wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Hopefully they don't get all sketchy like MN and change the old data on the map to fall in line with the new recommendations.It will be interesting to see the final map compared to the preliminary map
Hopefully they don't get all sketchy like MN and change the old data on the map to fall in line with the new recommendations.It will be interesting to see the final map compared to the preliminary map
Apparently they have a bunch of idiots on their CDAC team! This is the precise reason why the state will side with the DNR reps instead of the CDAC Committee Teams. This is likely happening in other high density counties in the state as well. Unrealistic and unsafe for the deer herd to want to keep numbers that high. When they end up with CWD everywhere they will all stand around with there d!ick$ in their hands b!tch!ng to the DNR to fix it!:mad: Be realistic and don't try to stick it to the state and they may be more forthcoming and acceptant of the CDAC team recommendations.I find it interesting that Waupaca County probably has the highest dpsm and has a reccomendation of maintain.
As long as the private land owners all want the same thing anyway. My county is about 92% privately owned...but that doesn't make it a deer mecca.
Waupaca is 96% private . It matters not beyond eab what the dnr wants as the herd will be managed to suit the private land owners agenda
The guy exchanged emails with his local DNR gal and this is what he learned
We also are one of the 13 counties in the state that has ag damage levels that are considered "intolerable", and the NRB will not entertain a population goal of "increase" in those counties."
From all the reading that I've been doing it seems that crop damage and over browsing of forests carry heavy weight in deciding whether a CDAC votes to increase, maintain, or decrease the herd. Thankfully in the Juneau County Forest neither of these seem to be much of an issue, even with the DNR Forester there. Unlike the Clark County forester who IMO swayed that CDAC vote from increase to maintain because of his fear that the forest will be over browsed if they vote to increase.Been following some guys on another forum who have been attending the CDAC meetings/info. One guy went to the Columbia County meeting, and even though the vast majority of survey respondents wanted to increase the herd...it will be maintained. The guy exchanged emails with his local DNR gal and this is what he learned
"The DNR liaison got back to me yesterday. Even if 100% of the people in Columbia Co. wanted to see an increase in the deer herd, it wouldn't matter because of another matter. We also are one of the 13 counties in the state that has ag damage levels that are considered "intolerable", and the NRB will not entertain a population goal of "increase" in those counties."
That's a good thing, I won't be as inclined to punch him in the mouth. Many of the NRB members hold Forestry degrees, and I think in the event the conversation turns to overbrowsing, you are correct that they will vote for lower numbers, as opposed to any increases. Although, as a CDAC Committee member, I would call out the local Forester rep on it and have him do a sight visit or 2 with me and whatever other members wanted to go along to show me this browse pressure before I didn't put up a stink about the number being lowered. Real evidence needs to be presented, not his desk jockey recommendation. Otherwise, they will just continue to play this card over and over. That gives me another item I will be putting in my next round of emails to the NRB reps, "If recommendations are not to be followed, proof of the reason for the change must be made evident through on site visits to the members of the Committees". Thanks for the idea bueller!From all the reading that I've been doing it seems that crop damage and over browsing of forests carry heavy weight in deciding whether a CDAC votes to increase, maintain, or decrease the herd. Thankfully in the Juneau County Forest neither of these seem to be much of an issue, even with the DNR Forester there. Unlike the Clark County forester who IMO swayed that CDAC vote from increase to maintain because of his fear that the forest will be over browsed if they vote to increase.
It sounds like we are on the right track. Hopefully within the next couple years we will start to see the results in the Forest Zone. There were only 50 public land tags issued this year for antlerless deer and there is a ton of public land in the zone.Juneau County Meeting:
Central Forest Zone = Vote was to increase and the recommendation from all three DNR staff in attendance (wildlife liaison, warden and forester) was also to increase.
Central Farmland Zone = Vote was to maintain. The DNR wildlife liaison and forester recommended to maintain and warden recommended to increase.
There was about 25-30 people at the meeting and everyone that hunted the Central Forest Zone voted to increase and there was a pretty much 50-50 split between maintain and increase on the Central Farmland Zone.
I also think maintain was the right vote for the farmland zone. We are in the same county but have drastically different habitat, amounts of public land, and DPSM. This is exactly why I'm excited and believe in this new system, at least as far as Juneau County is concerned. The DNR recognized the difference and split the county into part forest and part farmland. They also broke antlerless tags down to public or private. This should allow in my area for example, limited public land tags to let the herd rebound yet a considerable amount of antlerless tags to try and keep the herd from growing too much on the private lands. Call me crazy if you wish but I think this new system is a drastic improvement over what we had before. Again speaking specifically about Juneau County. As November states this whole thing may mean squat in Waupaca County.
I agree bueller. I have said since the new rule making process started that I felt if handled properly these changes would be good for Juneau Co. I don't know if they fully work in other areas(although I don't see how they wouldn't), but I know they could work in Juneau if they aren't badly manipulated by the DNR. I am excited to see what year 3 will bring. More important than that, my daughter is excited about it as well. Apparently she is sick of listening to grandpa(my dad), uncle, and dear ole' dad talk about how great the hunting was "back in the day", and she wants to be able to tell those "back in the day" stories to her own grandchildren one day. I hope her wish comes true for all our sakes. BTW, this is coming from someone who has spent their whole life growing up and hunting in this county.It sounds like we are on the right track. Hopefully within the next couple years we will start to see the results in the Forest Zone. There were only 50 public land tags issued this year for antlerless deer and there is a ton of public land in the zone.
gvm, what are your feelings on the recommendation for the Farmland Zone?
We have had multiple surveys throughout the rule changing process, I wouldn't specifically call them "hunter satisfaction" surveys, but every one of them asked about number of deer seen in the field and if those numbers were acceptable to the respondent if that's the info you are looking for. I will post a few links that may be of interest.Does the WI DNR do any hunter satisfaction surveys as part of this process? Could anyone send a few links if they are readily available to hunter survey results?
I agree bueller. I have said since the new rule making process started that I felt if handled properly these changes would be good for Juneau Co. I don't know if they fully work in other areas(although I don't see how they wouldn't), but I know they could work in Juneau if they aren't badly manipulated by the DNR.
The main concern of mine is for those with CDAC's that have some goofs aboard voting with an agenda. Or if the NRB just pushes aside the CDAC recommendations and does whatever they want.
I am excited to see what year 3 will bring. More important than that, my daughter is excited about it as well. Apparently she is sick of listening to grandpa(my dad), uncle, and dear ole' dad talk about how great the hunting was "back in the day", and she wants to be able to tell those "back in the day" stories to her own grandchildren one day. I hope her wish comes true for all our sakes.
I hope that day comes too. I look forward to stalking through some of the large blocks of public land while having a reasonable chance of at least seeing a deer again.