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

[shawnv]

We could be jumping the gun here, they might have just wanted to check to see to which extremes we would allow the CDAC's to make recommendations. As we know, give someone an inch and they will take a mile.

 

[wiscwhip]

Yes they did propose killing bucks during the holiday hunt which is a buck hunt. This survey insults my mind. My reaction is F Dmap and the Dnr. UWSP must be handing out wildlife degrees at the bar. Friggin joke from a professional wildlife department?

If it is a joke it is a damn bad one! My point is that it wasn't like they want to make any of the proposed hunts "buck only" or anything like that, totally opposite. They know that WI hunters average around 1.2 antlerless killed per buck, and that is what they are trying to achieve by allowing the late season buck harvest, to bait hunters into the woods to get those 1.2 does per buck. The DNR wants them all killed one way or the other and they know that if they offer the Fudd's a chance to shoot a buck on the day after Christmas, there is a high probability he would harvest a doe if that is the only deer he saw. Same thing with the APR's, offer up the chance to shoot da' turdy pointer and then the does will fall when no legal bucks are sighted.

 

[wiscwhip]

We could be jumping the gun here, they might have just wanted to check to see to which extremes we would allow the CDAC's to make recommendations. As we know, give someone an inch and they will take a mile.

I wish I could see your point shawn, but I fear it is the exact opposite, more like what Tom was saying. After seeing all the areas that they wanted to see voted as "decrease" get proposed as "maintain" or "increase", I think these are the harvest guidelines that they want to be on the table so they can counteract all the demands to "increase".

 

[shawnv]

Based on my last five gun opener's there is no way they can convince me that more deer need to be shot in my area of WI.

2014: 7 fawns, 2 doe
2013: 1 doe, 2 fawns
2012: 1 3yr old 8 pt (Shot), 0 does
2011: 3 yearling bucks, 2 does
2010: 2 does, 1 5 yr old 12pt (no clear shot)

The previous 5 years (Happier days)

2009: 14 does and fawns, 2 yearling bucks, 1 3yr old 10pt (shot)
2008: 1 3 yr old 10pt (shot), 5 does with 1 doe shot (all within the first 1/2 hour and was done)
2007: 18 does and fawns, 3 yearling bucks, 1 2 yr old, 1 3yr old 10 pt (shot)
2006: 10 does, 2 yearling bucks, 1 4yr old 10 pt (shot)
2005: 1 3r old, 1 4 yr old (missed), 1 yearling, 10 does.

 

[shawnv]

I wish I could see your point shawn, but I fear it is the exact opposite, more like what Tom was saying. After seeing all the areas that they wanted to see voted as "decrease" get proposed as "maintain" or "increase", I think these are the harvest guidelines that they want to be on the table so they can counteract all the demands to "increase".

I think my point is clear, I'm just not sure it's that way either and a big part of me says the worst is true.

 

[wiscwhip]

I have seen a total of 1 deer on opening weekend the last 4 years combined. And that was this last season on Sunday afternoon.

 

[kabic]

if we are going to allow counties to vote on decrease\maintain\increase than we have to allow the doe tags\seasons to be county specific.

Example is the Central Farmland Zone, Buffalo & Manitowoc is Decrease, Trempealeau, Winnebago, Fond du Lac, Wood & Sheboygan is increase the rest is maintain.

So to meet all the counties wishes, the increase counties would have limited doe tags & no late seasons, the maintain counties need normal season and tag limits, while the decrease counties would need the extra doe seasons.

While confusing to the hunter, I think it would be necessary to meet the goals.

 

[wiscwhip]

if we are going to allow counties to vote on decrease\maintain\increase than we have to allow the doe tags\seasons to be county specific.

Example is the Central Farmland Zone, Buffalo & Manitowoc is Decrease, Trempealeau, Winnebago, Fond du Lac, Wood & Sheboygan is increase the rest is maintain.

So to meet all the counties wishes, the increase counties would have limited doe tags & no late seasons, the maintain counties need normal season and tag limits, while the decrease counties would need the extra doe seasons.

While confusing to the hunter, I think it would be necessary to meet the goals.

I would tend to agree on the tag specific part kabic, but that's not the way DNR really wants it, at least where these "extra" seasons are concerned. If you had read the whole 53 page document(I did, a link was provided from the page in the survey link), the DNR wants these seasons to be Zone wide based on a 2/3rds vote of all the counties involved within that Zone, be it Central Farmland, Southern Farmland, etc. They would do this to increase the overall kill Zone wide o_O...ummm...err....o_OI mean to minimize confusion to the hunters,;) because we are all so stupid we can't figure out what the rules are in our own counties and we can't have that,;) see how that works. This whole survey and these proposal questions are a sham, the DNR wants CDAC input:rolleyes:(like another hole in the head), but wants so many loopholes in the "emergency season rules" that they can continue to manage as they see fit, regardless of the CDAC recommendations, and in the end they can say it is what the "public" wanted. Sounds a bit like the POTUS "ruling" through executive order to me. And that pi$$e$ me off!:mad: I fear they have taken a page from our neighbors to the west, and are trying to "improve" on the smoke and mirrors used in MN to make it way more palatable to the more discerning and considerably more raucous group that make up the hunters of WI. We will have to see exactly what the NRB will decide to let them "get away with" when they vote on Feb 25th. All we can do is voice our opinions to the contrary to the members of the Natural Resources Board and hope they see it our way and shoot down this obviously malicious, underhanded attempt to rule over the hunters with an iron hand like they always have.

So to meet the DNR's wishes, they put out a cleverly worded and highly subjective "survey" to see if the Fudd's agree that hunting "giant" bucks(we know most of them will shoot a doe if the chance presents itself) in late December is a good idea(of course they all say yes), and the 2/3rds thing would make it Zone wide(which the Fudd's want because it gives them an opportunity to hunt bucks statewide or in an adjoining county at the least), this would prevent them from having to impose some of the more extreme rules like a doe only gun season or a 2 day only buck hunt, which would cost them license revenue and pi$$ everyone off. Again, this would absolve them from blame, because it is what the public "wants". Me see's some sketchy $hit going down right now, and me no likey.:mad:

 

[dipper]

Ok I'm a Fudd here-Im all for a 2 day buck gun hunt and not a full nine day. I also like the talk about shutting down a buck hunt up north as well.
My hunch is they want to shoot every buck there is. They aren't going to limit buck hunting to 2 days, they are going to expand the current buck hunting opportunities.

 

[Terrific_tom]

From what I was told at the CDAC meeting I attended that there is legislation already in place that if the state is paying for crop damage from deer in a county, that the DNR can use whatever means or seasons they deem necessary to bring the numbers back under control. The only thing they can not use is Earn-a-buck as that was taken off the table by legislative action. She did name several counties that this could take place in. I won't name the counties but let's just say that there are going to be a few members on this forum that are not going to be happy if it happens. She also said this would be a last resort option.

 

[wiscwhip]

Ok I'm a Fudd here-Im all for a 2 day buck gun hunt and not a full nine day. I also like the talk about shutting down a buck hunt up north as well.
My hunch is they want to shoot every buck there is. They aren't going to limit buck hunting to 2 days, they are going to expand the current buck hunting opportunities.

Ok dipper Fudd, I will play along. No, the DNR is not going to expand it, you the hunter, by virtue of your survey results are the ones who "expanded it". It is like Tom said in Post #151, this talk of allowing no or minimal buck hunting opportunities is just something they can hold over the hunters heads "if" the hunters choose not to comply with the rules that they really want to be in place. And with a survey like this, just those 2 "scary" lines alone will make most guys agree that a 2/3rds vote in each Zone to expand buck hunting Zone wide is far better than the other options, because you are correct dipper, the DNR does want to increase the buck kill, but moreover to increase the OVERALL KILL in all areas. And just like the recent past, they want to make it look like it is something the public chose to do, and they can wash their hands of the decision. C'mon guys don't get Fudd'ed by the DNR, get in touch with the NRB members and let them know you see right through this DNR smokescreen. Maybe they are on the DNR's side and it won't do a damn bit of good(at least as likely as it is unlikely, probably more so), but then you can say that you did your part when the neighbors start bitching even worse in a year or 2.

 

[wiscwhip]

From what I was told at the CDAC meeting I attended that there is legislation already in place that if the state is paying for crop damage from deer in a county, that the DNR can use whatever means or seasons they deem necessary to bring the numbers back under control. The only thing they can not use is Earn-a-buck as that was taken off the table by legislative action. She did name several counties that this could take place in. I won't name the counties but let's just say that there are going to be a few members on this forum that are not going to be happy if it happens. She also said this would be a last resort option.

I'm not sure if it is permanently in place yet Tom, but that verbiage is in the 53 page document that will be voted on by the NRB on Feb 25th. They also leave the amount of "acceptable crop damage" to instigate the emergency rules a bit open ended as well. The word for the day is L-O-O-P-H-O-L-E-S. Can you say loopholes children?

 

[Terrific_tom]

I'm not sure if it is permanently in place yet Tom, but that verbiage is in the 53 page document that will be voted on by the NRB on Feb 25th.

The legislation that she talked about was not with deer hunting, I should have wrote the number of the law down but I believe it was attached to a farm bill I think.

 

[bat man]

Read the quote from our MN DNR commissioner when asked why the herd numbers are down. The DNR announced a 9% herd reduction here and our harvest is has gone down down down.

Q  Regarding deer, some hunters want the DNR’s whitetail management program reviewed by the Legislature, as Wisconsin’s was, which led to big changes in that state.

A  (commissioner reply) I haven’t heard from any legislators who want to do that. Deer numbers are down in Minnesota because five years ago citizen goal-management teams decided to reduce the herd. And the past two winters have been hard on deer.

 

[wiscwhip]

This verbiage is from the 53 page document that contains the permanent rule package derived from the DTR Audit report.

 

[wiscwhip]

Here is the actual Section 23 snip:

 

[wiscwhip]

Here is the "updated" verbiage on the open ended crop damage item:


Notice how they do not define the phrase "above the tolerable limit". Loophole!:rolleyes:

 

[dipper]

This is proposed legislation, not law yet. Why don't you like it? More doe opportunities and less bucks killed. Aprs
Are producing huge bucks in mn, and there isn't a lot of deer there. This is qdm without the a!
This is gonna bring the Giants back to Wisco! I'm fudding away. I'm calling my assemblyman and senator. I'd walker signs this, walker for president!

 

[wiscwhip]

^^^Agreed^^^ and nothing more....even thought the state thinks this is the route they should go down.

 

[wiscwhip]

Q  Regarding deer, some hunters want the DNR’s whitetail management program reviewed by the Legislature, as Wisconsin’s was, which led to big changes in that state.

You might want to hold the phone on that one Brooks, it is starting to look like the WI DNR has stolen the playbook from the MN DNR. As far as those "big changes" go, we will not find out until Feb 25th if those changes will matter or not. The changes we COULD have seem ok, but with a loophole to circumvent every one of them and allow the DNR to override them and manage as they see fit, all those changes may be meaningless in the end.