Lake-Link Home

NRB overruled CDAC recommendations

6/28/20 @ 10:58 AM
User since 12/20/12

The 2020 deer season(s) structure was recently announced. Noteworthy is the fact that the Natural Resources Board led by Kaz (as usual) chose to overturn 11 County CDAC management recommendations. Most of these dealt with antlerless harvest recommendations in Northern counties. 

Irrespective of how one feels about the direction CDAC or NRB have gone with these specific management decisions, seems to me that any legitimacy the CDAC had has just gone out the window. Why invest volunteer effort in local testimony,  committee membership or any other efforts for that matter when Kaz and crew continue to make capricious and (often) unscientific management decisions. 

Hard to believe but Wisconsin appears to be reaching new lows in deer management decision making. 

7/7/20 @ 3:52 PM
Fin Bender
Fin Bender
User since 9/16/11

Oldhunter - The NRB is no more flaunting their power than the CDAC's delusion that they have any.

7/7/20 @ 1:55 PM
User since 2/28/13

Trouter  -  I commend you and your county committee for all your efforts, and jointly making the decisions to the best of your ability and from public input.  But really, how would the committee members feel when one or two people flaunting their power, say you are wrong in your decisions and overrule  your committees recommendations?  Sad to say, but i think most Cdac's are like the Conservation Congress, just more wheels spinning and going nowhere

7/7/20 @ 1:38 PM
User since 4/17/07

After reading through the public comments for the two counties I hunt, I am even more disappointed in my CDAC's than before. Overwhelming majority supported to lower the doe tags, especially on public land, and eliminate the holiday hunt. They lowered the doe tags from 4 to 3 that you get with each license, doubled the amount of additional public land tags available, and kept the holiday hunt. 

7/7/20 @ 11:21 AM
User since 7/3/01

I sit on the Adams County CDAC.

All of our CDAC members hunt deer.

Most of our members live in different townships.

We all read the online comments, we listen to visitors who share comments in person and we receive feedback via other county members.

All members vote and think independently. We listen to the forester and to the wildlife biologist.  We review the data.  But ultimately, we call the shots.

As a CDAC, we fully discuss each issue without any limits on the dialogue.  

Our CDAC functions on a high level and we work well together to make tough decisions about deer management in Adams County.

Low public attendance is not an issue.  There is also low attendance for DNR hearings, NRB hearings and state senate hearings.  

We do rely of online comments for feedback.  It is the way society interacts with government.

7/5/20 @ 9:16 PM
User since 2/16/17


The participation used to be better at the Waukesha county cdac meetings . But the chair,  the DNR and the cdac members TOTALLY ignored both in person and online public comments. When it was pointed out that their stats were wrong and public input was overwhelmingly against more doe permits and the holiday hunt the chair said no one could speak anymore because they already had their 2-3 minutes to speak.  He quickly called for a vote and cdac and chair followed the dnr recommendations again ignoring all public input. After that people stopped going to meetings as they thought it was a waste of time. MFL you said you don't want a few people on the NRB to make decisions to override the cdacs regarding doe permits.  Well it is really no different with some cdacs with a few people making decisions on doe permits often ignoring public input and metrics staring them right in the face. Well at least the NRB listens to public input and looks at the metrics. 

7/5/20 @ 9:01 AM
User since 12/20/12

New Mexico has a "Harvest Report" that all big game hunters MUST complete at the end of a season. Failure to do so disqualifies one from applying for a license the following year. Metrics relative to game sightings and hunt satisfaction are a primary focus. Alaska has a voluminous harvest survey which goes to all nonresident anglers who fish the state. Not coincidentally,  these states do a marvelous job of managing their fish and game resources. 

No reason Wisconsin can't make better use of data that can be gathered from sportsmen who hunt/fish in the state.

7/4/20 @ 2:43 PM
User since 9/25/14

MFL, This was the first year I was able to listen to CDAC meetings as my hunting property is 4 hours away. I also learned by listening, that public input was very low. The members where asked about any public feed back and there was none. The biologist was asked and he stated he had 4 comments and 3 out of the 4 were considered "negative". That being that hunters weren't agreeing with the amout of doe tags available for a zone with a "increase" objective.  I wrote a letter to the entire CDAC stating my concern with metrics and the fact that boots on the ground observation weren't matching what he was recommending.   After the first meeting the biologist responded back feuding my letter of concerns.  Two other CDAC members responded back saying that the dnr or other board members would never go for a zero quota. I researched back to when online comments started and the very overwhelming public states concern of the amount of tags available and not seeing deer. The CDAC kept issuing bonus tags based from my opinion, on pretty much advice from the biologist and little from the public. This year, for whatever it appears the NRB overruled them and is issuing ZERO tags.  So to the point, it appears that the CDAC was getting comments of concern from the online input but thats it. All other advice was from the biologist who actually wanted even more tags that was recommended and got overruled.  People can really only get involved through online input for the most part and a person can only hit their head against the wall for so long! Thanks NRB! And no I cant join the CDAC as im 4 hours away from my hunting property,  otherwise i most definitely would!!!

Oconto County-Forest Zone 

7/4/20 @ 9:47 AM
User since 6/20/13

MFL-  I certainly agree participation has been low and disappointing in the meetings I have attended and what I see reported thru the state. I assume you know that folks can still supply feedback on-line for recommendations made in the county or to just voice general concerns??  I know that is not quite the same as what you are suggesting but it certainly gives folks an opportunity to at least give their input..  Like Samfox and many other hunters I do live 3 hours away from one of the counties where i spend around 50% of my deer hunting time.. I can't attend that county meeting but I always still supply feedback on-line.  I believe it is still always better to get your voice heard in the actual meetings vs. on-line   

By the way I would recommend folks review the On-line comments in their county.. It really shows (again) the different opinions on several key topics.. ( X-bow season, baiting, public/private land tags ).. Some guys want more deer shot and some less etc.. Just points out all different 'voices" the DNR/CDAC/NRB hears on various topics. (just like on the LL deer hunting threads  )   


7/4/20 @ 8:17 AM
User since 3/17/09

Participation would be higher if meeting were held when people could attend. If you don’t live where you hunt it is difficult to attend a weekday meeting. Possibly by design.

7/4/20 @ 8:02 AM
User since 12/20/12

Some good comments and information presented here! (along with the usual conspiracy theories).

For my part, I remain reluctant to trust management decisions to a few individuals with authority to override CDAC recommendations.  I do however believe the CDAC's suffer from lack of citizen input from non committee members.  Participation at meetings is nearly non existent.  Perhaps its time for development of a standard on-line questionnaire where participants can provide county specific feedback on deer management in their chosen counties. Info can be tabulated and reviewed by the CDAC as part of their decision process. This information would also be included as part of the groups report. Accountability may increase as decisions made in conflict with compelling public input would require thorough justification. 

Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.