The Forestry CDAC seat is one of 8 voting seats. 4 of those seats are filled by those who would/should have a healthy deer herd and a quality deer hunting opportunity as a priority: Chair, Tourism, Hunt Club, and DMAP. Its no stacked deck. Thats 50/50.
The chair can vote to make or break a tie.
So CDACs essentially are set up with only two and possibly 3 pro hunter seats on any vote Beer? How rigged could the CDAC vote get against hunters if the DMAP seat is placed there by the foresters and knows nothing whatsoever about deer or hunting ? At least in my county its was set up by our WDNR to be a 6-2 vote against sound deer management and hunters . In the rest of the state it’s just a 5-3 vote against hunters unless other places were rigged with a DMAP rep of the same caliber. . That’s the problem with the CDACs in a nutshell , they are dishonest and a bit of a farce to begin with . If they were run honestly with both CC chair and vice chair getting a vote things would even out a whole lot. DMAP reps should have a hunting background and should know something about whitetail deer also . A DMAP rep repeating talking points about how horrible deer are to the landscape is a terrible joke on hunters and recreational landowners paying a large tax bill for horrific deer management in this state . All in all the CDACs are a great idea if they could be run fairly and competently by our WDNR and legislature . As is they are nothing but a farce and it’s no wonder folks won’t waste their time on them .It’s also no wonder that the NRB has to override them . I do give a huge thanks to many of the CCs and many other seats putting their time in on these CDACs and working hard for the many sportsman in the state . It’s a thankless job for the most part with flak coming from all sides on almost any decision made . Let’s make it fair and make it work , even up the votes and watch how compromise happens when both sides have to give a bit .