State of hunting and fishing

I've been thinking about this for a while just not sure how i wanted to word it so this may not come out right but when it comes to the state of hunting and fishing in Wisconsin, is Wisconsin going to be okay or are we in trouble. Now I'm talking all sorts of hunting from deer to bear to waterfowl to upland game. As a sportman myself I feel that right now there is a massive difference in opinions between all of us as how things are at the this point in time. Now don't get me wrong there is always differences in opinions and there always will be but I feel like this is a critical period in time. Now for the second part of this whole question is this...are populations of game and fish slowly decreasing or is there a chance that animals are slowly adjusting and getting smarter. I fish bass tournaments and I feel as if fish are getting smarter because they are so pressured. Is the same happening in hunting? Sorry if this sounds crazy but I feel like things are changing and I wanted to see if anybody else thinks so.

1st off, this is the draft policies and procedures for the operation and organization of the CDAC's. They are available for review here: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/input/documents/guidance/CDACGovernance.pdf They are available for public review and comment until Feb 9, and you can submit comments through here: [email protected] I've had a chance to read it, and I will start the ball rolling with some of my first blush observations/comments. 1st, the mere fact that the DNR is providing a public review and comment period speaks volumes to their commitment of making this process as open as possible and allowing the public an opportunity to participate. These CDAC's are not intended to be just another DNR whitewash. I can tell you from my involvement, things have changed and are continuing to get better. Just 10 years ago, I think the entire state would have never believed that this type of opportunity for real participation and involvement would occur. That said, while things are getting better, we are not there yet. lol So, my first reactions to this: This identifies the chair as a voting position, but again only to make or break a tie. I will be voicing my support to make it a full voting position, but to tell you the truth, there is quite a bit of value to the proposed voting guideline. To make a tie causes the motion to fail and requires a new motion, and to break a tie... well that's the vote to win. I would like to see the requirement of 3 members licensed in 7 of the last 10 years to be raised to 4. This especially if the chair is given full voting privilidges. This draft provides a provision in which youth antlerless tags MAY not be valid in units where no antlerless harvest has been established (buck only zones). Every 3rd year (next year to start), when the review and herd population objectives are determined, changes to management zone/deer unit boundary changes could also occur. The NRB... not the DNR, has final decision making authority on population objectives, antler less quota/permit levels, season options, and zone/boundary changes. Interesting that membership by Ag or Forestry is only REQUIRED if there is 30% or more of either in the county. I'd guess that some of the northern counties don't have 30% Ag areas, and some of the southern don't have 30% forested. It's up to the CDAC to announce/promote meetings. The department provides press release templates and flyers, but any costs incurred must be pre-approved (not gonna happen, lol) Read it, and submit your comments. This is your chance to make the CDAC's what you want. They are listening, so tell them. Also, I'd guess that each county has scheduled the two spring meetings to review herd metrics and finalize this years antlerless quotas. Go, get involved, let your voice be heard. Just ask Farnorthbadger... you can go and change their minds.

I will expand on it later, Im away from my computer and its a PITA to type this on my phone. Here is the link to the CDAC page for the DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/cdac.html Right there on the top is a draft copy of the code of governance. Its the draft copy of the bylaws and rules for the CDAC's. You can read them and submit your comments/suggestions on how the CDAC's are set up and run. I will be submitting my support to change to allow the chair to vote. Let them know how you feel it should be. Just more backroom stuff by the DNR to stack the CDAC's so they can continue their deer slaughter agenda.

I wish you luck in changing the culture of the WI DNR and political bodies in WI.

I understand your point Fnb. What I'm saying is that while 400 acres is required mathematically to have a buck on your land, it doesn't work that way. I own 80+ acres in an area where buck harvest is under 2 per square mile (1.75 last year). Deer density psm is managed for 10 in spring (pre-fawn). Hunter density psm is about equal (9.5 psm last year). This year I had harvest opportunities on at least 4 different bucks. Why? Because I've intensively changed the habitat on my place. I've got the "best" chunk of acreage within the larger neighborhood. You can stack the odds in your favor...even when the DNR is trying to stack them against you. You can only change that which is within your ability to change.

You don't need 400 acres, you only need the "right" piece of that 400 acres

LOL, if you know people trying to give land away, tell them to give me a call.

Umm yeah FNB, I think we get that point regarding the land.

ah yes, over the last few years I heard so and so for sportsman to the point I thought I'd puke and did. Now we can live with it. We have a giant problem.

John, that is 100% correct. The anti's know how to work the system and have been doing so for quite some time. Sportsmen need to do the same. Natural resource management should not be influenced by politics but unfortunately it is. You can call it corruption if you want, but that's politics at work.

Canning everyone at the DNR will do nothing; the anti sportsmen will just work the replacements over. A huge part of the problem is we're pretty much on here bickering with each other while the anti's are going to meetings, and ringing phones.

If you don't think its all intertwined I got some well managed northwoods land for ya. And your right, a turd is a turd. But the jury has already rendered a verdict on the turd you reference.

You speak of corruption in the DNR, yet the person responsible was appointed by the guy you said is 1000 times better than Doyle, while anything would be better than Doyle which isn't saying much, you cant have a free pass on who calls the shots, look at the contributions made to a campaign for the mining bill.

Most of us probably dont hunt coyote; however we know how coyote affect deer, and small game. Here's a right now instance of the anti-hunters in action. http://m.host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/planned-coyote-hunting-contest-in-northern-wisconsin-faces-growing-backlash/article_ce4f594a-c4dc-5333-8d73-2e7c4bdf4398.html

1) Ive tried to get to as many meetings as possible. The DNR provides avenues to engage them. It is impossible to get to all, but I encourage everyone to try. 2) Engage your elected officials. Write, call, and visit. Everytime an elected official exposes themselves engage them. We are in the election cycle; make them work for our votes. I have learned that you can get a real appraisal for where a politician stands when you talk to them in person. 3) Join some state, and national level groups, we can pool resources to get what we want. The groups that I am a member of are also good about emailing to membership about issues that are off the radar. As sportsmen we can be quite independent; our opposition knows that. 4) Join, or start a local rod, and gun club if possible. There are a lot of layers to the problems we have; sometimes the solution to a problem is boots on the ground just spreading the word. 5) Engage your family to participate. Ive been harrassing the sportsmen in my family to go to the CC, and local hearings. Turn your 1 vote into 2, or 3.

Fnb & John - What direct, actionable items within your control will each of you take on to change the situation? Top 5 items would suffice.