WI Guys.....CDAC 2nd round of meetings this week


5 year old buck +
To any WI guys who can get out to their local meetings this week(mine is tonight in La Crosse Co and Juneau Co is tomorrow night, but I don't think I will make it to Juneau), check out the DNR website for the meeting times in your respective counties. This round of meetings will preliminarily set your antlerless harvest quotas for the next 3 years. The "stakeholder teams"(which are almost exactly what the MN guys are dealing with) are set up to vote to decrease the herd in every circumstance. Of the 7 or 8 members on each team, there are at least 4 members who will never vote to increase your deer numbers even if they needed it, ever. A DOT rep, Farm bureau rep, Forestry rep, and a homeowner association rep will never vote to have more deer, period. It is not in any of their best interests to vote for an increase. I will be speaking at my meeting, they give you like 3 minutes or something. I will be telling them that an increasing number of WI hunters are watching their every move in anticipation of herd reduction votes and that we as hunters are ready to fight them if necessary to keep them from doing the same thing that MN has done to the deer herd in their state. If you get the chance to attend your meeting please do yourself and your kids a favor and attend and voice your opinion on the stakeholder process and the DNR throwing out science and replacing it with popular social pressure to manage our deer herd. We shall see.
Last edited:
Whip - you have likely seen my recent %'s on the measurable impact deer have on the total pie for ag and auto insurance. Seems potent 'fact' for any 'stakeholder' discussions.
Brooks, you have no idea how much I have been following your "lead" on this whole situation. I see where you have been and I can envision where you are going, I only hope that WI never has to go as far as you have had to in MN. BTW, thanks for laying the groundwork for this type of fight, I think you have done a fantastic job so far and keep up the good work.
I was just looking at the stakeholders for Juneau County the other day. Not a very promising looking list. We have seen some short term improvements over the last year or two in the region and I hope this new process continues on that path rather than reversing it. Unfortunately I'm not able to attend the meeting.
I was just looking at the stakeholders for Juneau County the other day. Not a very promising looking list. We have seen some short term improvements over the last year or two in the region and I hope this new process continues on that path rather than reversing it. Unfortunately I'm not able to attend the meeting.
I personally know a number of the "attendee's" at that meeting, they must have had a signup list at the door for those that were there and they listed them on the meeting minutes sheets. The one guy used to own a sportshop that he couldn't keep afloat. Kind of a D-bag and thinks he is Lee Lakosky or something. I would have thought he would have spoke up about the whole thing, but all that dumba$$ wanted to argue was why the "line" between Forest Zone and Farmland Zone was the Interstate? WTH? The line was drawn there because that is where the Farmland essentially ends, other than land that shouldn't be farmed to begin with, because it is either too wet and swampy or to dry and sandy. His land is north of I-90 on Hwy M(near badgerfowl's place), so it puts him in the Forest Zone with low antlerless tag #'s, so he is likely just pi$$ed about that, and he has always been one to dwell on the insignificant things instead of the more important big picture. I did see in the meeting minutes where they were discussing the option to "Decrease" in the Farmland Zone and "Increase" in the Forest Zone, but when I addressed this with the state on a previous occasion, they made it seem to me that it would be one vote throughout the whole county regardless of whether the Unit was in 2 Zones, which makes no sense at all and I was very adamant about my opinion on that. Why even have 2 Zones if they will be managed the same way? Stupid!
I didn't see any name for the tourism position in Juneau County. Funny because there is a TON of public land and smaller privates lands in Juneau County, both of which bring lots of $$$$ to the area for the 9 day rifle hunt.
You can't get on a committee unless you are approved by the Chairman and DNR liaisons and "endorsed" by a "stakeholder" group. Even the "hunter" rep must be appointed by local sportsman's clubs. I think this is even worse than the MN stakeholder committee's, because anyone can at least apply to get on the teams in MN. It looked like I saw a name that was up for consideration for the "tourism rep" handwritten in the meeting minutes somewhere.
For those interested but unable to attend I believe you can send written comments in. Here is a list of the stakeholders for each county.


Quote from the WI DNR website:

Procedures to speak or submit written comments for items that are on the CDAC
Make sure to submit a comment card for all spoken and written comments prior to the meeting’s Public Comments period.
When speaking or submitting written comments at the meeting, you will need to complete a CDAC comment card with the
your name;
name of the organization that you represent, if applicable; and
a brief summary of your comments if you intend to speak, or any comments you may have if you will only be
submitting written comments.
Please return your comment card to the CDAC chair before the start of the Public Comments period. You may
also email or mail the CDAC liaison any written comments anytime before the meeting.
WI Deer groups had better get organized. They likely have zero idea of how this "public stakeholder process" works. You probably have a better grasp than most do whip
There is nothing "public" about these stakeholder teams stu. They have been hand picked by the DNR and/or the existing team members. I see this going south quickly, that is why I have put both the local stakeholder team and the big boys at the DNR and the Milwaukee J/S outdoor staff on high alert that they will be watched throughout every step of this process.
Social deer management. Less deer is always good for more people than more deer.

Fiscal deer management would be an interesting debate.

But in reality, social deer management is fiscal deer management in the form of lobbies and political ties. Social just sounds better to the public and the powers behind it know that.

Stakeholder means snow job.
From what I can tell perusing forums, you guys in WI have a pretty good sized group of hunters who think the CDAC teams are great :rolleyes: Heck, they're being run by the CC...what could possibly go wrong?
What forums would those be in particular stu? I would like to see them for myself and may have to start setting these boys straight.
Last edited:
Finding a way to make the stakeholder teams and DNR management irrelevant is the "key" as far as I'm concerned. Let 'em do what they do, ignore it, and manage the herd ourselves.

That ^^^ is one thing we do have going for us here and it wouldn't take much in WI to get more on board. WI landowners and hunters have been doing this for a long time now, so if the DNR pushes their luck, they will find a healthy push back over here without too much effort.
Last edited:
After a quick look I see mostly "maintain", followed by "increase" in the forrest areas with just a few "decrease".

I was surprised to see Buffalo county as decrease.
Funny kabic, I was looking at the meeting minutes for the October meetings at lunch today. I checked the Buffalo Co one just for kicks and was pleasantly surprised. Most of those guys(the non-outfitter, long term landowners at least) know how to manage for a quality deer herd all by themselves, he!! they have been doing it for years on their own. I was happy to see the call to reinstate the Earn-A-Buck rules to achieve the herd reductions they are seeking. It was pretty much the ultimate tool for controlling deer numbers. I don't know how it would work with call-in registration looming on the horizon for next year though. It would be really easy to just lie and "call-in" a doe you never even saw on the stand to get your buck tag "punched" to be valid. Unfortunately, all that would now take an act of the legislature, as it has been banned from being used by the DNR, so their hands are tied by state statute. Shawano and Waupaca Co's have not posted their meeting minutes for the most recent round yet. Juneau Co voted to Stabilize the Farmland Zone and Increase the Forest Zone. La Crosse Co. voted to stabilize in the Farmland Zone and the Metro area looks like it will be recommended to Decrease, but there was talk at the meeting of Stabilize in the Metro Zone as well. Not near as many asking for decreases as I had worried over, yet! I will be watching!
Were the 'increase decrease stabilize' recommendations based upon current herd size or current goals?
Were the 'increase decrease stabilize' recommendations based upon current herd size or current goals?
That is a very good question Brooks. I don't think it was really addressed with that specific wording, but I believe it is as stu said in his post. What I am gathering from the whole process is that they are mostly doing away with the specific DPSM "goals" and looking at the current herd size vs. any detriments to the habitat or major issues within the stakeholder groups, such as ag or forestry damage, and then the "goal" is to Increase, Stabilize, or Decrease the herd numbers accordingly. As stu's post stated, they will continue to monitor the herd numbers through the SAK model and all the other data that they collected before this process was started, to present the data to the stakeholder teams every 3 years to reevaluate the goals.
Last edited:
I just finished up reading all the stuff for Juneau County. I'm very pleased to see that the population drop in the Central Forest Zone is finally being recognized and addressed, especially on public lands. Call me crazy but I have faith in this process, at least for my particular area.
Did you fellers take the survey? I just looked it over, seems to be "worded" in a rather leading manner
Took it last week. Aren't they all? It seems like anytime they produce one of these "surveys" they are always worded to push an agenda.
cautious optimism

I guess I'm in the pessimistically skeptical group. I will believe what I see, when I see it happen. I will continue to hope they do the right thing and I will help them in any way I can. I will complement them when they succeed and I will be the first to point it out when they do not. So far it seems they are trying their best to implement this new management program the best they know how, they really are in uncharted waters getting this thing started.
I'm not sure if I'm 100% on board with the way the DNR will be "adjusting" the herd numbers in the non-committee years, I guess we will have to wait and see. The DNR will issue more or less antlerless tags based on the CDAC recommendations and the current herd status in any given year. This basically means they can still do what they want year to year, but the DNR would mostly have to stay within the guidelines of the recommendation. Hopefully this keeps them from issuing unlimited antlerless tags if the recommendation is to stabilize or increase the herd numbers in any given County Unit or Management Zone. If the DNR liaisons(Warden, Wildlife Biologist, and Forester) to each County Advisory Board see that the board's recommendation is absurd given the herd size and any issues it is causing, they will direct the board to change their recommendation for the next 3 year period to a less conservative harvest so they can have the option to issue more tags and stay within the guidelines of the board's recommendation. It kind of seems like it is a good checks and balances system at face value, we shall see.