I have been following cdacs in some northern counties especially Eau Claire county central forest and they are not using metrics or science to justify big increases in anterless tags. Just using some anecdotal statements from the forestry rep and dnr biologist. These tags are not necessary and are ruining deer hunting especially on public land. The Natural Resource Board needs to override these unjustified increases. Is any one else noticing these ongoing trends with the cdacs and dnr?
CDACs Up North Not Using Metrics or Science To Justify Increase of Antlerless Tags
Amen. I really hope more people take the bull by the horns like you and contact to NRB. What a lot of CDACs are doing and the dnr local biologists are condoning is to ignore science and are promoting wildlife management malpractice. This is definitely not managing our resources and is a travesty.
Thanks for the info. CDAC's are a joke! That's exactly what I did last year was wrote to the NRB my concerns about over issuing doe tags. And the SCIENCE was there to prove my concerns. Now they (cdacs)are recommending the same thing that the NRB over turned last year. We will see. I say skip the cdac and write directly to the NRB.
Just an fyi,
The Natural Resources Board is having their June meeting on June 22-23 including the approval or changes to be made to the cdacs proposed anterless tags for 2021.
If you believe your county cdac unnecessarily proposed too many antlerless tags without using metrics or science please send an email to Laurie Ross who is the liaison to Natural Resources Board and tell her to forward your comments to the Natural Resources Board. I believe her email is [email protected] Her phone number is 608-267-7420. Please contact her very soon as meeting is coming up and I believe comments have to be in so many days before the meeting. Her info can also be found on the DNR website. I believe you can also contact her if you want to speak at the NRB meeting which I believe will still be virtual. Hopefully the NRB is looking at some of the northern counties especially so they can make changes to reduce antlerless tags that is definitely needed. Your input is very helpful to the NRB.
My credibility is not the issue so no need to question it. It is the credibility of the dnr/dnr biologist and the forestry rep on the cdac that is the issue. They dont provide real science or metrics to justify their decisions to increase tags. When I or one cdac rep ask what metrics they are using you hear a lot of crickets. When I bring up real metrics like buck kills, car collisions, lack of ag damage permits, fawn recruitment, predation, lack of measured overbrowsing metric, hunter surveys etc show they should not be issuing more doe tags but less, again you hear crickets. I have already showed them they are not using metrics/science and so has one cdac member . So it is evident the dnr biologist and other cdac members are failing. The only solution in some counties that I and others see is to have the Natural Resource Board override the cdacs and dnr biologists in some counties when they are not using metrics or science to make their decisions on anterless tag numbers or objectives for the counties.
Short answer to your question is not always but often. everything Ive said is to aid your credibility when you tackle this issue. Dont use rhetorical overload and dont allow so called scientists to do the same. If these people are supposedly real scientists with 4-8 years of post HS education then dont allow them to use inaccurate and rhetorical generalizations. Demand data, at least demand accuracy in their statements. It sounds like you have demanded more accurate statements so youre on the right track.
River chaser ,
I think you are missing the point. That the forestry reps are unnecessarily influencing cdacs to issue more tags than needed and what the metrics are telling. The dnr is going along with it and often promoting more tags as well. The rep mentioned overbrowsing in general not just oaks. But later when pressed then mentioned oaks. Do you always pick one little point and try to discredit the big picture of what is going on with the cdacs up north and the deer herd especially on public land. Maybe you should listen to cdac meetings then you can micro analyse everything that is said .
saying that oaks are over browsed is different than saying everything is over browsed.
As much as I would rather have more deer than pines and oaks I hunt in Price county and yes since the deer population was decimated 20 years ago the white pine and oak growth have made a noticeable increase.
oh and river chaser,
Have you listened to the Eau Claire county forestry rep and others in northern counties talk about overbrowsing at cdac meetings. It is the constant never ending theme. He does in fact have the standpoint that acres and acres are being overbrowsed all over EC county forest and that oak trees cannot regenerate in the Eau Claire county forest. When you try to pin him down on the acres and acres out of 55,000 acres of county forest he is not forthcoming and evasive. When he was pinned down he changed his tune a little saying around every clear cut was overbrowsed. When I asked other cdac members they said he took them out to a couple clear cuts that amounted to around 100 acres or so out of 55,000 acres. But at cdac meetings he states there is overbrowsing all over the Eau Claire county forest. He consistently states there are way too many deer in the central forest that you need to issue more tags. Even though the metrics including buck kills are are at or near historical lows. He wants few or no deer on the landscape. River chaser you should really listen to the meetings and look at the metrics including hunter surveys before you make comments about what I and others are reporting to be accurate.
You say just because the tags are issued doesn't mean you have to use. If there is no biological or wildlife management reason, or need based on metrics, why issue them? You are depending on hunters to not be greedy and not use a tag they paid $12 for and they are legally allowed to shoot and many do no matter what the deer population is or even if they see few deer. The solution don't issue the tags in the first place if the majority of the metrics/science as well as hunter surveys are telling you there aren't that many deer and shouldn't issue a lot or increase tags.
ss esox - get your facts straight before you start accusing me of anything. It is not a belief - it is fact. I listened to the meeting and heard it myself. There was discussion on eliminating public land bonus tags, but the biologist argued against it as it raises funds, primarily for CWD testing.