the process and who face lots of local community pressure. I mean try being the one school member who advocates cutting expenses ... :eek:

This process will take time and folks need to be a bit more patient. Let's face it, these high DPSM areas are this way because the DNR mishandled/misapplied the tools they had.

.

 

[wiscwhip]

I am pretty confident that I would be able to harvest a deer in 20-25 dpsm or less conditions. Hunted many years in Vilas county and multiple other areas of the state and always brought home venison.

Anytime someone advocates the use of armed Gov't personnel entering private property for an issue such as this is socialism. What is next, raiding the land owners buildings to see if they have food plot seed? LOL!

To accuse folks who are participating in CDAC for the 1st year of failing is pretty over the top. These are citizens learning the process and who face lots of local community pressure. I mean try being the one school member who advocates cutting expenses ... :eek:

This process will take time and folks need to be a bit more patient. Let's face it, these high DPSM areas are this way because the DNR mishandled/misapplied the tools they had.

.

So then you agree that 20-25 dpsm is an adequate number of deer to allow for a reasonable chance at harvest. Having stated that, please explain why we need 40+ dspm and why hunters are all pi$$ed off that the DNR would want it lower?

I think that is more like a communist dictatorship, but whatever. The point is, if that is what it takes to get guys to wake up and smell the coffee, then so be it. I'm betting my bottom dollar that if it happened once, the hunters would do everything in there power to prevent it from happening again, don't you think?

I understand what you are saying about the first year thing, problem is, the DNR/NRB doesn't care. They are saying get it right or give it up, thus the reason for the harsh rules they are proposing. The DNR/NRB does not have the patience you are asking for, nor will they, because the NRB is especially afraid that this will set future precedence on these matters and they cannot and will not allow that to happen, they said last year already that they would nip this type of behavior in the bud in no uncertain terms.

As I said, if everyone just plays the game at a high level and does what needs to be done in each individual area, this is not a bad system. Low density areas lay off the antlerless and high density areas increase the take. Someone tries to play outside the "rules" and they are not going to like the outcome, much like now. The NRB wants the hunters to have the say to put a stop to the overkill issues the DNR has imposed on us in the past, they really do, but we cannot take that to the other extreme either, as they are just as unlikely to allow that to happen, if not more so.

 

[Don'tWorryIHuggedItFirst]

Wisc they can't revoke current contracts. If they did it, it would be for new ones. But I really doubt they do that. I just do see it personally.

They are "permits" and not contracts. That's why they make changes every few years. The DNR can do whatever they want.

 

[Tree Spud]

Wisc they can't revoke current contracts. If they did it, it would be for new ones. But I really doubt they do that. I just do see it personally.

I would be surprised f the Gov't didn't have some type of wording or clause that allows them some latitude here. Remember, many of the large timber companies who owned land and have MFL contracts may not have cared about wildlife mgmt.

I had a WRP easement on an old piece of property I owned and was very surprised to learn what rights the Gov't had vs what I had. As my attorney said, most Gov't contracts especially when the Gov't is paying (or taking a tax collection loss) are not written for the benefit of the contract holder.

 

[wiscwhip]

They are "permits" and not contracts. That's why they make changes every few years. The DNR can do whatever they want.

That was changed with the new laws Scooter signed back in March, moving forward they are all "contracts". I do not know if that meant the current ones would be considered contracts or if it was just for new ones being signed?

 

[gwm]

First off, no I did not make the meeting, because I was in the process of making arrangements to attend a funeral of a family member in Florida(which is why I was not on here for almost a week), thanks anyway, but family comes first. And good for those guys from Slinger, kudos to them. And yes, I did make the meeting in LaCrosse Co on the 15th, as it was only 10 minutes from my house, and I was not yet in the process of planning a trip to FL. Secondly, when have the hunters of WI ever believed the DNR's numbers, never that I can remember. We ALWAYS have landowners telling the DNR to shove their number, even when it really is 35+ DPSM. The increase in buck harvest is directly related to the inability to shoot antlerless deer(guys are shooting more small bucks because they have no other alternative, I hunted with a group on the Friday after T-Day that killed 7 bucks under 2.5 yo last season in the Juneau Forest Zone), and the 3% increase in antlerless harvest is right on the money with the increased amount of tags issued from the prior season and the fact that I think we are seeing a very slight rebound of numbers in some areas. As far as the 19 DPSM, that could very well be true. The better, private habitat likely has 25+ dpsm and the hard hunted public ground likely has 13 or less dpsm, so an average of 19 is probably close. And yes, my hunting has sucked for quite a few years now, but the point everyone is missing is that we have/had a voice at the table and now we are giving the DNR/NRB a reason to take that away because of greed and that pi$$es me off.

I am advocating for nothing other than a smart and responsible voice at the table with the ability to make decisions on our own, others are advocating for greed. We should be smart enough to know by now that we have to play the game as well. Tell the DNR we are managing for 20-25 dpsm and then adjust our harvest practices to reflect an actual kill to maintain 30-35 dpsm and then keep the numbers in that range. Slightly over goal they will all live with, grossly over goal and they will take our voice away or make it irrelevant. We cannot tell them to stick it and that we are going to manage for the numbers we want in the high 40+ range and expect them to allow it, it is not going to happen, ever! The NRB was on our side last year, now they are leaning towards the DNR on this and that is what is scary, they have the power to turn things right back over to them if they so choose. Believe me when I tell you that most NRB members do not see eye to eye with the DNR on lots of issues, deer being one of them, but most of them are all highly educated, wildlife degree holding folks who will not allow the resources or habitat of this state to be destroyed by greedy hunters or government agencies, that is the job the NRB members are appointed for, and they take it seriously.

whip, my condolences on the death in your family.

I agree with you on the reasons for the increases. My thought was there can't be much to complain about in that area if the numbers are in an acceptable range. Yet, every person I've talked to that hunts that area, private or public, deems the numbers significantly lower than they need to be. The public land hunters are going to take it in the shorts if we're going to tell the DNR 20-25 dpsm is acceptable or even going 30-35 dpsm.

I also think the CDAC needs more time than the one year it's been around. I do know that the CDAC's won't make everyone happy, regardless of county. Maybe Waupaca could of gave more free tags this year, or at a reduced price, established an antlerless goal that needed to be hit this year, and if it wasn't, then the option of an antlerless only season the next year would happen. Just ideas and I'll be the first to tell you I don't have all the answers.

I believe everyone wants a smart and responsible voice and the ability to work hand in hand with the DNR on a common goal. It would save a lot of time and effort. Saying the CDAC failed or the DNR should do anything necessary to get those greedy hunters certainly doesn't do that.

 

[shawnv]

The county cdac will vote for antlerless only, if the nrb overrules them it will nueter the cdac process. Many think the nrb will overrule, i dont think so. This proposal will fail to get the desired harvest.

I think the NRB will overrule this time and call it a compromise and let the landowners beware of next time.

 

[wiscwhip]

Thanks gwm! He was a great man, a UW-Mad alum and the primary advocate for literally thousands of people with the type of cancer he was fighting. He knew how to battle the experts and when to play into their hands to get what he wanted, he pi$$ed off lots of doctors along the way, but opened the eyes of so many who felt they had no alternatives. The comments off his blog from around the world that were read at his memorial service were humbling to say the least. If anyone reading this has a family member that is contemplating stem cell transplants for cancer treatment, let me know and I will try to get you a copy of his second book.

As far as the deer numbers go, I think that with a true 25-35 dpsm herd(keep in mind I am talking overwinter numbers here, i.e. pre-fawn, so the herd could be at around 50 dpsm when the season starts depending on recruitment), hunting could be ok, even on public ground. Will it be the way it was in '99-00, nope, probably not, but it would give a reasonable chance at sightings and harvest, even on half way decent public ground.

While we all agree that the CDAC's could have used more time and that this is a work in progress, the NRB will not allow anything like the snubbing it took in Waupaca Co to set a precedence on the way this thing is done, that is no ones fault, just the reality of the situation as it stands going into years 2 and 3. Hopefully all the CDAC's understand the "game" a bit better when the new goal setting meetings take place in 2017.

 

[shawnv]

The CDAC's can always vote to subdivide the county into smaller zones, seems like that might be a necessary step.

 

[wiscwhip]

The CDAC's can always vote to subdivide the county into smaller zones, seems like that might be a necessary step.

Comments made by the NRB last year were that they did not want to see this type of thing become commonplace, but they did acknowledge that there were a few locations that it was needed and would be accepted if proposed by a County CDAC, Marathon Co was one that they mentioned by name. Although, it would not surprise me if they were to go back on that statement knowing it would help to micromanage herd concentrations without imposing unneeded rules on areas that are within goal in those counties with issues.

 

[shawnv]

I know Trempealeau County voted to subdivide into a North and South zone.

 

[wiscwhip]

So it is not considered Farmland vs Forest Zones then? If that is the case, the NRB is obviously allowing something outside the proposed parameters of the initial program. That is very surprising to me given their comments from the meetings last year, but as I said, they may have seen the need for this level of micromanaging to deal with specific problem areas with high concentrations of deer?

 

[wiscwhip]

I just read the minutes from Tremp Co. It appears they "suggested" the N/S split for further discussion. I wouldn't hold my breath on it passing the NRB "smell test" though. They are going to be asking hard questions as to why it would be necessary in a county with mostly the same habitat from north to south. Maybe they could claim the winters are harder on the deer north of a certain line?

 

[gwm]

There was a little bit of discussion of dividing up the Juneau County Forest Zone at the last meeting. It would be two zones, one north of Hwy 21 and one south of Hwy 21. The reason being north of 21 is all forest while south of 21 still has some farmland / ag. They used to be different zones in the past, I believe, 54A and 56?

 

[bueller]

There was a little bit of discussion of dividing up the Juneau County Forest Zone at the last meeting. It would be two zones, one north of Hwy 21 and one south of Hwy 21. The reason being north of 21 is all forest while south of 21 still has some farmland / ag. They used to be different zones in the past, I believe, 54A and 56?

Maybe west of 80 and north of 21, but east of 80 and north of 21 is dominated by farmland.

 

[shawnv]

I just read the minutes from Tremp Co. It appears they "suggested" the N/S split for further discussion. I wouldn't hold my breath on it passing the NRB "smell test" though. They are going to be asking hard questions as to why it would be necessary in a county with mostly the same habitat from north to south. Maybe they could claim the winters are harder on the deer north of a certain line?

Thanks for the clarification. From what I've seen, there are more significantly more dpsm from Whitehall to Arcadia and South than there is North of it so I can see where it would make sense.

 

[wiscwhip]

Maybe west of 80 and north of 21, but east of 80 and north of 21 is dominated by farmland.

HAHAHA, I wouldn't necessarily call it "farmland", ;) more like a sandpit with pivot irrigators that allow someone to claim crop insurance for failures every few years. LOL! Well, except for the guys growing potatoes, they do well up that way. When they rotate to corn, not so much. But it is wide open ag land nonetheless.

 

[EOB]

That was changed with the new laws Scooter signed back in March, moving forward they are all "contracts". I do not know if that meant the current ones would be considered contracts or if it was just for new ones being signed?

FYI - Wisconsin SB 434 has not been signed into law yet. There is some chit chat regarding the leasing option being vetoed.

https://www.wiafo.org/mfl-bill-signing-scheduled-vetoes-possible/

 

[wiscwhip]

Thanks EOB! I just figured it was a done deal, nothing anyone could do and moved on. It just gets me worked up when I think about the loss of MFL Open lands for the average guy and newbies just looking to shoot some small game or see a few deer. I think Scooter signs it as is anyway, but at least it has gotten some attention and further discussion.