Bayfield County CDAC - POPULATION DECREASE???

10/21/17 @ 9:41 AM
ORIGINAL POST
Deer30
Deer30
USER since 2/26/10

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. 

Post Your Comment
Displaying 1 to 10 of 27 Posts
10/26/17 @ 12:22 PM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

Another ultra liberal against free speech or an honest vote...........priceless. 

Edited on 10/26/17 1:31 PM
Post Your Comment
10/26/17 @ 11:34 AM
Wicasa
Wicasa
USER since 11/11/15

Tim T,

I think I peed myself after reading your last line.  Absolutely love it! 

Post Your Comment
10/26/17 @ 6:30 AM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

Forest County Tim? Nyet! Wrong place. And you're against free speech comrade Tim? That's so very liberal and broad minded of you. Honest to goodness forums like this get the word out nicely and a well penned occasional letter to the editor does absolute wonders .It's a very powerful tool to use against the people in our WDNR working so very hard against their employers . I wonder if any letters will show up in the Bayfield County papers? That whole deer herd eradication thing they'll have going should do wonders for tourism and the small businesses that heavily depend on it. Abandoned generational camps and recreational property will sell out fast! (To huge timber corporations paying almost nothing in property taxes mostly)  Sitting on a rigged CDAC board? Stacked and predetermined votes......Not for me lol. And did you know Tim the CC chair head doesn't even get a vote unless there is a tie? Giving a single vote to sports groups is exactly what makes for 4-1 votes to eradicate a deer herd while there is a 3-1 poll against that very thing. Corrupt bureaucrats! A CDAC vote is pure Wisconsin wildlife democracy...........Damn Near Russian.DNR. 

 

Edited on 10/26/17 7:37 AM
Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 7:58 PM
Tim_T
Tim_T
USER since 6/17/11

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


Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 11:04 AM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

We'll Fish we do finally agree on something. Some competent logical quotas set by the people we employ for that purpose would be wonderful. I would set quotas AFTER summer when we see how fawns fared.  Setting quotas three years out before seeing a winter ........pure WDNR jackassery. And foresters should never be given this much sway in deer management ,if any .....1 deer seems to be too many for them. 10 deer per square mile is the new quota and that will plummet buck harvest to that 1970 all time low. That's what you are set and ready for in Bayfield County .........utter eradication of what seems to be a healthy deer herd newly recovered. And I'm not complaining about my County ............yet........we seem to have had a run of competent wildlife management here. Competent wildlife management due mainly to large VERY angry crowds at local CDAC meetings after the debacle of 2011-2013 antlerless massacre. So far. But they will never  be allowed to pull what they did throughout the 2000s again here. Letters to the editor publicizing what were essentially near secret votes took care of that. It looks like the folks in Bayfield County have forgotten just what our corrupt WDNR is capable of doing........short memories indeed. 

Edited on 10/26/17 12:17 PM
Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 9:57 AM
Fishsqueezer
Fishsqueezer
USER since 5/19/06
So what's an acceptable buck harvest in your opinion? Last year saw 2885 bucks harvested coming in at just over 2 per square mile. Bayfield will be pushing 3500-4000 in 2017, or 2.5-2.8 per square mile. In fact the lowest harvest in decades (2014) still saw almost 1.4 bucks per mile harvested so yet again you didn't do your homework. In fact, it appears as if the buck harvest in bayfield county has only been at or around 1 per mile maybe 2 times (1970, 1972...took 30 seconds to find that info). Personally I don't believe they should issue three year goals, it isn't really even necessary. Just look at buck harvest numbers along with the various metrics and set antlerless tag numbers accordingly. Counties were a terrible idea, they would have better served everyone by consolidating old units by habitat and having 4-5 of the consolidated units under the purview of a citizen council requiring far fewer volunteers (72 CDACs currently) time and effort. Meet in June on a Saturday for preliminary season setting, allow time for comment then finalize in July with tags for sale in August.

Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 8:55 AM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

Fish with a planned density of 10 deer per sq mile that will mean if things go as planned that will leave approx 5-6 per sq mile overwinter. To even get to those levels will take a Herculean eradication program. Bayfield County better prepare for some massive amounts of  doe tags being available. And the Tourism director should always vote for higher deer numbers.......if she/he is looking out for her constituents. These low deer densities will make it harder on a lot of small business and the people they employ in that County. At 10 deer per square mile levels or under what to you think the buck harvest will be going into the future for Bayfield County? At a smidge over 1 buck per square mile now? With planned deer densities that low it will plummet to 1 buck to 2 square miles or less.......30-40 forties to harvest a single buck. Only environmentalist nazis could justify deer densities that low using overbrowse as a made up reason why.  I've got advice for Bayfield County hunters........go somewhere else........anywhere else........preferably to a state that thinks vibrant big game populations are good . And get yourself a NEW tourism director while you're at it.  Overblown overbrowse indeed! 

Edited on 10/25/17 9:18 AM
Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 8:23 AM
Fishsqueezer
Fishsqueezer
USER since 5/19/06

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. 

Post Your Comment
10/25/17 @ 6:44 AM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

And to put the last nail in the coffin on CDAC credibility in any way shape or form.............which corrupt  WDNR genius decided to set three year goals before hunting season and before seeing what kind of winter we have? These so called wildlife biologists are smart aren't they? Anyone involved in setting this time frame should be shown the door. Another cute trick from the extreme environmentalists working AGAINST us in our wonderful WDNR. We shouldn't be arguing with them .......we should be simply firing them .I wonder how much recreational property will go up for sale in Bayfield County after this insane vote? I wonder if timber interests will be interested in buying abandoned recreational property at a massive discount? Getting that land out of tax paying hunters hands and into the corporate timber welfare tax rates should be very helpful to Bayfield County bottom line. It should really help the businesses and residents too.......lose tax money and recreational dollars and that timber would get harvested either way! And that might be a very good reason they are going to eradicate the deer herd there to under 10 deer per square mile. Only in Wisconsin,most states cherish big game populations . Wisconsin politicians and WDNR can't cook up lame tricks fast enough to eradicate deer in favor of environmentalist nazis and politicians big corporate donors. Corrupt and shameful wildlife management...........as always its only possible in Wisconsin. 

Edited on 10/26/17 7:43 AM
Post Your Comment
10/24/17 @ 6:24 PM
Farnorthbadger
Farnorthbadger
USER since 12/7/13

Honestly Beer with how the CDACs are stacked and slanted to favor an almost always lower deer population I didn't even waste my time attending this go round. Apparently the Bayfield County CDAC vote pretty much proves even taking the online survey is a complete waste of time( speaking of slanted have you taken that leading predetermined turd of a survey  yet?) 3-1 the public was against lowering the Bayfield County deer herd and that was flat out ignored. I'm glad I skipped that too. And you folks want people to waste more time joining the CDACs ? No it's running exactly how it was intended by our wonderful politicians and WDNR .  Pure Wisconsin Wildlife Democracy indeed with nothing  but local control . Hysterical. 

Post Your Comment
Displaying 1 to 10 of 27 Posts