bueller
Moderator
They will have to draw a line somewhere to prevent each county from voting to subdivide into multiple DMUs creating confusion and a logistics nightmare.
They will have to draw a line somewhere to prevent each county from voting to subdivide into multiple DMUs creating confusion and a logistics nightmare.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
That won't happen, most units are what they are, the Marathon Co. situation has been on the radar from day 1, many had a suspicion that something like this would be needed there. Only 2 other areas were in question, the extreme Northern 1/4 of Chippewa Co and SE/EC area of Barron Co.
B
BJE80
Guest
It does still exist. On my way up to the cabin you can see it. SE Marathon County has deer numbers of Waupaca and Shawano. My cabin is in extreme NE Marathon county and it is the same habitat as Langlade and Lincoln.
bueller
Moderator
quote from the Juneau County April meeting minutes:
"Despite the public requesting lower permit numbers especially in the Forest Unit, the Council lacked a quorum and could not act on it. The permits on public land may be too high, but I am ready for season to play out. "
so I guess the publics comments, including mine, regarding the forest unit permit numbers being high were heard, yet essentially ignored o_O
Edit: Disregard my above comment which I made before fully comprehending what I had read. It appears that the lack of council members in attendance at the April meeting is what prevented the public opinion from having a voice for change.
"Despite the public requesting lower permit numbers especially in the Forest Unit, the Council lacked a quorum and could not act on it. The permits on public land may be too high, but I am ready for season to play out. "
so I guess the publics comments, including mine, regarding the forest unit permit numbers being high were heard, yet essentially ignored o_O
Edit: Disregard my above comment which I made before fully comprehending what I had read. It appears that the lack of council members in attendance at the April meeting is what prevented the public opinion from having a voice for change.
Last edited:
kabic
5 year old buck +
Damn Robert and his Rules.:p
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
That's just f-ing great! Now you p!ss#d me off bueller! Well not you personally, lol! I have not been diligent in keeping up on the meeting minutes and such, given it is turkey season and all and that is my bad.:mad: Not enough of these "highly dedicated" guys:rolleyes: on the committee show up for the meeting, so we get no say? WTF? Time to contact the NRB members again, this BS could go on every year if the members that wanted an increase in tag numbers to lower the herd(forestry rep, farm rep, transportation rep, etc.) just decided not to show up to the meeting knowing that they would get an approval on lowering the tag numbers to achieve an increase in deer numbers by the other hunter friendly reps. Total BS, they should be kicked off the committee! Certain meetings should be required for attendance or you are automatically booted from the committee, such as the one that you vote on the final quota numbers, especially if the absence is unexcused like 3 of the members.:mad: I am heading back to Mauston tomorrow afternoon, and I will be getting a hold of Bigalke and Lowe while I am down there, to try and find out what the h#!! is going on. I know them both personally, even though I do not really care for either of them, as they are both arrogant dinks. This seems very similar to when the Democrats ran off to IL to keep the vote that took collective bargaining away from the teachers from taking place. Not that I totally agreed with the removal of the teachers right to bargain, it was just sketchy dealings that's all. This reeks of that same stench!:mad:
bueller
Moderator
Whip, what is really disappointing is two of the unexcused likely would've supported the publics comments. Garn- hunt/conservation club representative and Quale (local fishing and hunting guide)- tourism representative. Check out the public input results. Really speaks volumes for the stark contrast between forest and farmland zones. Farmland zoners reported seeing an average of 7.3 deer opening day of 2014 while forest zoners reported 1.19.
bueller
Moderator
Its sad that in today's age people just don't want to get involved in efforts that cost them their time without pay. Im the president of our union here at work and at times we struggle to get enough attendees at our meetings for a quorom. But I sure as hell let everyone know my displeasure of it as I will be doing with the Juneau county committee.
bueller
Moderator
If I didn't live 200 miles away and work full time I would try to get on the committee or at least attend all the meetings.
Whip, I'm going to hold off sending my nastygrams until next week. Please let me know if you speak with either of them so I can have any relevant facts before firing away.
Whip, I'm going to hold off sending my nastygrams until next week. Please let me know if you speak with either of them so I can have any relevant facts before firing away.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Touché, Mr, Smith! Unfortunately, not just "anybody" can be on these committees, even though I hunt there and would gladly drive the 70 miles from LaCrosse to attend the meetings, I cannot be on the CDAC for Juneau Co. because I am not a landowner in the county. Even then, you must have ties to and be "chosen" to represent one of the stakeholder groups.
bueller
Moderator
Agreed they either thought a quorom would be present without them or they just didn't care because they felt their preliminary quotas were good as gold and decided to ride with them regardless of the public input in the month between meetings.
bueller
Moderator
I honestly didn't expect any changes to the preliminary numbers and felt that I'd be one of very few to even voice my concern of the recommended quotas being a bit high, thankfully not terribly high. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that there were more concerned persons than I had envisioned and that the message appears to have made its way to the committee and that it appears they may have been interested in acting on our concerns. It sure feels like we missed the boat due to the lack of attendance at the meeting by the chosen representatives, especially since this was the first go around for this new system. It would have been a huge positive message to the people that their voice was heard, was considered, and was acted upon. Could've been a great way to start this process in Juneau County.
I wonder how other counties fared through this initial process.
I wonder how other counties fared through this initial process.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Oh no issue stu, I even liked your post and knew exactly what you were getting at, and I wouldn't expect bueller to attend those meetings, that would be ridiculous. I was simply stating that there are certain criteria to be met before getting on a committee. I think it is more likely that the ones on the team that wanted the higher permit/kill numbers knew there would be no quorum if they too stayed away, so no adjustments could be made to the recommendations to lower those numbers. I personally think that something was up with that whole situation. I think it was quite possible that the stakeholders that wanted increased permit numbers to lower the herd were happy with the preliminary numbers, knowing they likely wouldn't get them much higher anyway, and they somehow knew that by not showing up, a vote could not be made to adjust those numbers based on the public input and comments, which likely would have happened. I printed the list of phone numbers of all the committee members before I left work today, so I will do my damnedest to get in touch with them while I am in Mauston this weekend. I will keep you in the loop bueller.
bueller
Moderator
I don't buy the conspiracy theory in this case, although it could happen. I think some of the committee members didn't take this FULL process seriously. They made their recommendations and felt like their job was done. They got lazy and didn't complete their obligation by attending this final meeting. I can't say for sure but I'd wager a large dollar that one of the unexcused no shows, Jesse Quale, would have supported a lower quota in the forest area. I don't personally know him but I say this from what I've seen out of him in the past. He is pretty in tune with the wildlife/aquatic happenings in the northern part of the county.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
You propose a highly likely scenario in this case bueller, but if they really thought as a group that their numbers were where they wanted them all along, by not showing up it completely eliminates the chance that those numbers be debated and lowered due to a large group if public citizens showing up at that last meeting voicing their displeasure with the preliminary numbers. I don't know this Quale either, but he will be getting a phone call. I don't expect to get a hold of him since he is a fishing guide and will likely be with clients this coming weekend. I will surely try, and if I do reach him, he will be questioned as to those points, especially what you said about getting lazy and not taking the process seriously. I, of all people, realize that extenuating circumstances do arise, sometimes at the least opportune times, but it just seems so convenient for them that so many people were gone from the most important meeting of the whole process.
bueller
Moderator
Yep, the whole process is short circuited if they essentially don't have a meeting after announcing their preliminary recommendations.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
All CDAC Committee quota recommendations approved as presented with no changes. I missed about 10 minutes of the question and answer session as I was on a phone call, but I do not believe there was any mention whatsoever of the fact that some of the counties failed to have a quorum for their final quota recommendation vote. I can't go back and watch the parts I missed until the live broadcast is over and they post the simulcast. Lots of congratulations and back patting going on about what a success the whole thing was, but not any mention of the failures in that area. The guy from the WI Wildlife Foundation who spoke stated that public participation was at a 3 year low for input on deer related issues, I don't know where they got their info from, but I would have thought the exact opposite with all the surveys and online stuff that was available. We have never had the amount of opportunities to give input as we have had over the last 12-18 months? Maybe everyone thought the CDAC Committees had it covered? I will be sending an email to all the board members later this week addressing the shortcomings of the Committees and their apparent lack of commitment to the public input on the preliminary recommendations, even though it is too late for this go around. This must be brought to their attention for future quota setting purposes. If they are just going to go with the preliminary number in the end, why even have the public comment on those preliminary quota numbers? In the Juneau Co Forest Zone, there was overwhelming feedback saying the preliminary tag quota was too high. From the ones I read, which was all of them, I saw only 5 or 6 of 60 plus replies that thought the numbers were good or should be raised, the other 90%+ of the respondents stated it was excessive, and to what end?