CDACs Up North Not Using Metrics or Science To Justify Increase of Antlerless Tags

CDAC's have limited options.   Deer populations, such as in Adams County, continue to grow.    The only control feature is a hunt.

For us, our hunter harvest is quite low and access to the deer is limited.  No matter what we do the deer population will continue to grow.

We base permit levels on sales.  So we determine permits on how many sold last year.

I just read the pat durkin opinion piece, not very professional. Nothing more than a personal vendetta against someone who is sticking up for the public land hunters. 

I am also disappointed in Marcy West. I emailed the NRB a few months ago, saying the CDAC's increased the public tags in Vernon County for no reason. There was several public comments about decreasing the number of public tags, but none in support. CDAC, influenced by the local DNR biologist, increased them anyway. 

I got an email from Marcy West saying she would like to setup a meeting with locals to discuss the deer herd in the area. Never happened. 

I also got a email/ phone call from the local DNR biologist. Someone in Madison must have passed my email on to him. I believe he has a major conflict of interest and should recuse himself from making recommendations to CDAC's for public land tags. He told me multiple times on the phone he almost exclusively hunts public land and harvests at least 4 deer per year to feed his family, so he supports more opportunity to harvest deer. No wonder he made the recommendation to increase antlerless tags. I told him if everyone had the same mindset as him (harvesting 4+ deer/ year), we would be in serious trouble. 

Changes are needed the way WI manages the deer heard. CDAC's are not the answer when 5/7 seats should theoretically be in favor of a lower deer herd. The only seats on a CDAC that would theoretically support a higher deer population are hunting and tourism. Forestry, agriculture, transportation, local urban govt, and DMAPs all want lower populations. 

The solution other states use is to give more power to the states DNR/ Fish & Game to have the ability to make changes as needed, in some states even through emergency order without any NRB or legislative approval. That will not work in Wisconsin with the current DNR staff. Changes need to be made, and they start at the top. The culture and way the DNR view deer needs to change. 

"Anytime Kaz starts throwing or challenging numbers out there, I'd be suspicious. His track record for distorting data is legendary."

No truer words spoken.        

Check out the recent edition of Wis.OutdoorNews article by Pat Durkin.   No love for Kaz there.    

LL, I acknowledge your concerns about the northern deer herd. I believe them to be totally legitimate.  What I object to is the "process" by which these changes are being made as it undermines the whole concept of deer management for our entire state. If the deer management model for the state is broken (which it appears to be at least for Northern WI) then the model needs to be changed.

Can you point me to the audit that shows SAK is as highly inaccurate as you claim? I'd definitely like to read it. Thanks.

The SAK model works fine and there is no suitable replacement for it.  

The data Greg Kazmierski shared was not available to  staffers or the Conservation Congress prior to the meeting.    

Is the data accurate ?  No R value was provided with the data to prove the validity of his hypothesis.

Input from NRB members is fine.   But it should be shared with the CDACS early in the process so it can be assessed by CDAC members when reviewing all the other data.  

Introducing new data at the last step of the process is not beneficial.

If the NRB feels that CDAC's work, they should accept the recommendations CDAC's provide.  If the CDAC process is problematic, then it should be changed.  

I have watched several NRB webcasts over the last few months and always felt Preston Cole was arrogant, and appears more arrogant when he gets over his skis.  That board meeting shows how arrogant/childish he is.  My heroes once again are Dr. Prehn and Kaz.  I really like both those guys, and they are the most logical people in the room.

I watched the Portion of the NRB meeting where Preston Cole told the Board he would not follow their recommendation and walked out, Bush league on his part no matter what the issue is.  NRB does set policy and it is inherit upon the DNR Secretary to implement their recommendations.

I follow the Eau Claire County CDAC closely as well as a couple of others, a strong argument can be made that they are not following/using the metrics in their decision making process and instead deferring to the Forestry interests which only provide their observations of deer impacts and no data that actually quantifies deer impact. 

Meanwhile in all of these units on Public Land, Deer harvest numbers remain at all time lows.

"......pouts like a baby that doesn't get his way,...."

I wonder how often those that say this line, ever wonder how they are being perceived by others when they say that line?

Oh well......

Anytime Kaz starts throwing or challenging numbers out there, I'd be suspicious. His track record for distorting data is legendary.

Did anyone listen to the NRB meeting last week? Kaz proposed changes to the CDAC recommendations for some northern counties and called out the SAK model, basically saying it was BS. He pointed out the 95% confidence interval has a 500,000 deer swing, basically 1/3 of the statewide population. Things got heated between the NRB and the DNR secretary when it went to a vote, it looked like the secretary left the meeting after that in frustration they voted against the CDACs/ DNR. 

Little Luck, 

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. 

Oconto County

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. 

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. 

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. 

Also comments like "forestry reps claiming everything is being overbrowsed" . That comment sounds like nonsense.  

At the very least put accuracy in what youre claiming other people are saying.  If a forestry rep is saying that and using the word "everything" then call him/her out and you can put a dent in their credibility if it isnt true. 

 """Two years ago he recommended to increase the amount of bonus tags to help bring in more money"""

The biologist recommended more tags to raise money?? Really!  This is just a flat out ridiculous statement and a perfect example on why this state can't get anything done progressive in regards to deer management. How do you even start an open minded constructive conversation with people who believe this. I feel sorry for anyone working for our DNR or any public service position. Everyone is an expert these days. 

Just because the DNR issues you a antlerless tag doesn't mean you have to fill it. If a lake has a 25 fish limit you don't have to take 25 fish. Use your common sense and stop blaming everyone else. Take control of your actions in the field or on the lake.