NRB Questions for spring Hearings

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.

All the anti crossbow longer gun season guys are making sure the fudged numbers come out the way they want.

Why no results yet? They were all done electronically so they should be available at the touch of a button!

Didn't see results yet. Seems like a nice increase in participation though.?

Great Info. If you dont get the WON  there are several links floating around out there for the 6 questions. The process that the NRB has used to get to the point of the '6' questions is more than disturbing. I've watched the board meeting myself and if these questions and the discussion around them are not  the definition of confusion at work I don't know what is. One board member actually suggested a choice "I'm confused" to the questions. One thing that I'm 100% certain of is Prehn and Kaz know exactly whats going on, and not in a good way. Right down to last minute additions to the agenda to limit public discussion. None of this passes the smell test. Regardless of where you fall on the crossbow question, do your diligence and look at all 6, they may impact you more than you think. In my personal opinion, the meat and potatoes of all this is the crossbow question, placed on the ballot by itself would would have the appearance as just another anti crossbow question. To be clear, Kaz commissioned last years crossbow study, a study that is probably the most comprehensive study ever done on the subject, and He and Prehn don't like the results. Nor does it support there position.

BeerTown-  Thanks for the follow-up on how SAK is used and the overall CDAC process. I do appreciate folks like you who do make a personal time commitment to get involved.. On the topic of car/deer collisions I agree there are flaws to this metric and many accidents are not reported.. I know some guys have reported they feel their comments/feedback are not taken seriously so I hope they saw your comment on your experience "our CDAC has changed numbers several times from the preliminary number, usually to satisfy public comments".   I have also seen numbers change twice at meetings I have attended based on feedback..

I am still a big proponent of the CDAC process. Just imagine the number of potential "voices" if we could get 5%-10% of hunters to attend these meetings (40k-80k folks) to provide feedback..

I have been to several cdac meetings.   Low to no turnout,,,but all those in attendance,, , few as they may be all seemed to be concerned hunters.   Never have i seen someone bring up anything tourism, or transportation, or agriculture, or forestry for that matter.   All hunter related inquiries is what i saw, and i wish more emphasis  would be on us hunters.  No i dont want to bend the rules to be on the cdac for tourism or transportation. I wish it was more HUNTER related.  In my county the decisions are made by three individuals, one doesnt hunt at all, one hunts gun and bow on their private land, and the 3rd hunts gun only on private land up north not in our county.   I  feel totally unrepresented as a public land hunter....supposedly cdacs were set up to serve us hunters, in our specific counties, but if the people on the board don't hunt there,and nobody is going to these meetings,,,,why even have them?  Let the dnr folk with biology degrees make the decisions please.

Kona:  Yes, low turnout is an issue.  At our last meeting to finalize the quota, we had 0 members of the public in attendance.  Yup, none.  Our county isn't that far off others, either.  And no, numbers aren't already final at that meeting... our CDAC has changed numbers several times from the preliminary number, usually to satisfy public comments.

One of the metrics provided is herd size estimates, using SAK.  It's just another slide in the presentation, and really only was important for the 1st ever meetings.  Now the decision is more, less, or the same amount of deer based off the metrics and what the county is willing to tolerate.  It doesn't matter if there are 10 deer, or 10,000... if the negative effects become too much of an issue, then it's time to reduce.  If not, then keep it the same or grow the herd. 

There are 3 words/phrases that when brought up send every hunter into a tailspin to outer space... SAK/deer per square mile/carrying capacity.  Mention those, and any chance of a legit discussion flies out the window. 

Currently, car/deer accidents are one of the metrics collected and used.  I have to say, though, that it's more flawed than most other metrics.  I'll just start out by saying you are counting on people to report a car/deer accident to even begin with.  Second, in Wisconsin, an accident isn't reportable unless the damage exceeds $1000.  Car/deer accidents in most municipalities are self-reported to the DOT by the driver and an officer doesn't respond to the scene unless there are injuries, the deer needs to be dispatched, the vehicle is disabled, there is debris in the road, or there is damage to gov't property.  I would say, based on my experience in my job, that fewer than 20% of car/deer accidents get an officer.  It's good to know information, but like any of the metrics is only part of the picture... you are looking for trends.

Yes, the seats on the CDAC are for specific stakeholder groups and you need to fit certain qualifications to hold them... that said, the majority of CDAC's are open to interpreting these qualifications.  1st, get elected to your county Conservation Congress and you're eligible to hold either the Chair or Vice-Chair.  Join a local outdoor or sporting club and you are eligible for that seat.  Landowner?  Enroll in the DMAP program and you are eligible for that seat.  Drive for work?  You could be eligible for the transportation seat.  Work for a hotel/motel/restaurant/local gift shop?  The tourism seat could be for you. The possibilities are endless.  Of course, you can just show up at the meetings as a member of the public too... there is a public comment period at each meeting, and after the meeting most people hang around to talk and answer questions, including the DNR liaisons.

The drone thing is interesting, except I see some problems as they are a more small scale review.  It would take literally hundreds, if not thousands of drones to really get somewhat accurate counts I would think.  In addition, you would have to pay staff to pilot these, and higher end drones are very expensive.  Some of the drones our company uses are >$10K each and they only are intended for GPS/survey.  Throwing on thermal imaging I am sure is very expensive.  

I really liked the spotlight survey that Iowa uses as one of the tools to assess deer populations.. Imagine actually counting deer!! What a novel concept  They have been doing this since the 1970's and they log close to 5,000 miles each spring.. Looks like each county has at least 2-3 routes that are driven/measured every year.. They also count furbearers like coons, fox, coyotes etc to help develop population numbers for these animals..  I mentioned earlier that this may not be applicable for the Northwoods but I see deer right at dusk in spring when I visit my brother in Viroqua for our spring fishing trip..I know roadsides are one of the first areas that "green-up" in spring to attract deer.. At the minimum it would be effective in the farmland/mid-central part of the state.

The drone topic is also an interesting concept to actually count deer. It looks like Iowa used to do aerial surveys but the spotlight survey replaced it in the 70's. The DNR site just mentioned they thought this was more effective  

I have always been a proponent of using car/deer crashes as a major metric in estimating or comparing deer populations on an annual basis.  DOT does keep track on number of cars traveling on most highways, and there should be a way to get the number of deer crashes reported through police reports or other means.  It would be fairly easy to compare annual data for deer crashes per vehicle mile traveled (VMT), and track that year to year.  Of course, you can't singularly look at the number of deer crashes itself.  Many things impact the amount people drive (recessions, price of gas, population increases/decreases, weather, etc.) - so you would need that for more reliable data. You would think someone much smarter than me has already tracked this data annually....does anyone know if this is available anywhere?  Probably in a vault at Progressive.    

The problem with car killed deer/police reports is that there really is no possible way to calculate how many deer are actually hit. Just the ones that are reported. And reporting amongst counties is very inconsistent. Look at the car kill deer metric page in the deer metrics. Some counties you may find a correlation but in  many the reports in no way mirror populations trends. Iron county had one car killed deer in 2010. Hard to infer much from that. Not to say there’s no value in tracking car kills, but it would be a small part of another convoluted population model, like SAK. Really a good way would be to designate sections of road, main drags, and track car kills/impacts along those sections from year to year. Think highway 2, 51, 53, 45, 8, 70, 64, 29, 10, 12, etc and I94, I90, I43, etc. 

BeerTown-  Appreciate the post about your personal experience with the CDAC process.. I have commented numerous times over the years that my biggest disappointment with the CDAC process is the low turn-out I see at meetings ( mine is Washington Cty).. I support the concept of local stakeholders meeting and then deciding on harvest goals etc.. I keep reporting on here that feedback at these meetings does matter!!! 

I was actually going to ask about the use of the SAK modeling process at the meeting this year.. I know you commented that SAK is rarely discussed at your meetings but can you confirm if the DNR provides initial population estimates to the CDAC as a starting point to set population/harvest goals??

You also asked on a previous posts about alternatives to SAK (good question).. Looked at other state DNR sites and it appears that in Iowa the DNR relies on vehicle/collision data..a detailed bow hunter survey and then also a spotlight survey the DNR does every spring as methods to look at population trends. Looks like they have certain routes they drive in every county and count deer and other animals to compare data from year to year. I know that would not work in the Northern Cty's but certainly would be an idea for southern counties. I get the premise behind the SAK method but like others am not sure it really is an accurate barometer any more of the true deer population. 

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.  

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. 

Whats the alternative to SAK?