Bayfield County CDAC - POPULATION DECREASE???

I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the Bayfield County CDAC made the final recommendation to decrease the deer population for the next 3 years after we just spent the last 3 years trying to rebuild the herd from the lowest levels seen in decades. I could see stabilizing the herd, but I don't see how they could reasonably come to the conclusion to decrease. 

Take a look at the data and see for yourself.

Public comments were 3:1 against this recommendation. 

There may be the potential to change it if enough people contact the Natural Resources Board. 

FNB, 

In an earlier post you said you knew that Forest co. has openings coming up next year for their CDAC. You said, no thanks.  To me that's like if you don't vote, you don't get right to gripe. 

Yet, you continue to spew out the same old, tired rhetoric, this time in regards to a county you don't live near. 

There's  no I in 'team' but there are 3 U's in shut the f@ck up.

Tim

Just wondering badger, but what would be an acceptable buck kill in your eyes? The 2016 Bayfield co. buck kill was above the 56 year average (see bar graph), 2017 will only be higher, perhaps pushing into a top 10 or 15 all time buck kill. Is that not acceptable? Or should we be trying to maintain late '90's early 2000's numbers? Are those numbers even sustainable? The three year goals and CDACs came about from the Kroll report, so should he and his report be "shown the door?" You've spoken highly of him before. I'm guessing  the people on the Bayfield county CDAC have chosen balance and sustainability over boom and bust. They voted 4-1 for decrease (tourism, forestry, dmap transportation for, hunt club against) it took me about 15 seconds to find that info so it's not a secret if you'd just take the time to look stuff up before bloviating. They can continue to try and make the most deer possible, ag and forestry interests (biggest employers in the county BTW) be damned, only to have them all wiped out during the next harsh winter and we're back to where we were in 2014. 

I'm not going to spend my time second-guessing what happened in Bayfield County. You see that's the beauty of it. These were people who live or work or hunt in Bayfield County making a decision that affects Bayfield County. It doesn't matter what other people think. This is their deer herd, their effects, their decisions. Sometimes the decision isn't what someone in particular may want to hear. I get that, we've all been there. It doesn't mean that the process where local people get to make local decisions on their deer herd is a bad idea. Everybody had a chance to let their voice be heard. I'm here to tell you, that 20 years ago that wasn't even an opportunity. Bureaucrats in Madison told us how it was going to be.

Yes, it's in the minutes and the paperwork, because I did take a minute to look. 

And yes, I do have a fairly good understanding of how the CDAC's work. You see, I was PO'd barstool biologist at one point myself. But instead of banging on the same conspiracy theories and outlandish rumors, I decided to use my time constructively and get involved. Truth is, the time some people spend on this website hammering on these outlandish theories they could do themselves and their community a great justice by merely looking to help be a solution. I notice your county will have two seats up for reelection at the spring hearings. With a little work and commitment, you could be your CDAC chair.

That probably won't happen though because the last thing I will add, is that some people would never, ever, ever think that the Wisconsin DNR ever did anything correctly. The WDNR could find a cure for cancer and there are people in this state who would let themselves die of a tumor than ever admit that they DNR did anything positive.

There is only one voting seat for Forestry. There may be other seats held by people who work in forestry, however they should be voting their stakeholder groups interest, not their personal beliefs.

Each cdac must have at least three members who have held deer hunting licenses, this includes a recency requirement so someone who hunted once 20 years ago doesn't fulfill the requirement. This is also a minimum. On my cdac, every member meets the deer license requirements. 

The current chair of the committee has input on whether or not someones application is accepted in a stakeholder seat. I can tell you from my own personal experience, seats go empty rather than have somebody unqualified sit in a seat. Qualifications, history, and backgrounds are checked. There is no "stacking".

"Giving 2 votes to forestry interests"

What 2 votes are forestry intrests?

I was told by a local, that the reason they keep adding doe permits is to keep the hunters coming up.  If there are no doe permits the meat hunters will go some place else and spend their money.

To me this is very short sighted!  I know of several camps that have left to head south so they can at least see deer!

BTW, are the those numbers including does shot during the youth hunt, indians, military etc...?

Beer Town is correct, the legislature is the last place you want to go.  Put pressure on the CDAC members, contact them and ask them why they voted that way.  Ask them what is an acceptable number of deer and how they arrived at that number, and what methods they are using to manage to that goal..  Contact and ask the forestry rep. what is an acceptable number of deer, where the over browse is occurring, how large of an area, and that you would like to go and look at it. 

They are all preaching from this position paper, which was sent out earlier this year... fearfull that they weren't being heard.

Some would have you think that contacting your legislator is the solution. I would just like to point out that this council is filled with legislators, and industry professionals, and have a direct line to the ear of the Gov. ("Wisconsin’s forest products industry is the second largest industry in our state, contributing $24 billion annually to Wisconsin’s economy.")

The last thing the current majority in Madison has on their agenda is any sort of serious priority on conservation of, or building on, our natural resources. Wisconsin is open for business, and our states resources are available to the highest bidder. 

What I will say, is that having the ability to make these decisions at the local level was something we all dreamed of a decade+ ago. Regardless of the decision made on an individual basis, I think the last thing we want to do is have decision-making taken back to Madison.... home of great management and conservation ideas such as eliminating back & carcass tags and bringing back group bagging for youth tags. 

Terrific_Tom hit the nail on the head.  Forester Rep. on Eau Claire CDAC spews the same garbage.  Deer hunters need to realize that the Forestry industry position on deer population is that one deer is one deer too many. They look at deer as a weed that is harming/slowing/reducing the potential growth/profit of their crop.

Part of this is due to the County Forester being the CDAC member representing the forestry part of the board. His belief is that the deer numbers should be lower and has convinced the rest of the board that the herd should be decreased even more. He keeps preaching that there is no regeneration of some tree types which is not true. Plenty of regeneration, if Bayfield county would stop clear cutting, spraying and planting pines. All he is worried about is growing pulpwood which is a dying industry due to every thing going paperless. What he doesn't realise is that deer hunting generated huge incomes for the tourist industry. Just look at all the resorts, bars and restaurants that have closed over the last 10 years.

Did you have to give him another opening to spew the same old same old? 

Tim