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

[Tree Spud]

^^^that would involve a complete change in management philosophy Spud. While I don't disagree with the idea...I do find it to be highly unlikely to occur. Good luck convincing 650K hunters to go the IA or IL management philosophy. Those states have a fraction (like 1/5ish) of the hunters that WI has.

I agree ... and have advocated for fewer hunters that are actually willing to harvest a deer. Employ EAB and you start to manage the hunter behavior while increasing harvest.

The DNR needs to accept that hunter numbers will either stabilize, or continue to decline as the culture is changing especially with kids. Wishing they won't decline is not a plan.

I always figure that when the nail starts to bend, time to stop pounding.

 

[wiscwhip]

You would have to be willing to cut the buck harvest down to 1 buck per hunter per season regardless of weapon choice. You want to lose sales, do that. If I buy an archery tag with the prospect of not harvesting a buck with a gun if I shoot one with a bow, you won't be selling me a tag for the gun season, as I would wait until the last day to buy one = automatic $24 loss to the state. You think I'm the only one that would do that your crazy. I would bet a full 1/2 to 2/3rds of the guys who hunt with multiple weapons would do the same thing.

 

[wiscwhip]

Yes, but the average number of MN deer hunters that buy both licenses is far less than the number that buys both in WI, so you would stand to lose far more money.

 

[bueller]

I agree ... and have advocated for fewer hunters that are actually willing to harvest a deer. Employ EAB and you start to manage the hunter behavior while increasing harvest.

The DNR needs to accept that hunter numbers will either stabilize, or continue to decline as the culture is changing especially with kids. Wishing they won't decline is not a plan.

I always figure that when the nail starts to bend, time to stop pounding.

Fat chance at EAB when 99% of the state is asking for their herd to be maintained or increased. Areas of high DPSM are no longer the norm. It only exists in a select few areas nowadays.

 

[wiscwhip]

Spot on bueller, there are about 5 counties in the whole state where EAB would be a valid management tool at this time. Anywhere else would have people pissed, just like the first time EAB was (over)used.

 

[shawnv]

I don't think we should charge Iowa type fees but I would welcome a NR hike to make up for lost revenue. I would bet my farm we'll never see a 1 buck per hunter limit.

 

[Tree Spud]

Fat chance at EAB when 99% of the state is asking for their herd to be maintained or increased. Areas of high DPSM are no longer the norm. It only exists in a select few areas nowadays.

That is exactly why the DNR does not take the average WIS hunter seriously. There is a "group think" mindset that comes out of many hunters where too many think there are no deer and shooting a doe in farmland units is taboo.

Many hunters around me complained there are no deer, yet farmers complain of too many. I sat out 2 nights during muzzleloader. In the 20 acre cut corn field I sat over, I counted 40-45 deer in the field at one time in front of me both nights. The same guys around me who keep complaining about too few deer, won't shot a doe unless they are forced to, and think they are going to be on a D&DH cover with their 30 point buck.

Never said that EAB should be applied universally, it is a good tool for areas where doe population control needs to be addressed.

I sense the DNR will see the CDAC population recommendation as agenda driven and not enough focus on population control or doe mgmt., especially when the farmers & insurance companies will most likely advocate a different perspective.

 

[wiscwhip]

The farmers and insurance companies are already represented on all the CDAC Committees, their advocacy has already been heard. Their concerns have been weighed, their concerns have been measured, and through the data provided by the state in the County CDAC Metrics, their numbers have been left wanting.;) Of course the recommendations are agenda driven, who pays the DNR's bills, the hunters who's agenda has been ignored for many years, or the farmers and insurance companies who have driven the populations with their agendas long enough. Screw the farmers and the insurance companies, the farmers get compensated for losses(in WI at least) and the insurance companies do nothing but raise rates, even when the collision data says that deer crash payouts are lower. The hunters take it in the shorts every time, no matter what and I for one am glad to see them fighting back. Again I think many areas have recommendations that are not realistic, and they will not get the "goal" that they recommended in the end, but good for them for trying.

 

[Tree Spud]

The farmers and insurance companies are already represented on all the CDAC Committees, their advocacy has already been heard. Their concerns have been weighed, their concerns have been measured, and through the data provided by the state in the County CDAC Metrics, their numbers have been left wanting.;) Of course the recommendations are agenda driven, who pays the DNR's bills, the hunters who's agenda has been ignored for many years, or the farmers and insurance companies who have driven the populations with their agendas long enough. Screw the farmers and the insurance companies, the farmers get compensated for losses(in WI at least) and the insurance companies do nothing but raise rates, even when the collision data says that deer crash payouts are lower. The hunters take it in the shorts every time, no matter what and I for one am glad to see them fighting back. Again I think many areas have recommendations that are not realistic, and they will not get the "goal" that they recommended in the end, but good for them for trying.

Farmers & Insurance Companies needs have been more than "weighed" ... their needs are driven by lots of $$$ at many level that are forcing the legislature to respond to their needs.

Hunters spend $$ too, however, have no influence as they cannot control their $$$ ... on the other hand, special interest, lobbyists, and lets face it, Agriculture & Insurance are now a part of the Govt infra-structure control.

Whip you are very intelligent, well read about the issues, and passionate ... getting hunters worked up when they have no ability to influence or control, just makes folks angry at what they cannot change. I have watched and been involved in this process for 20 years ... lets face it, the CDAC, NRB, etc. are all just layers of bureaucracy that separate the DNR from the hunter. Elect someone to a position of power, and they get drunk in the feeling of power.

I just think you are arguing over crumbs, when the loaf of bread has already been divided ... The only way hunters will impact the DNR, is by controlling the legislature or the revenue stream to the DNR.

.

 

[wiscwhip]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

...getting hunters worked up when they have no ability to influence or control, just makes folks angry at what they cannot change. I have watched and been involved in this process for 20 years ... lets face it, the CDAC, NRB, etc. are all just layers of bureaucracy that separate the DNR from the hunter.

I just think you are arguing over crumbs, when the loaf of bread has already been divided ... The only way hunters will impact the DNR, is by controlling the legislature or the revenue stream to the DNR.

.

I've been involved in the "fight" for about 5 minutes myself Spud. I've been involved in deer management issues since high school so this is hardly my first rodeo. I would rather rally and stand beside the masses and ask for reasonable changes than to sit back with my elitist ideas of turning WI into a trophy hunting state. This sounds like the crap that was spewed daily on the other forum.

 

[dipper]

I participate in the deer abatement program as a farmer. Not everyone gets $ from the program. I elect to not receive $, so my land isn't open to public hunting. That program is very efficient at lower deer numbers. You could darn near eliminate deer all together from your property, which is common under the program. After 3 years I'm slowly lowering my neighborhood population, even in an area where no does are being shot. If everyone shot does like mad in a given area it would be very easy to see really low deer numbers, even in ag areas with great habitat.
It's just impossible to nail down a sweet spot for a county population, because it fluctuates from one neighborhood to the next. It's all based on what your neighbors are shooting or not shooting. There are plenty of hunters out there to get the job done. It's all about the individual hunters choice to shoot. Or not shoot.

 

[shawnv]

You can ompose a 1 buck limit pn your place. The dnr just got a lesson in evon 101 law pf diminishing returns. They choked on &12/$20 doe tags and durpressed the harvest where it was badly needed. They lost &960k in nr lost license sales this year. Raising nr fees would be insane.

I guess I wasn't suggesting I want that just that it's not going to be law in this state. My home farm is not large and the deer population has been low so that's pretty much how it has worked out.

 

[shawnv]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I've been involved in the "fight" for about 5 minutes myself Spud. I've been involved in deer management issues since high school so this is hardly my first rodeo. I would rather rally and stand beside the masses and ask for reasonable changes than to sit back with my elitist ideas of turning WI into a trophy hunting state. This sounds like the crap that was spewed daily on the other forum.

With all the politics involved I think the best we can hope for is to have a system in place that keeps the population from getting too high or too low like it has recently. Anything beyond that is up to the hunter and landowner to control.

 

[Tree Spud]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I've been involved in the "fight" for about 5 minutes myself Spud. I've been involved in deer management issues since high school so this is hardly my first rodeo. I would rather rally and stand beside the masses and ask for reasonable changes than to sit back with my elitist ideas of turning WI into a trophy hunting state. This sounds like the crap that was spewed daily on the other forum.

Whip ... good for you .

If wanting a better herd ratio (buck:doe), better tools to educate/manage the average hunter on doe and herd reduction where necessary, and allowing more bucks to reach maturity (4.5-6.5 year old) is "elitist", then that's me.

I do want more hunters to see more deer, I just get tired of the whining from many that somehow the DNR or others are responsible for their success or lack thereof.

Just be careful about painting some of us as elitist's ... you won't get anywhere with the uninspired, but the willing could be a significant ally ... ;)

 

[ELH]

With all the politics involved I think the best we can hope for is to have a system in place that keeps the population from getting too high or too low like it has recently. Anything beyond that is up to the hunter and landowner to control.

According to this article, deer numbers in the North are where they should be. The Author says “My big message for policymakers is we should follow some other states like Pennsylvania in basing our deer management on the habitat conditions that the deer are existing in.” http://www.wpr.org/study-finds-deer-have-caused-extreme-changes-wisconsin-ecosystem

 

[shawnv]

The article is full of flawed logic. The 60's was not a good baseline period.

 

[ELH]

How much money do plants bring to northern WI? I'm sure those restored plant communities will keep the local establishments open and thriving

I agree with both of you.......just pointing out what some are saying.

 

[wiscwhip]

How much money do plants bring to northern WI? I'm sure those restored plant communities will keep the local establishments open and thriving

I'm pretty sure about 8 people would travel there in the spring to take photos of the thousands of new trilliums that will replace the deer herd.:rolleyes:

 

[bat man]

I read somewhere that WI had concluded that 25 dpsm pre fawn per sq mile of habitat was the 'social' threshold or where issues started to arise with too many deer. It now appears that in all likelihood, your DNR will be managing for much higher numbers in many areas.

MN is using that 25 per square mile of habitat in SE MN whether they admit it or not. The math works out.

Do you think WI is going to enjoy more deer because the WI DNR realizes the '25' number is an impossibility because the hunters won't take the herd that low? Is your DNR going to manage for more deer because they have no other choice?

 

[dipper]

The dnr want less deer. The governor told the agency that isn't acceptable. It's as simple as that.
Hey batman he could be your president, he's gonna run. maybe that's what's needed to help your herd and the shrinking herds around the country :)