Lake-Link Home

NRB Questions for spring Hearings

1/22/20 @ 4:35 PM
User since 12/14/12

The Department of Natural Resources board on Wednesday approved six questions for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress' April hearings. 


The questions ask if people would support extending the nine-day gun season to 19 days; eliminating the December antlerless-only season; prohibit hunting during the days before the nine-day season; eliminate management zones; limit the crossbow season to October and after the nine-day gun season; and invalidate bow and crossbow buck tags during the nine-day season.

1/31/20 @ 11:46 AM
User since 2/16/17


Your CDAC may operate how it is supposed to. I have been involved with cdacs since the process began. I have been to a lot of cdac meetings and have seen first hand how the dnr uses the SAK population estimates to influence setting quotas. A DNR board member was there and shook his head how the cdacs were setting doe quotas. Not looking at the metrics just following what the dnr sak population guestimate was stating.  The cdac ignored public input at the meeting and internet survey results. I have talked to others that have attended cdacs in other parts of the state and they stated the same is happening there. I know people on the cdacs and when they asked if they could get a copy of the power point presentations the local dnr biologist used at the meeting showing population estimates from SAK and how the herd would increase by 10% if you issue this many doe tags they said they couldn't find a way to copy them on the power point presentations. The dnr board has been made aware that the some of the cdacs aren't functioning as supposed to. Just be glad  Beertown your cdac is working as supposed to. I believe there is supposed to be more guidance given to cdacs on how to use the metrics to set doe tag numbers etc. Scrub the information I am providing is accurate and not misinformation.  I and others who attended my cdac stopped going because it wasn't functioning as supposed to and input was ignored. They just followed the dnr SAk population guesstimate to set their doe tag numbers. SAK was supposed to be phased out. Scrub you may want to check out what past audits have found in regard the flaws and high inaccuracy of SAK. 

1/31/20 @ 11:33 AM
User since 4/1/05

Correct me if I am wrong, but for most people, don't you have to represent a sportsman's group or represent another seat position to fill a spot?  

My problem with the CDAC process is 10 times out of 10 the board is already starting out with a vote to reduce deer populations due to who sits on the committee.  When the committee has predetermined seats for Forestry, Agriculture, and Transportation (and from my understanding some local government reps) it is already driven against any increase to the deer population.  I have never heard of anyone representing forestry at a CDAC say there are not enough deer.  Also, to have DNR barking out overinflated population estimates DOES have an impact on votes.  

There are CDACs that read written comments - and I encourage people to send these in annually.  A few counties I frequent do absolutely get it...others not so much.  

1/31/20 @ 9:23 AM
User since 6/15/01

Its obvious you have never been to a CDAC meeting based off your statements, because your entire post is exactly how CDAC's operate. 

At least, based on my experience... both as a participant since day 1, and as chairman for my county for the last 5 years, and talking to other leaders and members across the state at meetings and training. 

I would have to look, but I believe all combined, the DNR/NRB has only over ridden 3 or 4 CDAC recommendations since day 1. There is no push to set quotas based off SAK modeling. Truth is, you have mentioned "SAK" more in your last 2 posts than my county CDAC has combined since day 1.

Upcoming CDAC meeting dates are set, and updated county specific herd metric and harvest data will be available online in a couple weeks. Get educated and attend a meeting... or better yet, get involved. Many, many CDAC's have seats available. 

1/28/20 @ 9:41 PM
User since 2/16/17

I encourage everyone to contact the members of the natural resource board in big numbers to tell them to end the use of SAK now and forever period. That is the main reason why or deer populations is extremely low in many areas and will remain that way and not grow if SAK is used in any way at all. It was my understanding it was not supposed to be used at all now with the CDACs using the metrics.

1/28/20 @ 9:28 PM
User since 2/16/17

The alternative to SAK is to look at metrics such as car kills, sustantial crop damage or forest damage complaints, fawn recruitment, winter severity, buck kill numbers and  trends all give you an indicator of what is happening to your deer population.  The SAk is a guestimate at best that audits have shown is highly inaccurate,  plus or minus 121 %, so what value is that number? It is not necessary to have a guestimate. Metrics will tell you when and if you should issue doe tags. Why do we need population guestimates when they are highly inaccurate?, They serve no purpose except to tick hunters off and have the dnr issue unnecessary doe tags and decimate the population more. Or give the dnr a marketing gimmick to try to sell more licenses or doe tags based on a false population guestimates. Looking at metrics to make decisions is how the cdacs are supposed to work if the dnr would stop trying to influence them with bogus SAK population guestimates to get them to issue doe tags or too many doe tags when not needed.  This is a big reason along with predation,  severe winter,why the deer populations arent growing in much of state especially up north. 

1/28/20 @ 8:22 PM
User since 6/15/01

Whats the alternative to SAK?

1/28/20 @ 10:39 AM
User since 2/28/13

"Eyesman"   -   Your post says a lot. Somewhere along the way the DNR advocated there were to many deer, so they started to incorporate ways to thin down the numbers by shooting the does. No more does, no more reproduction.  Was it due to complaints from the insurance companies, forestry, farmers, etc., I don't know, maybe a combination of all.  All under the claim of habitat carrying capacity.  Really quite suspicious that the DNR still claims such a high deer population, but seems a very large numbers of deer hunters say they see no deer.  After so many years of shooting does, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why hunters are stating they are not seeing many deer anymore.  

1/28/20 @ 8:41 AM
MEMBER since 7/9/12

Why don’t they just cancel hunting for a year or 2 and let them populate? They do it for fish, why not deer? This would definitely affect businesses in popular deer hunting areas. Or do a lottery and cut the tags? It’s a tough problem to solve without cooperation from state and hunters. 

1/28/20 @ 6:12 AM
User since 1/7/02

Many years ago before all the doe harvest opportunities existed you had the party tag system where 4 hunters could combine a license stub and get one doe tag. If I remember correctly that still took a lottery draw then to be successful. As I remember many hunters would draw and receive a permit and then not use it to prevent the harvest of a doe. Once the party tag option was ended there came the either/or tag, then readily available bonus tags, Earn a Buck and now multiple antlerless tags with every license. These options along with the T-Zone hunts and other antlerless seasons drove up the doe harvest numbers. As I have read the SAK formula uses harvest numbers to gauge population numbers, change the hunting dynamics and allow/force the harvest of more does ( the above mentioned tags and season options) the SAK formula loses it’s accuracy that it may or may not of had in it’s beginning. 

1/28/20 @ 5:33 AM
User since 10/6/04

"They even used it after the former DNR chief deer biologist admitted to me the formula was flawed and not working in my part of the  state(doesn't work anywhere in the state) and they didn't know why."

Because SAK is based on the theory that the harvest is a completely random sampling of the deer herd. This became flawed when the harvesters no longer shot the first deer to go by (Buck) and became trophy hunters. It was no longer a random selection but a specific harvest of a certain age group of deer.

Besides the monetary savings (like no metal tag, no back tag, reduced registration costs) there really is no need to funnel deer through a registration station were deer can be aged anymore so just call in your harvest.....if you're of a legal mind that is. 

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