HuntingNet.com Forums - Vote NO to sharpshooters in Wisc.

Sharpshooting has been added to the ballot for the spring meetings.

Position Statement on Wisconsin DNR Sharpshooting in CWD Zones
By CALFARR, Citizens and Landowners for a Rational Response

The following article was delivered to me by an official of CALFARR. It arose from their discussions on this practice and outlines a number of points worthy of consideration in evaluating whether such extreme measures serve the overall best interests of combating this disease and supporting ethical hunting traditions.
--Ross Reinhold
WWW.CAIDS-WI.ORG

The Top Ten Reasons Sharpshooting is Counterproductive

(1) We object that our tax dollars and license fees are being used to fund sharpshooting.
Costs include overtime pay for government agents, as well as expenses for their equipment, bait, transportation, food, lodging, and out-of-state training. Not only do these paid killers do their shooting at night over bait, but they mix in with licensed public deer hunters to kill large numbers of deer during the conventional gun season. The high cost of sharpshooting drains resources from other DNR activities, and adds urgency to the pending DNR proposal to increase license fees across the board.

(2) We think it is deceptive for the DNR to claim that sharpshooters are only killing deer in refuges not otherwise hunted.
These parcels are said to include state lands, as well as private lands by invitation of non-hunting owners. The spirit of this justification is routinely violated. While a few refuges may exist, many killing/bait sites are established on small parcels that hold no or few deer. On larger parcels, a common tactic is to establish killing/bait sites along property boundaries. In both situations the clear intent is to draw animals in from surrounding private land which is hunted by tax-paying property owners. Winter baiting allows DNR shooters to rack up kills far greater than these so-called “refuges” actually hold or support. To use the term refuge in these contexts is a outrageous distortion of the facts.

(3) We are annoyed with how the DNR has used its small and scattered holdings to “wedge” sharpshooting into or between large tracts of private land.
By baiting, an obvious effort is made to attract deer from private surrounding holdings. There has even been DNR talk of “driving” deer onto these public holdings so they can be slaughtered by sharpshooters. By so doing, public land holdings have become a nightmare for private landowners. Future land acquisition (for trails, dog runs, fishing easements, parks, nature areas, etc.) will be much more difficult, as taxpayers learn that these parcels will become addition sites for government killing. People will even be more resistant to sell property to private groups, such as the Nature Conservancy, that buy and hold key properties until the state comes up with the needed funds for a purchase or trade.

(4) We are upset that the DNR has tried to turn non-hunting landowners in neighbors from hell by setting up baiting/killing sites on their properties.
This practice threatens to tear apart the social fabric of the rural landscape. It will cause problems similar to those we see with respect to public land parcels (see item 3 above).

(5) We feel the threat of sharpshooting creates uncertainty for landowners, and uncertainty saves deer that would otherwise be taken by hunters.
Many landowners try hard to manage deer numbers on their property from year to year, with long term goals in mind. A great deal of time, effort and expense can go into this activity. The instinctive response to the sharpshooting threat is for these landowners to kill fewer deer in the hope that this will offset the uncertain sharpshooting kill. Landowners know that, however much they cooperate with CWD policy and try to reduce the deer herd, the DNR will still come in and still try to kill more. By this logic, if landowners kill less, the DNR sharpshooter kill will matter less.

(6) To the dismay of many landowners the DNR has now taken on the image of long-disdained poachers. DNR agents use bait to concentrate deer, shoot with lights at night, use silenced rifles, shoot from vehicles, shoot month after month, observe to limit on kill numbers, and earn extra money killing deer. We are likely to be haunted by this sad legacy of sharpshooting policy for years to come.

(7) There have been a number of incidents where DNR personnel have been caught breaking their own rules in their enthusiasm to “make another kill.”
Past sharpshooter violations and abuses include: trespass on private lands, shooting over fences into private land, shooting from roads, shooting where helicopter is herding deer during the winter count, harassing landowners who stray near killing/bait sites placed “just over the fence.” This behavior has long-term public relations implications.

(

Extended killing periods put extra $ in sharpshooter pockets.
Since deer become progressively more wary and nocturnal as shooting continues, extended seasons contribute to hunters killing fewer animals using legal methods. This leaves more animals for government sharpshooters, who resort to methods ruled illegal for hunters. Thus, long shooting periods serve the self-interest of DNR personnel looking to augment their income $$$ with overtime pay from CWD killing.

(9) Many hunters/landowners are insulted by the use of sharpshooters.
Citizens were told by the DNR that “if you can’t do the job, we will.” That threat ignored the fact that hunters were quite able to do far better than the sharpshooters have done, but they were not willing until they were convinced such drastic action was necessary. The DNR has chosen not to address what it will take to gain greater hunter/landowner cooperation. Instead, it has set out on a path that replaces hunters with paid government agents. Landowners worry that the DNR has taken a first step toward future deer management policy that does not involve hunters.

(10) Sharpshooting artificially inflates hunter harvest data masking the lack of success of the special CWD regulations.
We suggest sharpshooting kills be separated from hunter kills when reporting deer harvest numbers for Game Management Units in CWD management zones. The current practice of hiding large numbers of sharpshooter kills in GMU harvest totals obscures the true picture of hunter contribution to CWD policy goals.

CALFARR PO Box 148 Arena, WI 53503 (608) 753-2590
_________________