B
BJE80
Guest
I don't have high deer numbers but the deer I do have still look like brick shit houses in February.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
All kidding aside, NoFo hit on some great points. I do think with the current CDAC system in place, some good changes could be had if we could get EAB reinstated and find a legit way to monitor the harvests. Simple and a good compromise for herd reduction in "Decrease" or "Maintain" areas. With the 3 year goal setting process we currently have it could look something like this...
"Decrease" goal = no more than 2 out of the 3 years could be EAB, not consecutive to allow for monitoring and reevaluation in the "off" year.
"Maintain" goal = no more than 1 out of the 3 years could be EAB, also could not be consecutive from one 3 year round of goals to the next 3 year round.
"Increase" goal = no EAB allowed until goal changes to "Maintain" status, then only in year 3 of the first round of "Maintain", if the population took an unexpected upturn the 1st two years.
This could work if we found a way to ensure the kills were actually taking place and there was no "cheating". This is one reason having only call-in reg sucks.
EDIT: The CDAC's would also have to be more "honest" in their assessments of what "goal" their Co should be shooting for, none of this "Maintain" crap when you have 50+dpsm.
"Decrease" goal = no more than 2 out of the 3 years could be EAB, not consecutive to allow for monitoring and reevaluation in the "off" year.
"Maintain" goal = no more than 1 out of the 3 years could be EAB, also could not be consecutive from one 3 year round of goals to the next 3 year round.
"Increase" goal = no EAB allowed until goal changes to "Maintain" status, then only in year 3 of the first round of "Maintain", if the population took an unexpected upturn the 1st two years.
This could work if we found a way to ensure the kills were actually taking place and there was no "cheating". This is one reason having only call-in reg sucks.
EDIT: The CDAC's would also have to be more "honest" in their assessments of what "goal" their Co should be shooting for, none of this "Maintain" crap when you have 50+dpsm.
Last edited:
bueller
Moderator
I like what you are saying but EAB scares me as the overuse of it, the unlimited tags, and t zone hunts contributed to the low populations we still have in many areas. If EAB is once again instituted in certain areas (waupaca for example) I fear it won't be long before it is over used again.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
That is why it would still have to be approved by the CDAC each and every use, and not just "pushed" by the DNR like it was in the past. No "unlimited" tags, one doe tag for one buck tag and could not be used in conjunction with any type of "Bonus buck" rule. Bonus antlerless tags could still be up for purchase by those who want them, but in more limited numbers based on the previous years buck kill, assuming that those "buck killers" would be taking out one doe each for sure. It would no doubt take some monitoring, but I think it could be done with the proper set of rules and safeguards against the overuse. The NRB would also have to approve the final recommendations.
rocksnstumps
5 year old buck +
[QUOTE="Novemberforever, post: 103744, member: 57"
7)Consistently easier winters than in the 70's when i had to walk uphill, both ways to school.
Many factors have and will continue to feed this beast.[/QUOTE]
Actually #7 has a lot of data supporting that winters were brutal and likely winter severity index was high. The 70's set more records for cold temps over a hundred years of data. The Midwest was the area for most new lows during that time, what a surprise.
7)Consistently easier winters than in the 70's when i had to walk uphill, both ways to school.
Many factors have and will continue to feed this beast.[/QUOTE]
Actually #7 has a lot of data supporting that winters were brutal and likely winter severity index was high. The 70's set more records for cold temps over a hundred years of data. The Midwest was the area for most new lows during that time, what a surprise.
tooln
5 year old buck +
I think NoFo should have been a carpenter as he hit the nail on the head with this post. Good Job.
bueller
Moderator
This is sad and disturbing. I'm sure the morale in the department working under her is just flourishing :rolleyes:
bueller
Moderator
I copied and pasted this from the meeting minutes of the last CDAC in Juneau County. Nice job crunching the numbers. I recommend all CDAC's do the same. The quota's are still being set in large part due to what the DNR estimates the deer herd to be at. If the DNR estimate is wrong (go figure) then reductions in herd size are a real possibility even in areas trying to maintain or even increase their herd.
"Arron Bigalke and Me Mark Saemisch were talking about how the farmland was picked to have a quota of 2400 does shot, in order to have a 3% increase in the herd. But how only 1500 or so were shot and there was a 1% decrease in the herd, along with a low buck kill. I mentioned how this data shows that the DNR is about 40% off. Then I broght up how we didn't meet last years goal of 3% increase in the farm land. Someone ine the audience asked what 1% of the deer was in the farmland , and we told him 100 deer. That being said I mentioned, that the 1500 deer shot were close to maintain with a 1% decrease and that the original data asked for 2400 shot. This is a 900 deer mistake if they wou ld have been shot."
"Arron Bigalke and Me Mark Saemisch were talking about how the farmland was picked to have a quota of 2400 does shot, in order to have a 3% increase in the herd. But how only 1500 or so were shot and there was a 1% decrease in the herd, along with a low buck kill. I mentioned how this data shows that the DNR is about 40% off. Then I broght up how we didn't meet last years goal of 3% increase in the farm land. Someone ine the audience asked what 1% of the deer was in the farmland , and we told him 100 deer. That being said I mentioned, that the 1500 deer shot were close to maintain with a 1% decrease and that the original data asked for 2400 shot. This is a 900 deer mistake if they wou ld have been shot."
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
beuller, thanks for posting that, I had not checked the updates yet, as I am getting cranked up to shoot a gobbler. I am going to be back down in Mauston the weekend of May 7th-8th for turkey hunting and I might see if I can get together with Aaron(I have known him and his siblings since grade school) and Greg Lowe(I have known his family for many years as well) to see what the hell is going on and what the best route to take on this might be for the Juneau CDAC and the public and if the CDAC could use any help with addressing this with the NRB via public input. The NRB meeting where this is finalized isn't until the 24th-25th of May. I agree, great catch on the part of the CDAC and kudos to them! If this is the way the DNR is going to play this, the NRB needs to know(IF they don't already) and if they are a part of it, the whole process needs to be exposed as a sham to the whole state! Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal would love to get wind of this. If they are still all in cahoots to keep lowering the herd in the face of the new CDAC system that the Deer Trustee Report put in place, it makes the whole thing a pointless joke.
Last edited:
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I think the proof lies in the noticeable browse lines in those areas. The numbers may not be "as high" as what the DNR is stating, but with the photos I have seen of the obvious browse lines in Waupaca, they have WAY too many deer, at least in most areas. Show me a browse line in the Juneau Forest Zone, not going to happen. I can't really speak to the Farmland Zone, but I don't see it on the few areas I frequent down there. We barely had overbrowse issues in 54A when our numbers were at there peak, and by barely, I mean we didn't.
bueller
Moderator
All I'm saying is that the DNR "estimates" the herd size. Then the DNR "estimates" the quota number to determine how many deer need to be killed to either maintain, increase, or decrease based on past success ratios, etc... If the initial estimate is off then everything that follows is off. In Juneau Farmland the goal 3 year goal was to maintain while the quota that was set was to allow a small increase. The harvest fell way short of this quota which should have resulted in substantial growth of the herd yet the herd is said to have actually decreased?????
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Something like 38% in the Forest Zone and in the Farmland Zone I think it is right around what they have in Waupaca, under 5% IIRC.
Keep in mind that I personally see this number decreasing moving forward. With the rules changes in the MFL laws, much of the MFL Open ground in the Forest Zone that is owned by the timber groups will likely be getting leased at some point. Of course the County, State, and Feds have large holdings in the Forest Zone as well, so that will remain, but I see the corporate MFL Open moving to Closed here in the near future. A lot of it is up for sale at top dollar, but the rules changes will now allow them to keep it and make money off those grounds.
Keep in mind that I personally see this number decreasing moving forward. With the rules changes in the MFL laws, much of the MFL Open ground in the Forest Zone that is owned by the timber groups will likely be getting leased at some point. Of course the County, State, and Feds have large holdings in the Forest Zone as well, so that will remain, but I see the corporate MFL Open moving to Closed here in the near future. A lot of it is up for sale at top dollar, but the rules changes will now allow them to keep it and make money off those grounds.
Last edited:
gwm
5 year old buck +
The Juneau County Farmland did have a quota for a 3% increase and it did end up having a 1% decrease. In a "Maintain" DMU, those numbers aren't enough to get upset over or make drastic changes, especially in year two.
Mark S. is on the Conservation Congress. He attends the meetings, takes notes and gives his opinions like many others, but he doesn't have a vote for any recommendations. I think not having that vote frustrates him.
Mark S., and six or seven others, hunts on his grandpa's 85 acres and they don't see enough deer so Mark wants the population in the Farmland to increase and increase now. His recommendation was to not give any free antlerless tags, for any weapon / season, for the Farmland zone. He wanted to have something like 5,000 bonus tags available so if someone wanted to shoot a doe, they had to pay the $12 fee to do so. Most people aren't going to pay $12 for a doe tag. He floated this idea in the preliminary meeting but it didn't get much traction. Out of 21 people there I think 3 were in favor of it.
Mark S. brought up the no free antlerless proposal at the final meeting again, especially with the 1% decrease that happened the year prior. Aaron B. brought that proposal up for a vote but it didn't get a second. Quick numbers were ran with this proposal and there was a possibility of having a higher percent increase in the Farmland than what was voted on in the Forest Zone.
I give the CDAC members much respect. No matter what they do, they won't make everyone happy, no matter which way they vote. Yet in saying that, I've read the minutes and they seemed to be skewed more towards the person's beliefs that wrote them, then the discussions that took place.
Mark S. is on the Conservation Congress. He attends the meetings, takes notes and gives his opinions like many others, but he doesn't have a vote for any recommendations. I think not having that vote frustrates him.
Mark S., and six or seven others, hunts on his grandpa's 85 acres and they don't see enough deer so Mark wants the population in the Farmland to increase and increase now. His recommendation was to not give any free antlerless tags, for any weapon / season, for the Farmland zone. He wanted to have something like 5,000 bonus tags available so if someone wanted to shoot a doe, they had to pay the $12 fee to do so. Most people aren't going to pay $12 for a doe tag. He floated this idea in the preliminary meeting but it didn't get much traction. Out of 21 people there I think 3 were in favor of it.
Mark S. brought up the no free antlerless proposal at the final meeting again, especially with the 1% decrease that happened the year prior. Aaron B. brought that proposal up for a vote but it didn't get a second. Quick numbers were ran with this proposal and there was a possibility of having a higher percent increase in the Farmland than what was voted on in the Forest Zone.
I give the CDAC members much respect. No matter what they do, they won't make everyone happy, no matter which way they vote. Yet in saying that, I've read the minutes and they seemed to be skewed more towards the person's beliefs that wrote them, then the discussions that took place.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Also great info gwm! Thanks! That way I won't "come down too hard" ;) on guys who may have had little to do with those "conversations". LOL, just kidding, but I wasn't able to attend the Juneau meetings this time around and having info like that will help me understand the situation if I get a chance to talk to Aaron. I think you are correct that they have a thankless job, as someone will be PO'd no matter what.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Just did a little verification of the numbers above. Juneau Forest is 38% public and the Juneau Farmland is 2.8% public. Pretty easy to see that the private guys have the harvest "locked up" in their part of the County and nothing the public guys can do will affect those numbers all that much. The Forest Zone is a whole 'nother ballgame! gwm, sounds like this Mark S. needs to either put less pressure on his 85 acres or if he is so worried about guys using the "free" doe tags, he should have a chat with his neighbors and get a coop or some level of agreement that less doe should be killed in his immediate area. I know the areas south of Mauston towards La Valle have really good numbers of deer.
gwm
5 year old buck +
Give Aaron some guff over the lack of participation from the other CDAC members. Last year they didn't have enough for a vote and this year only three showed up. I know Aaron will agree with you based on some comments he made. :)
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I gave him crap about it last November during the rifle season when I talked to him, and not in a nice way. He is a pretty good kid overall and I thanked him for his participation, but told him he needed to get his cronies in line, but I will be sure to bring it up again, lol!
gwm
5 year old buck +
I agree. To have 7/8 people on 85 acres with almost 30 of those acres being open farmland leads to some pressure. I understand the reason why, family gets to hunt, but also realize why you might not be seeing as many deer as you want. His neighbors own 400 acres with, I think, less than five that hunt it. I know where the deer are going.
His property is exactly where you say there are really good numbers of deer. South of Mauston, heading towards LaValle. That area might not have has much deer as it once did, but it's still very good hunting.
I don't fault the guy, he wants to see more deer and I can understand that.
Similar threads
