https://www.nbc26.com/news/state/dnr-wont-participate-in-meeting-amidst-appointee-fight
Wisconsin Hunting Reports/Discussion
Wisconsin NRB & DNR, Not Political, TRUST ME!!!!!!
Displaying 1 to 15 of 212 posts
Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage (2023)
Thats a curious combination of subject matter (shrug)
Sen. Stafsholt (Chair) - District 10, Rural, Twin Cities ex-urban in NW.
Sen. Felzkowski (Vice Chair) - 12, Rural, Forest Lands NE
Sen. Tomczyk - 29, staggered Ag to Forest running SE to NW from SP to Lac Courte O
Sen. Spreitzer - 15, Beloit, Janesville, Ag and Rural S Central
Sen. Hesselbein - 27, W of Madison, suburbs, rural, Ag.
I guess no surprise on partisan makeup, etc... and one could argue how "representative" this group is pertaining to the state. Maybe some representation from the gravitation center of the state in the SE would be preferred, say Waukesha Co., with a reasonable cross section from Urban to Rural/Ag.
I'd say, with that committee majority, representation their own constituents is a narrow sliver of the statewide representation that statutes require for the NRB. This appears to be a classic Tyranny of the Minority (oxymoronically, considering majority status) based upon Senate Rules and majority appointment powers.
There, did my homework. How about a decent summary Fin Bender. Someone other than Adams preferable.
Thats a curious combination of subject matter (shrug)
Sen. Stafsholt (Chair) - District 10, Rural, Twin Cities ex-urban in NW.
Sen. Felzkowski (Vice Chair) - 12, Rural, Forest Lands NE
Sen. Tomczyk - 29, staggered Ag to Forest running SE to NW from SP to Lac Courte O
Sen. Spreitzer - 15, Beloit, Janesville, Ag and Rural S Central
Sen. Hesselbein - 27, W of Madison, suburbs, rural, Ag.
I guess no surprise on partisan makeup, etc... and one could argue how "representative" this group is pertaining to the state. Maybe some representation from the gravitation center of the state in the SE would be preferred, say Waukesha Co., with a reasonable cross section from Urban to Rural/Ag.
I'd say, with that committee majority, representation their own constituents is a narrow sliver of the statewide representation that statutes require for the NRB. This appears to be a classic Tyranny of the Minority (oxymoronically, considering majority status) based upon Senate Rules and majority appointment powers.
There, did my homework. How about a decent summary Fin Bender. Someone other than Adams preferable.
I'm from Milwaukee, where Sharon Adams has done a lot of good, and even I would not advocate for her service on the NRB.
I didn't watch the hearings, and expect few did. Sounds like Fin Bender either watched or has read coverage of it. Can you share the relevant Senators' questions that were avoided, or answered "wrongly"? I'm interested.
Perhaps knowing which Senators are on the Committee would lend better understanding of whose constituents are being represented. I'll effort that one as certainly readily available.
I didn't watch the hearings, and expect few did. Sounds like Fin Bender either watched or has read coverage of it. Can you share the relevant Senators' questions that were avoided, or answered "wrongly"? I'm interested.
Perhaps knowing which Senators are on the Committee would lend better understanding of whose constituents are being represented. I'll effort that one as certainly readily available.
Not all NRB appointees being considered were voted down following the committees hearings. Touter failed to mention that. Apparently his idea of a fair democracy is when his ideas are universally supported by politicians. That's not how it works. Those senators asked relevant questions about issues that are vitally important to the people they represent. Senators didn't want avoidance of their questions, which is what they got from most of them, unacceptable. Senators needed to know their constituents would not be harmed by decisions made by these potential NRB members, they didn't get that assurance from all of them. In the case of Adams I don't think anyone who's seen her serve could make an argument that she's fit to be on that board.
“……..reported18% positive CWD test in the deer herd south of HWY 82”
I was curious about this, so I looked for myself. I didn’t find an actual ‘study’, but the data is on the DNR web site for anyone to find and look over. For all the full counties south of HWY 82, it’s actually 22% positive in 2022 deer season. And that doesn’t include the partial counties that HWY 82 bisects. Most of the positives found in those counties were, guess……..south of HWY 82.
I was curious about this, so I looked for myself. I didn’t find an actual ‘study’, but the data is on the DNR web site for anyone to find and look over. For all the full counties south of HWY 82, it’s actually 22% positive in 2022 deer season. And that doesn’t include the partial counties that HWY 82 bisects. Most of the positives found in those counties were, guess……..south of HWY 82.
The Sporting Heritage Committee voted down 4 NRB appointments. Sharon Adams, Dylan Jennings, Sandra Dee Naas and Jim VandenBrook were all shot down by the politicians.
Those voted down have a better understanding than those voting.
More qualified candidates cannot be found. I am beyond furious.
Petty partisan politics is toxic to a healthy democracy.
Those voted down have a better understanding than those voting.
More qualified candidates cannot be found. I am beyond furious.
Petty partisan politics is toxic to a healthy democracy.
robertwhite...it is interesting. The GLGP Water Project is about way more than water science. Public relations, politics, government relations, NR Admin Code/statutes, research, and so many other angles. Those who make comments, a lot of times don't understand the details...it's just what happens when we get behind a keyboard.
This is a decades old problem that needs a long-term solution. My neighbors have struggled for many years, just like my family did. The residents never banded together in the past, now we have. While having a WDNR is extremely important, it's even more important that all of our governmental agencies follow the laws we are expected to follow. The WDNR has recognized that they must respect our property rights and still hold the position that water doesn't move through the coarse sand to a lower elevation...even the fishbender knows sand doesn't hold water.
Solving the issue long-term will require the flowages having a "maximum elevation" of water. It'll also require the WDNR to follow the "WDNR 2016 GLGP Properties Master Plan". The WDNR is way outside of it's own master plan and didn't follow the rules laid out in NR Chapter 44 in having that master plan approved by the NRB. Once an actual max elevation is set, then the WDNR may need to consider dredging flowages that have filled in with a lot of sediment over the years to have the depth of water that is desired. The Crex right now is as low as I've ever seen it...there is no flooding of private property right now and water quality is greatly improved. The WDNR drained most of Crex this summer... even flowages that were not a concern to us were drained.
For me it's more about people being able to own property and care for that property while achieving the American Dream without being harassed, hassled, and hindered by the very government that we faithfully pay our property taxes to. I'm happy to make a presentation for any group. Name the time and pace and I'll do my best to match up. I don't hide behind keyboards. I'll be running for our county board this spring and will probably go into politics when I retire because these sorts of things should never happen to hard working normal everyday citizens. I've interviewed so many older folks who told me that the WDNR has a "generational plan" to force everyone out, kind of thought they were nuts early on...but nope, they were right. I'll be testifying at the September NRB meeting, be sure to tune in.
By the way, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel drove up and spent over 4 hours with Kerri & I. They are working on a story. Right now, I think only two of the NRB members have been confirmed, nor has the Secretary. How this issue is handled will have an impact. There is talk of a possible Senate Committee hearing on this issue. If that comes to fruition, I'll jump back on here and update everyone. We are only supposed to get 3 or 5 minutes at NRB meetings...the Senate will allow a whole lot more time.
Duke
glgp-plan.com
This is a decades old problem that needs a long-term solution. My neighbors have struggled for many years, just like my family did. The residents never banded together in the past, now we have. While having a WDNR is extremely important, it's even more important that all of our governmental agencies follow the laws we are expected to follow. The WDNR has recognized that they must respect our property rights and still hold the position that water doesn't move through the coarse sand to a lower elevation...even the fishbender knows sand doesn't hold water.
Solving the issue long-term will require the flowages having a "maximum elevation" of water. It'll also require the WDNR to follow the "WDNR 2016 GLGP Properties Master Plan". The WDNR is way outside of it's own master plan and didn't follow the rules laid out in NR Chapter 44 in having that master plan approved by the NRB. Once an actual max elevation is set, then the WDNR may need to consider dredging flowages that have filled in with a lot of sediment over the years to have the depth of water that is desired. The Crex right now is as low as I've ever seen it...there is no flooding of private property right now and water quality is greatly improved. The WDNR drained most of Crex this summer... even flowages that were not a concern to us were drained.
For me it's more about people being able to own property and care for that property while achieving the American Dream without being harassed, hassled, and hindered by the very government that we faithfully pay our property taxes to. I'm happy to make a presentation for any group. Name the time and pace and I'll do my best to match up. I don't hide behind keyboards. I'll be running for our county board this spring and will probably go into politics when I retire because these sorts of things should never happen to hard working normal everyday citizens. I've interviewed so many older folks who told me that the WDNR has a "generational plan" to force everyone out, kind of thought they were nuts early on...but nope, they were right. I'll be testifying at the September NRB meeting, be sure to tune in.
By the way, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel drove up and spent over 4 hours with Kerri & I. They are working on a story. Right now, I think only two of the NRB members have been confirmed, nor has the Secretary. How this issue is handled will have an impact. There is talk of a possible Senate Committee hearing on this issue. If that comes to fruition, I'll jump back on here and update everyone. We are only supposed to get 3 or 5 minutes at NRB meetings...the Senate will allow a whole lot more time.
Duke
glgp-plan.com
NRB appointees questioned by Senate Committee
Finally. Now maybe we'll hear a "yay" or 'Nay" to these appointees.
And....not to distract from the recent Crex Meadows conversation on this thread. Carry on with that...it is an interesting debate.
Finally. Now maybe we'll hear a "yay" or 'Nay" to these appointees.
And....not to distract from the recent Crex Meadows conversation on this thread. Carry on with that...it is an interesting debate.
Link to the Town of West Marshland representatives and officials. Duke testified to the NRB that he represented the Township as "Water Commissioner" or something to that effect. However he's not listed in any capacity on this web-site. Anyway. Let the Town of West Marshland know if you're sick of them wasting your tax dollars.
https://www.burnettcountywi.gov/503/Town-of-West-Marshland
https://www.burnettcountywi.gov/503/Town-of-West-Marshland
Displaying 1 to 15 of 212 posts
