NRB meeting
01-25-2003 | 10:36 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: waukesha wi USA
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.
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.
01-26-2003 | 01:55 PM
#3
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
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
"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
01-27-2003 | 11:47 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
From: Sussex WI
RE: NRB meeting
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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
01-27-2003 | 01:38 PM
#5
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
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
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
01-27-2003 | 03:36 PM
#6
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
From: Sussex WI
RE: NRB meeting
For the record, I don't and never have baited. Now that we have that out of the way...
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Actually, I read pretty well. Apparently though, it is you, Logs, that has the comprehension problem.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
...And this again from the DNR: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Actually, I read pretty well. Apparently though, it is you, Logs, that has the comprehension problem.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
...And this again from the DNR: <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' 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></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 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.
01-27-2003 | 04:46 PM
#7
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
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
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
01-27-2003 | 05:53 PM
#8
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,540
Likes: 0
From:
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
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
01-27-2003 | 09:37 PM
#10
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Packer Country, USA
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 !
Nice pictures . . . .congratulatons !