HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Midwest (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest-25/)

- - NRB meeting (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest/22117-nrb-meeting.html)

wdhc	01-25-2003 10:36 PM

NRB meeting

DNR Proposed Permanent Rule Changes for Deer Hunting:

The Natural Resources Board (NRB) members received the package on recommended permanent rule changes WM-05-03 on Monday, January 20, 2003 from the department.

On Tuesday, January 21st the WDHC received a copy of the proposed rule changes.

At the NRB meeting on Wednesday, January 22, the WDHC attempted to raise concerns regarding some of the rule changes to WM-05-03 during the public input portion of the meeting.

Our testimony was ruled out of order by the DNR staff.

Below are a few examples of the WDHC's concerns with the content of the permanent rule WM-05-03:

Transport and Registration: Hunters would be allowed to transport their deer outside of an Intensive Harvest Zone or Herd Reduction Zone, but they still must register it in the zone of kill by 5 p.m. the day after harvest. Some hunters live outside of these zones and cannot find an open registration station prior to driving home. It is important that hunters continue to register their deer in the zone of kill for implementation of hunting regulations (e.g. issuing earned buck tags) and collection of samples for CWD testing.

Our concern: If a hunter cannot find a station open and carries the deer home (hours away?) will he really return the next day to register it? Probably not. Why is there not a ban on removing carcasses from the endemic area ? Why is there not a ban on bringing carcasses into our state?

NR 10.001(2) For the purposed of this chapter, "bait" means any material used to attract wildlife including liquid scent.

Our concern: Does this mean we can no longer use lure ?

NR 10.001(19e) "Notice and information to the public that is adequate" under s. 29.063, Stats., means a department press release to the local news media and the official state newspaper and may also include the following: public meetings, telephone contacts, internet postings, brochure distribution, first class mailings and meetings with landowners in the eradication zone.

Our concern: What is considered "adequate" notification when they create a new eradication zone? The "may" should be changed to "shall".

Section 25. NR 10.07(1)(a) is amended to read.
NR 10.07(1)(a)
1. Deer may be shot from aircraft only between December 1 and the following April 15.

6. Notwithstanding s. NR 10.09(1)(a)2., any person authorized by the department to shoot deer from or with the aid of an aircraft pursuant to this paragraph, may use shot shells loaded with shot larger than no. BB to shoot deer.

Our concern: This says the DNR can shoot at deer from a helicopter with buckshot. More likely crippling than killing deer. Not to mention the safety of people and animals!

Section 27. NR 10.07(2) is created to read.

NR 10.07(2) BAITING. (a) General prohibition. Except as provided in par. (b) or as authorized by a permit issued under s. NR 12.06(11), no person may hunt with the aid of bait, place or use bait for the purpose of hunting wild animals or training dogs.

Our concern: This says, "Do as we say NOT as we do".

Section 39. NR 10.42 is created to read.

NR 10.42 Official state duties. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or hinder the department and its employees, duly authorized agents, or contractors from performing their official duties.

Our concern: This basically gives the DNR the power to do whatever they want whenever they want.

Section 40. NR 12.06 is created to read.

NR 12.06 CWD eradication zone deer removal permits. (1) FINDINGS. Pursuant to s. 29.885(4), Stats., the natural resources board finds that deer within any CWD eradication zone cause a nuisance and that the shooting of deer with nuisance permits is necessary within any CWD eradication zone defined in S. NR 10.001(6p) in order to reduce the spread of disease within the CWD eradication zone and to reduce the risk of disease spreading outside any CWD eradication zone.

Our concern: Now they want to make Wisconsin's #2 renewable resource a NUISANCE animal. This is going to far.

Section 44. NR 19.60 is created to read.

NR 19.60 Feeding of wild animals. (1) PROHIBITIONS. (a) Except as provided in this section or by permit issued under s. NR 12.06(11), no person may place, deposit or allow the placement of any material to feed or attract wild animals.

Our concern: Again, "Do as we say, not as we do".

The Board later voted 4 to 2 to forward WM-05-03 unchanged to the public hearing process.

We urge you to obtain a copy of WM-05-03 from the dept. and look it over closely. The times for public hearings have yet to be decided.

peakrut2001

01-26-2003 05:46 AM

RE: NRB meeting

When you say our, do you mean on behalf of WDHC only?

peak
Live and Learn

logs	01-26-2003 01:55 PM

RE: NRB meeting

As a parent with now grown children, my sons now know exactly why
"Do as I say not as I do" has always been a good practice. I always knew better than they did. So does the DNR

Do you really believe this is a danger? Are you concern about a helicoper crash or those long range BB's. I may have missed something but at this point they are trying to Kill all the deer not harvest them. If they recover them fine if not we're no worst off.
Our concern: This says the DNR can shoot at deer from a helicopter with buckshot. More likely crippling than killing deer. Not to mention the safety of people and animals!

What part of ...the department and its employees, duly authorized agents, or contractors from performing their official duties....... are you concern with. Name the offical duties that in anyway violate your or anyone elses right, harm you or do anything negitve. Not agreeing with your way of handling this problem doesn't count.
Our concern: This basically gives the DNR the power to do whatever they want whenever they want.

If you're going to hunt in this zone plan ahead and find a place to register the deer that stays open later. It might not be inconventient but if you live hours away and don't like this then find someplace else to hunt.

They are not talking about all WI deer they are talking about the deer they believe are putting that Wisconsin's #2 renewable resource at risk. If they are correct in thier conclusions they are attempting to save this resourse for all of us by stopping the problem here.
Our concern: Now they want to make Wisconsin's #2 renewable resource a NUISANCE animal. This is going to far.

I always like someone telling me my job, Im sure the DNR appreciates your input.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

TJD	01-27-2003 11:47 AM

RE: NRB meeting

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I always like someone telling me my job, Im sure the DNR appreciates your input.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Hmmmm...last time I checked, the DNR was a public agency, meaning that they are ultimately answerable to the public. And given the fact that the DNR likes to regularly trot out how they make policy "with the input recieved in public meetings held across the state", they had darn well better listen and not simply rule by decree. Besides, given the way that the DNR has mismanaged the past year with regard to CWD, I think it high time they start listening to someone before things get screwed up even further. Also, there is nothing wrong with forcing the DNR to make sure that any proposals are worded correctly, and not simply just thrown out there with the assumption that all is well simply because "the DNR means well".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> NR 10.001(2) For the purposed of this chapter, "bait" means any material used to attract wildlife including liquid scent.

Our concern: Does this mean we can no longer use lure ?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Here we go with overly broad wording as well. Under the "any material used to attract wildlife" heading, does this mean food plots, clear cuts, etc. that can enhance habitat, and thus be used to "attract wildlife".

Oh, and logs: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>As a parent with now grown children, my sons now know exactly why
"Do as I say not as I do" has always been a good practice. I always knew better than they did. So does the DNR<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> First off, this was in reference to the "no baiting" provision of the proposed rules. Hopefully Logs, you're a heck of a lot more consistent with your kids than the DNR is with the public.

Focus if you will on the following two paragraphs from a couple weeks back when the DNR suddenly decided that baiting in the CWD zone was a good idea:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The emergency rule is intended to help meet deer herd reduction goals in the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Eradication Zone. Without the use of this efficient management tool, Department of Natural Resources wildlife managers said herd reduction may not be sufficient to reduce the spread of CWD from the infected area.

"If we get snow, shooting deer over bait in winter is a very effective deer culling method," said Tom Hauge, chief of wildlife management at DNR. "The rule will allow the department to enlist landowners as cooperators in culling efforts during the winter of 2003 by exempting them from the statewide baiting prohibition enacted by the Natural Resources Board last June."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Let's see: "efficient management tool" and "effective deer culling method". Really?!

Funny, but here is what the VERY SAME Wisconsin DNR said last July (From "Question and Answer Sheet on Wildlife Feeding and Baiting Restrictions, July 3, 2002)
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>WON'T A BAN ON BAITING REDUCE THE HARVEST OF DEER AND CAUSE MORE DEER POPULATION PROBLEMS AND MORE RISK OF CWD?
Current data from Department 2001 hunter surveys shows that 40 percent of bowhunters and 17 percent of gun hunters in Wisconsin use bait. The difference in success rates among gun hunters with and without bait is negligible. The difference in success rates for archers is greater, but the overall impact of hunting without bait is expected to be minor. Some argue that eliminating bait and feed may actually increase the harvest by increasing the activity of both hunters and deer. In addition, deer will be less likely to concentrate and be held on some parcels where they are unavailable for harvest by hunters on other lands.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So let me get this straight: baiting does not increase success rates of hunters, and may acutally lower the chance of success. But the DNR thinks it is a great idea to get all of these infected deer together around bait piles, even though in their own words "Some argue that eliminating bait and feed may actually increase the harvest by increasing the activity of both hunters and deer." So are they now saying that all that stuff they fed us last July was a bunch of bunk...or a bald-faced lie...and that baiting really does increase hunter success rates? Or are they so stupid that they don't even refer back to their own data on the subject?

The inconsistencies continue...

---Baiting was outlawed because supposedly CWD may be spread by deer being brought into close proximity around bait piles. Right?
---We have CWD in one area of the state currently, occuring at a rate of around 2.5% of the population.
---Baiting is outlawed all across Wisconsin, EXCEPT for now, NOT in the CWD infected area

Yeah, the DNR has really shown themselves to be an effective agency over the last year, haven't they? <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>

<img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle>

Edited by - TJD on 01/27/2003 12:51:20

logs	01-27-2003 01:38 PM

RE: NRB meeting

TJD, I don't see a problem with the DNR in any of the things you posted when one looks at the entire picture. Im not that good of a typist nor do I want to take the time to explain the difference between baiting in the problem area to achieve a particular goal or the long range effect of baiting as it effects deer hunting State wide for years to come. That is an entirely different and complex debate. By the way,in relationship to the history of deer hunting in WI, baiting is a realitively new thing. Yes, it is great for kids and those who don't want or have the time to hunt but I personally think baiting for deer as a general rule is bad. Here it serves a purpose and is a wise move by the DNR.
If you are that knit picky or just want to argue with the DNR over the definition of Bait being clear cuts, I'd hate to see how long it takes you to read a news paper with all those hidden meanings between the lines. They are not inconsistent, you're just comaring two totally different situations.
Yes the DNR works for us the tax payers, the PUBLIC and they do want public opinion, some of which is good and the some of it is foolish whiny suff. I wonder if you tell your Doctor,plumber or auto mechanic how to do thier job or just give them your limited opinion?

the DNR has really shown themselves to be an effective agency over the last year, haven't they?
The answer is yes since you asked.

If you need any other questioned answered please feel free to contact me. Im always willing to help those who need direction.<img src=icon_smile_kisses.gif border=0 align=middle>:)

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

TJD	01-27-2003 03:36 PM

RE: NRB meeting

For the record, I don't and never have baited. Now that we have that out of the way...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you are that knit picky or just want to argue with the DNR over the definition of Bait being clear cuts, I'd hate to see how long it takes you to read a news paper with all those hidden meanings between the lines.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Actually, I read pretty well. Apparently though, it is you, Logs, that has the comprehension problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Im not that good of a typist nor do I want to take the time to explain the difference between baiting in the problem area to achieve a particular goal or the long range effect of baiting as it effects deer hunting State wide for years to come. That is an entirely different and complex debate.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

...And this again from the DNR: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Some argue that eliminating bait and feed may actually increase the harvest by increasing the activity of both hunters and deer.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So what is the "particular goal" in the Eradication Zone you are talking about, Logs? Based on the DNR's own publication from this past July, baiting can actually lead to a lower deer harvest, not a higher one. Supposedly the problem in the CWD zone is that there are too many deer and the harvest needs to be increased. So now the DNR allows baiting in "the zone" to increase the harvest! Wow! Gotta love that DNR logic! No to mention that, if the supposition that CWD can spread from deer to deer from close contact is correct (again, as the DNR contends!), then the current 2.5% rate of infection can now grow even higher. Hey, gotta hand it to ya', Logs! That's some brilliant thinking by those "wildlife professionals"!

This issue has nothing to do with the past arguments about baiting. According to the DNR, baiting was banned due to CWD. Period. The other arguments about baiting, or as you put it "the long range effect of baiting as it effects deer hunting State wide for years to come" had nothing to do with it outside of the issue of CWD.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I wonder if you tell your Doctor,plumber or auto mechanic how to do thier job or just give them your limited opinion?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Actually, I wonder if you simply smile and hand over your money to anyone who purports to be an "expert". Ever hear of "second opinions"? They hide topics like that in things called books. But I suppose if your doctor suddenly came to you and said you needed a sex change, you'd head out to Victoria's Secret to see if you could hit a sale. Oh well, hope the hormone treatments go well...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> If you need any other questioned answered please feel free to contact me. Im always willing to help those who need direction.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> No thanks! Since it now seems apparent that you never, ever question anything, I think I'll seek knowledge elsewhere. I'll consult someone or something more reliable for "direction". Maybe some dice, a "Magic Eight-Ball", horoscopes...that is if the DNR doesn't have them all tied up.

logs	01-27-2003 04:46 PM

RE: NRB meeting

OK, it is just you and I here debating this and your upset because you don't understand complex subjects.
You apparently can not distingish the eradication zone, the DNRs goal there from a regular deer season and the objective of total management. You just want to argue with the DNR and anyone who can think clearer than you. Now stop and take a deep breath and go back and reread, then reread and get some adult to explian all this to you so I don't have to do it.

Really, you're a "Second opinion" and an authority on wildlife management. My mistake I should have know from your OPINIONS that came from who knows where, how foolish of me.
I suppose when your Doctor told you to have that foot removed from your mouth and the other from your butt you went to the plumber to get the second opinion.

You, from you response to me demonstrate a true lack of reading comprehension and analytical thinking. Now Im typing this slow so I don't lose you. Take your time and reread all the above. Don't add any meaning to anything, don't read between the lines, just read what it states. Put in in the proper context of what and when it applies, when it was written and think about it.
Man what is your problem with the DNR. Are you so full of yourself and know so much more about this that your willing to make a fool of yourself with attacks on me. Give it a rest and chill out there girl. Your opinion is yours but your attack on the DNR is wrong. They do know more than you do.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

Edited by - logs on 01/27/2003 17:49:24

logs	01-27-2003 05:53 PM

RE: NRB meeting

TJD, this may help you understand the difference of how baiting effects a regular deer season in comparison to an eradication zone...

There are three parcel of land all adjacent to each other. The one on the East is owned by logs, the one in the middle by Layzhunter and the one on the West by TJD. The goal is to harvest three deer and each hunter draws one tag.

Layzhunter is the only one that baits deer. Each one hunts and is allowed one deer and there is a nine day season. Layzhunter has the deer coming into his feeder every day. It is to the point that the deer do not need to travel onto logs or tjd's land since they get all the food they want on layzhunters. Layz shoots a deer early in the hunt but continues to feed year round. Neither logs or tjd get a deer. This is bad.

Now same situation but now we want to harvest all the deer on these three parcel and we have month to do accopmlish it. This is being done because some deer have a deadly illness and there is no know why to contian it. The land owners are allowed to kill all the deer. layzhunter hunts over his feeder and kills all the deer in 3 months.
Mission accomplished.
In the first situation baiting is used by only 33% of the hunters and it is not effective for the overall hunt, whereas the goal was for every hunter to get one deer. In the second situation baiting is effective.

So baiting is effective and yet it does detract or adversely effect a regular harvest.

At least that's what the Magic eightball said.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

wdhc	01-27-2003 07:26 PM

RE: NRB meeting

PeakRut, No. There are many others that share some of these concerns. Not everyone has their head in the sand or is a dumb bubba like some officials would like to believe.

Sky 103

01-27-2003 09:37 PM

RE: NRB meeting

If you don't mind Logs, I'll quickly interject your debate with TJD and step aside. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't attempt to challenge that. I can't speak for TJD, but I can only assume that he is one of many of us who are annoyed with the continual contradictions that so frequently come from this agency. I don't have the answer; I don't know who does. It does appear to me, however, that the DNR did not establish a gameplan that permitted a third-party critique. Some very notable biologists warned the DNR of the pitfalls that would accompany their plan to address the issue of CWD. Have we come to an impasse? Who knows. Time will sort that out.
Nice pictures . . . .congratulatons !

logs	01-28-2003 08:43 AM

RE: NRB meeting

Sky103. Actually I agree with some of what you say.
I don't think the DNR is perfect nor right all the time. But the points made at the being of this thread lack clear thought from my view point.
The writer objects to everything but gives no foundation of substance to support his attacks. They are not just opinions they are attacks.

Example:How is shooting deer from a helicopter with a shotgun by qualified marksmen a danger to other animals and people short of a helicopter crash. That is just Chicken Little the sky is falling nonsense.

Different states are addressing their problems with CWD in different ways that suit thier enviorment, degree of concern, extent of problem and game management style. WI has taken this aproach and is open to the public the entire way. Unfortunately not all the public is able to comprehend or understand the complexity of the situation.
I really don't have my head in the sand or up my butt. I do however believe that the DNR is interested in solving this problem, they are looking at every option and since no one on this board has come forward with any evidence that they are more qualified I'll keep following the ideas of the DNR and the experts on the subject.

Im always open to well thought out ideas and debate but that isn't happening here and I admit I got draw into the childish cr@p but I thought it was necessary to demonstrate the folly at the time.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

TJD	01-28-2003 04:26 PM

RE: NRB meeting

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your opinion is yours but your attack on the DNR is wrong. They do know more than you do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> You must have owned a lot of Enron stock, logs. I'm certain from reading this post that you would just merrily go along buying because "experts" like Jeffrey Skilling and the like told you it was a great idea. If the DNR is so "expert" in this regard, they should have no problem presenting facts to back up their "expertise". Yet they present nothing more than contradictions and half-stories. So far, that is exactly what you have done as well, logs.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>OK, it is just you and I here debating this and your upset because you don't understand complex subjects.
You apparently can not distingish the eradication zone, the DNRs goal there from a regular deer season and the objective of total management.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Hmmm? <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> can not distingish the eradication zone, the DNRs goal there from a regular deer season and the objective of total management<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Now who is reading between the lines? Do they offer courses in "DNR Interpretation" that only you have taken?

As for the first part, since you did not address even one single fact addressed in my previous post regarding the DNR's own stance on the subject of baiting, you must be talking about yourself with regard to complex subjects. Tell you what, between interludes at work saying "You want fries with that?", give it a try. Complexity to you must be trying to think outside the box, and actually question what the DNR says. Really, its simple. First they say one thing and then do another. It's there as plain as day. The DNR's own words! Yet here it is you that is trying to read between the lines and place allusions as to what the DNR "means" now with regard to the CWD zone. One thing I agree with you on is your admission of your getting childish. I guess I should have expected as much from someone so firmly entrenched in the Amen Chorus of the DNR. Or maybe it's those hormone treatments. Problems with hot flashes?...Try another Doctor. Oh that's right! You believe the first story you hear...

But hey, keep showing us why someone as unarmed as you should bother to fight a battle of wits. You have a choice: present facts to back your positions...which you have failed to do so far..., or continue posts like the ones above that make it seem as if you are writing on the bathroom wall in high school. The choice is yours; I'll make rebuttals either way. But since you've decided to slide down the slope of the latter...

If it wasn't so sad, I'd get a good laugh out of the DNR's actions and your defense of them. Basically they have contradicted themselves at least twice
1. DNR in July: "We need to ban baiting because we think it can increase the spread of CWD."/DNR now: Allow in in "The Zone" so that our 2.5% infection rate can grow.
2. DNR in July: "You actually have a better chance of seeing and killing deer WITHOUT baiting."/ DNR now: Baiting is needed in "the zone" to increase the harvest.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Now same situation but now we want to harvest all the deer on these three parcel and we have month to do accopmlish it. This is being done because some deer have a deadly illness and there is no know why to contian it. The land owners are allowed to kill all the deer. layzhunter hunts over his feeder and kills all the deer in 3 months. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Your post about the three hunters also CONTRADICTS the very points the DNR made in the release last July regarding the baiting issue. If you'd care to retrieve the entire thing and look for yourself, be my guest. And take a dose of your own advice...assuming of course you care to read what you yourself have written...DON'T TRY READING BETWEEN THE LINES OR READ ANYTHING INTO IT! Got it? Let's start with this key line. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The difference in success rates among gun hunters with and without bait is negligible.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> GOT IT??? "AMONG HUNTERS WHO BAIT"!!! Had to make that big like the words in those "See Spot Run" books might get to read in a couple years. Not "not effective for the overall hunt" as you wrote. The effect is "negligible" for hunters that bait. So for a "negligible difference" in success, tell us how baiting will work, contradicting the findings of your almighty DNR? In or out of the Zone. Go for it!

Proof, not little stories, parables....PROOF! Here's a big word for you...might wanna ask an adult what I mean...give us some statistics to show how this will increase the harvest in the zone. Tell us how you will contradict the DNR's own parables about how baiting actually decreases your chances of even seeing deer by making them more nocturnal. Tell us how smart it really is to increase the chance of an increase in incidence of CWD by potentially increasing deer-to-deer contact thru baiting. And by the way, we are gonna hold ya to your own standard...can't read anything into what's written. The DNR is contradicting their own lines, Zone or no Zone. Plain and simple. Unless of course you are prepared to admit that the DNR made up their own facts back in July. You make the call! Either they were right in July, or they are wrong now. You make the call

Want some more facts? The DNR did everyting they could to alienate hunters in the zone. Want proof? Look at the harvest figures in the area, even with all of the special dumb-hunts starting in the Summer. Call that a success? Even close? A whopping 8,000 deer out of how many they wanted to get? 25,000. Yeah, the DNR has done such a magificent job that the harvest was right about what it was last year, even though there were an additional 60+ days to hunt with firearms. WOOOWE! Want some input as to how "open to the public" the DNR has been with regard to CWD? How about the poll in early November showing that only about 1/3 of landowners in the Zone were going to cooperate with the DNR's slaughter. This after six months of trying to "sell" hunters on their plan. Great sales job there, huh? Not that you are one to ever let facts confuse you, but try asking some of the people on this board who live in the zone about how "open" the DNR has been? Ask guys like Nub or others? Or are you afraid of the answer? By the way, you yourself have presented NOTHING in the way of facts. I can guess why...they don't support your contentions!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The 8,000 deer killed in the eradication zone are the equivalent of a yearly fawn crop in the area, said Tom Hauge, the DNR's director of wildlife management. That means the number killed so far will likely be replaced when does give birth this spring. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Gee, what a success! With all that "openness", what went wrong?

Edited by - TJD on 01/28/2003 19:07:38

lyndon38

01-28-2003 05:39 PM

RE: NRB meeting

wdhc: Why was your testimony ruled out of order by DNR staff? Would assume the Board would rule it out of order..not DNR staffers. Regardless...why was it ruled out of order?

Registration: Agree...deer should not leave the intensive harvest zone.

Baiting/feeding: would assume that under par. (b) that food plots, and baiting for bears is not illegal?

Aircraft: WDHC went to easy on this one. Cant wait to see the first video on the nightly news. They'll proably even use the feared black helicopter with government sharpshooters. Yep, this is gonna win over the general public. Bambi with his tongue hanging out, running from the black helicopter as they drive him out of the woods, and into the sights of the sharpshooters.

Official State Duties: what is the DNR's "official duties". Is it as broad as their mission statement.. are they spelled out in detail somewhere? Why go through with these proposed rule changes, if you dont intend to follow all..or some of them?

Nuisance animals: see "aircraft comments ". Another stroke of pr genius.

TJD	01-28-2003 06:17 PM

RE: NRB meeting

Lyndon,

I wouldn't be as certain on the issue of food plots. During the Deer 2000 meetings, one of the early proposals floated regarded food plots as the same as baiting...believe it or not! The proposal was shelved, since it there was no agreement on whether or not it was like baiting, and the DNR had no idea as to how to feasibly enforce such a ban. But that is exactly WHY clarity as to what these proposals mean is crucial.

logs	01-28-2003 06:27 PM

RE: NRB meeting

Ok TJD, you've lost me with this last rambling text.
Nowhere in any of your post do you offer constructive ideas nor demonatrate that you understand what the DNR is trying to do.

You clearly can not comprehend the difference between the two bait items but you don't want to do so.

You have not answered my question as to your quailifications as a wildlife manager. I take it your just a hot head who has all the answers, knows more than anybody and everybody but I'll bet you have to go to work everyday for someone else.
I admit Im not an expert but unlike you I don't have the answers. Wait, no you haven't offered any answers.
Now none of this insulting of each other is producing anything of value so give it your best and try another post if you have any answers on the TJD way to handle CWD or get out of the way and let the experts handle it the best they can. Unlike you they are not perfect and don't know all the answers. They will make some mistakes but they have the interest of the entire state deer herd in mind, not their own little world. They will do the best they can but Im sure that will not be good enough for the likes of you.
Im curious, can you walk upright and eat with utensils, from your comment it sounds like you favor finger food like fries and such. Oh yes,I see you have some personal doubts about yourself here with all your talk of sex changes.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

TJD	01-28-2003 07:05 PM

RE: NRB meeting

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ok TJD, you've lost me with this last rambling text.
Nowhere in any of your post do you offer constructive ideas nor demonatrate that you understand what the DNR is trying to do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Hmmm...did I go beyond your 30 second attention span? Sorry! Let's try this again...

1. DNR in July: "We need to ban baiting because we think it can increase the spread of CWD."/DNR now: Allow in in "The Zone" so that our 2.5% infection rate can grow.
2. DNR in July: "You actually have a better chance of seeing and killing deer WITHOUT baiting."/ DNR now: Baiting is needed in "the zone" to increase the harvest.

It appears it is the DNR that doesn't know what it's trying to do...

You have yet to address the contradiction in concrete terms, other than some make-believe parable that is in contadiction with the DNR's own fact sheet on the subject. Again, show the factual basis for the change, logs! If, according to what the DNR said in July, baiting can lead to an increased chance of the spread of CWD, AND can lead to a decreased chance of deer harvest (or at best no increase), show me the factual basis for the change....anywhere. Simple enough for ya? It should be simple enough for the DNR, but so far they haven't done that either, so I'm not suprised you couldn't address it. So go ahead, let's see your factual response...

...now slowly, going back a couple posts...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You have not answered my question as to your quailifications as a wildlife manager. I take it your just a hot head who has all the answers, knows more than anybody and everybody but I'll bet you have to go to work everyday for someone else.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I have no idea what the second part of that is supposed to indicate. Actually own my own business, and if I had so-called experts like some of the DNR "experts" working for me that decided how to handle the CWD issue and get the lack of results they got, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. Maybe you put your finger on the problem though. The DNR is supposed to work for us, but have a Napoleon complex that doesn't allow them to admit their mistakes. BTW, do you ever have opinions on foreign policy, taxes, crime, etc.? Do you even VOTE? Or do you simply smile and nod your head on those issues to because the "experts" are handling things? Like I said before, how's all that Enron stock doing that the "experts" told you to buy?

Since you simply choose to not respond to any of the facts presented in the previous post, I'll actually bite on your "constructive ideas" line in an attempt to move things along. Not that the DNR is ever interested in what hunters really think, or ever acts on the input or response they get at the public meetings, but here it goes on a few issues with regard to CWD:

1) Get rid of Earn-a-Buck for good. It was a colossal failure in the zone and discouraged hunters from taking the field. Stop pissing off the majority of your "game management tool", the hunter, by putting it in place. Sounds like they may have actually wised up on this one, but I'll believe it when I see it. Keep it up and next year you'll see similar meager results.

2) Stop talking out of both sides of your departmental hind ends. Don't go out and say "Don't worry about CWD; the meat is safe." and then put on hasmat suits while taking testing samples for CWD. Be consistent on the issues; fail to do so and don't expect hunters to trust your credibility. Here's an easy fact to bear in mind: lose your credibility as an agency, any you'll lose funding.

3) Stop all of the nonsensical talk about shooting 25,000 deer in the Zone. It ain't realistic, causes huge resentment among the landowners, and actually causes more hunters to stay home than enter the field. Make the goal population reduction, not some silliness about killing all of the deer in an area of 300 square miles. CWD has been in Wyoming and Colorado for 20+ years, and there are more deer in both states now than 20 years ago, without any "eradication zones. Knock off the hysteria, or expect the results in "the Zone" to continue being poor.

4) Stop playing games with the rules. If you need to make a rule change, provide facts to back it up, not talk cloaked in inprecision like "we think". For example, if you want an increased harvest, tell us why you want to now consider a couple of drops of liquid scent as an item to ban, while at the same time letting gallons of corn be spilled in "The Zone".

5) Rather than making the public meetings a mere formality like a meeting of the old Soviet Politburo, actually act on hunters concerns. With regard to the CWD issue, the first act of the DNR should have been to go to the landowners and say "How would you like us to help YOU in solving this problem?" as opposed to "Here's what we've decided." Is there any wonder that the landowners aren't supportive of the DNR in that area?

There, how's that Logs? "Constructive" enough for you? But don't simply stop here. As I said before, get some of the posters on the forums here who live in "The Zone" and ask them how credible the DNR has been on the subject. Of course, be prepared to learn that they have even less faith in the DNR's ability to handle the situation than I do. Then, try going back and responding with facts to the points presented in the earlier posts...unless a review of the facts might shake your faith in the infallibility of the DNR.

Edited by - TJD on 01/28/2003 21:52:17

wdhc	01-28-2003 08:01 PM

RE: NRB meeting

Lyndon38, It seems the DNR slipped in this rule about a year ago with some other stuff. You know how that works.
This is a good one. IF there is some rule change that will go to public hearing(which is one of those feel good things because they aren't going to listen anyway), then the public can say NOTHING at the NRB meeting about the rule change. Is this a hypocrisy or what.

wdhc	01-28-2003 08:19 PM

RE: NRB meeting

Example:How is shooting deer from a helicopter with a shotgun by qualified marksmen a danger to other animals and people short of a helicopter crash. That is just Chicken Little the sky is falling nonsense.

1. How many marksmen have qualified with shotguns and buckshot?
2. How about bowhunters in trees?
3. How about horses or cattle going through fences? Who is going to be liable for that? The landowners?
4. How about hikers and walkers?

They want to shoot at them from December 1 to April 15, do you think everyone living will know this?

NOW, tell me what is nonsense...

cheese-head

01-28-2003 10:32 PM

RE: NRB meeting

Ok boys get your Kneehighs on we got our selves a good old fashion pissing match here.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> I Mean really do we have any of the right answers about CWD, _ell no We are just starting to learn about testing for it. I can say right now that I dont know what to think and I will leave it at that. Terry

(I can skin a buck or run a trout line)

Deleted User

01-29-2003 06:51 AM

[Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]

logs	01-29-2003 08:28 AM

RE: NRB meeting

TJD,There, how's that Logs? "Constructive" enough for you? Yes, you actually got around to offering some ideas. Thank you.

Awareness of CWD is realitively new to WI and even thought it has existed in other states it has not been address there in the same manner as here because it is a different environment, a lesser degree of concern to the economy and a choice to proceed differently.

I agree that a lot of the hunters are unhappy with the situation and the land owners resent many of the actions of the DNR. Thats natural and understandable. I'd imagine if they were told they had cancer they would be unhappy and if it cause them to have a limb cut off to save thier life, would it be the doctor fault? Well thats the way it was treated for years until they learn better on how to deal with it. Saved a lot of lives.

This is a difficult problem to solve and like I said the DNR doesn't have all the answers, will make some mistakes but at this point in time they have the best information, greatest resources and are not that "emotional" about the situation. They in my opinion are the professionals.You make a good example of the above when you refer to the possible termination of the earn a buck.

As the DNR moves forward trying to deal with this they will be changing rules as needed. I don't see that as playing games. I see it as listening to the public, possibly recognizing mistakes and finding other avenues to explore.
The hazmat suit, come on, you own you own business and I have to explain this to you. I don't think so.

I think the public meanings are useful and so does the DNR. You have taken great delight in this image you have created in your mind of me as a sheep that simply goes along and does not take an active part in the process. If that makes you feel better fine.
I attend DNR meanings, travel to Madison for meeting with my Representative and Im very active in politics. I've actually voted in every election and primary that has occurred since I've been able to vote. Even when Im out of state or the country I vote by absentee ballot. I have meet some other member of this board at meanings, may have even seen you . Don't really know or care. It's good that hunters attend.
This country and state are not ruled by popular opinion, at lease the technical things. How many state buget meeting have you attended? If we did things based on popular opinion nothing would ever get done. We elect people who appoint people who get input from the public, combine that with scientific evidence and proceed. Sometimes it's popular and sucessful and other times it's not. Im a strong believer in ..Lead, Follow or Get Out of the way. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.

And it is beyond my imagination how you can not distingish between the effects of baiting during a state wide deer season and the effects of baiting in the zone for a totally different goal under different conditons and different methods of hunting.

Nick, I hope all the right choices are made and when this is all over you still have a good deer population in you area. Good luck

wdhc, You have to think these people are real idiots if you believe your last post. Almost every Law Enforcement Officer in the State has to qualify with 00 buck. No I'll leave it at that, the rest of your post does not qualify for a response.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

TJD	01-29-2003 05:03 PM

RE: NRB meeting

I agree with Nick and Cheese-head. Time to move on. Logs, let's drop the baiting issue; you are somehow certain that the DNR is right...how I don't know...and I'm even more certain that they are wrong. I'll leave it at that...

Logs, glad to see that you are involved, as am I. It had seemed from your replies that you simply delegated all thought to the so-called experts you mentioned. Democracy doesn't work that way; if it did we would have done like the Romans and simply allowed for an Emperor to make our decisions for us. If the DNR can make a plausible case, then they should have no problem backing their assertions with a facutal basis. If they do that, then yes, they will have my support, as well as the support of an overwhelming number of hunters. But as I alluded to before, if the DNR comes up with dumb ideas, I will respond in kind and not simply nod my head in affirmation. I would hope everyone would take the same approach, and not simply whistle in the dark.

Work doesn't allow me to go to Madison for meetings, but I have attended plenty of the DNR dog and pony shows in this area. Which is precisely WHY I don't find them at all useful. If as you say the DNR values the input of those who attend, they sure have a funny way of showing it. The DNR, as a public agency, needs to be more accountable to public relations, not simply to implementing theoretical practices without regard to public opinion. May not be the way a scientist would want to do things in a perfect world, but this ain't a perfect world.

Compromise is a fact of life, and somehow the DNR has forgotten that. Earn-A-Buck is just one example of that thought process. Hunters hated it from Day 1, but the DNR went ahead an stuck it in the regs. Now in "The Zone", they finally found just how much it was resented. When the DNR itself states repeatedly that hunters are it's "greatest deer managment tool", they had better give equal attention to the PR aspects of decisions. They aren't doing that, at least not NEARLY enough. During the Deer 2000 survey, only 18% of the respondents had a "great deal" of confidence in the DNR's ability to manage the deer herd. 18%!!! By any measure, that indicates they have a problem. And it certainly indicates that I am not alone in my displeasure and lack of confidence in their ability. Disagreeing with decisions doesn't imply "whining" or imply the "we know better". It implies that the DNR has done a poor job of informing the public of the "Why" of their decisions.

Speaking of PR, I want to go back to WDHC's point on the original post of the thread: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Section 25. NR 10.07(1)(a) is amended to read.
NR 10.07(1)(a)
1. Deer may be shot from aircraft only between December 1 and the following April 15.

6. Notwithstanding s. NR 10.09(1)(a)2., any person authorized by the department to shoot deer from or with the aid of an aircraft pursuant to this paragraph, may use shot shells loaded with shot larger than no. BB to shoot deer.

Our concern: This says the DNR can shoot at deer from a helicopter with buckshot. More likely crippling than killing deer. Not to mention the safety of people and animals!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Let's forget about the safety issue for one second. From a PR standpoint, why in gods name would you even start talking about shooting deer from a helicopter in an area around Mt. Horeb? Lyndon is right: from a PR standpoint that is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard of. The increase in kill would be miniscule. This isn't some uninhabited 12,000 acre ranch in Texas we're talking about. This is cornfields, woods, towns, homes....you name it. Back to the safety issue: "sharpshooter" or not, shooting a deer from a loud helicopter, buffeted by wind, etc. isn't a good idea, to say the least. How many of these "sharpshooters" have qualified shooting from aircraft? What is their kill ratio from aircraft? If they cannot answer that, then why do it?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>. I've gone to the meetings, listen to the DNR, understood most of what was said, wasn't clear on some of the ideas, I offered my two cent and now I want to see the process move forward.
Since I know the limits of my qualifications in thia area, unless I have something specific, Im not about to get in the way.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Logs, to me it's not about "getting in the way". It's about trying to understand the way. It's about the DNR acting as a partner with hunters and landowners, instead of coming across like it's there way or nothing. The poll numbers I indicated imply that their attitude is much more of the latter than of the former. That needs to change...now! In many ways, the DNR is their own worst enemy. With CWD, they need our help. With the population issue as a whole, they need our help. If they act more as partners and start from the premise of "how can we assist our greatest management tool?" then they will have our help and support. If not, expect that confidence level in the DNR to remain pathetically low. Which in turn will mean less money, less cooperation, and an even less effective DNR.

Edited by - TJD on 01/29/2003 18:10:00

logs	01-29-2003 06:42 PM

RE: NRB meeting

TJD, have a nice day.

Work hard and be true to yourself.
http://www.hunting-pictures.com/memb...kas/index.html

wdhc	01-31-2003 11:01 PM

RE: NRB meeting

TJD, It couldn't have been explained any better.

Logs, we are not only watchdogs, but we offer solutions and ideas, as well. We offered a plan for eradication but it was ignored. (I really believe it was better)
In September, we started running ads on the Packer Radio Network, telling people to ignore the media hype and get out to hunt. Long before whitetails unlimited or anyone else.
Happy hunting

Deleted User

02-01-2003 07:20 AM

[Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]

Deleted User

02-01-2003 08:48 PM

[Deleted]

[Deleted by Admins]

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:02 AM.