HuntingNet.com Forums - Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

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

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

- - Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/midwest/883-not-beat-dead-horse-more-wdnr.html)

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

TJD, I don't except you to go back and read all my post so let me sum it up like this;
I don't agree with everything that the DNR does and I've said that many times.
I know Im less qualified than they are to accomplish the task they are required to do.
I do trust that they are doing the best job possible and wheather you recall or not have stated time and agian, with facts as to why.
I don't just sit back and post , I get off my butt and do something about it, like lobby with reps, talk to the dnr people and non dnr people in the field such as study groups from UWM, and I make oersonal observations. I don't base MY opinion on just my gut feeling from what I see in a limited area. That is just stupid.
Now you are entitled to you opinion and I respect that.
I don't think you are as quaulifed as the DNR, nor have the resourse of the DNR to pass judgement on them as you have.
At the meeting in Madison the other day, the DNR did not Buckle under to the SMers, the fought them all the way. It si up to the JCRAR committee as to what will happen with the t-zones and any Dec hunt. See I know that because for years I've been involved by my acts not just words.
How about you?

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How about you?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well,
I've attended the local meetings where possible and voiced my opinion as necessary.
I've written letters to the legislators on various committees and my on reps here to let them know how I feel.
I have been very careful to put hunters in the best light when speaking to those who don't hunt.

Can't say I've done as much as I could or wanted to, but, yes I have acted where possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't base MY opinion on just my gut feeling from what I see in a limited area. That is just stupid.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Agreed. My opinion is not just based on what I see (see one of my previous posts in that regard if you'd like). I base it on the figures that the DNR themselves put out, as well as some of the statements made in the press as well as at various meetings throughout the state.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now you are entitled to you opinion and I respect that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Ditto!
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I don't think you are as quaulifed as the DNR, nor have the resourse of the DNR to pass judgement on them as you have.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> I definitely agree with the first part of your statement; not sure about part two. I also don't have the resources to know for sure that gun control doesn't work either. Depending on the set of stats you want to focus on (in a vacuum), I could make the argument either way. That mean that I would not vote out an anti-gunner, since I cannot know with certainty that their policies are useless in controlling crime? Back to your quote about being entitled to an opinion: if the DNR can show that people like me who are skeptical of their figures are wrong, all I ask is that they do so!

Logs, my skepticism of the DNR took hold over time. No, I don't expect perfection from them. But just like with any organization, they need to be critical of their own methods and be willing to put them to the test. That is the only way that improvement ever takes place. But during Deer 2000, they stated that they were willing to have an outside audit of their estimates, then quickly stated that they think all the methods used to check their method are faulty. What are they so afraid of?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't agree with everything that the DNR does and I've said that many times.
I know Im less qualified than they are to accomplish the task they are required to do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Agreed! That doesn't mean that the DNR can't try to improve upon its methods of sampling or its methods of controlling the harvest, does it? Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Logs,all I am saying is that the DNR should try to do a better job of being consistent. Try to do a better job of avoiding the "boom/bust" deer cycles of the past, which they are at least partly responsible for. Don't spew out nonsense like in the article above, when it is obvious that the last similar season mentioned had a record harvest.

Is that too much to ask?

Logs, I'm glad to see that you are involved! I'd rather see that than see ten posts supporting my view from people who think involvement means buying a license.

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

BTW, in the interest of fairness to Bill Mytton and the DNR, I have sent him an e-mail asking him to clarify his statements in the Outdoor News. I will post the letter and the reply in another thread...if I get a reply.

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

LISTEN TO THIS, ABOUT "MY" DEER HUNTING THIS YR.OK
To tell you the truth My bow season SUCKED! hmm 3 or 4 deer jeese not even. I hunt farmland. My uncle owns it.3 yrs ago we saw atleast" 15 deer and well maybe 2 were bucks. This yr. Total bucks bow season this yr...... one 4 and 1 rack buck lil 8 pt. Now thats bow season.
I huntin 54 A. LISTEN BOW SEASON+T-ZONE+RIFLE+BLACK POWDER+T_ZONE+BOW season again. **** I felt sorry for the deer i dint even feel like shooting em. Yah the dnr says that the warm temp caused no deer bull its the dnr $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ i will finish 2 morrow

RE: Not to beat a dead horse...more on the WDNR

As promised, here's the letter I e-mailed to Bill Mytton regarding his remarks in the Wisconsin Outdoor News. Also, I will paste in entirety his response, if and when I get one:

Mr. Mytton,

I read with interest the recent article in the Wisconsin Outdoor News regarding your feeling that you were being...is targeted the right phrase?...as a result of the recent deer season. That is, your statements that the recent "brown" season that was so disappointing to many deer hunters, has similarities to other "Brown" seasons. Those similarities being...if I am interpreting your comments correctly...as being a lower deer harvest.

This year had a gun season which had a much lower than anticipated gun harvest. I don't believe that issue is in dispute. However, assuming that the story contains correct quotes and also, correct emphasis, I am confused by a few things. First, let me review the first few paragraphs of the article:

"During each of the 'brown' years of 1960, 1990 and this past deer season, we got a lot of calls and letters telling us there are no deer out there," Mytton told the Natural Resources Board at its December meeting in Madison.

Those years had no snow on the ground during the gun deer season. Mytton said he now felt like he was in Afganistan, because of the amount of "scud missiles" (in the form of hunter complaints) that were coming at him. Yet, he told the board taht when looking at all 2001 deer seasons together, the harvest may be adequate, and raks fairly well with previous years.

Preliminary registrations, which won't be final until March 2002, totalled 291,563 deer during the nine-day gun season (compared to 433,511 in 2000).

One of the years you mention is 1990. So imagine my suprise when I went back and did a little checking of the harvest records. In 1990, there were a total of 350,040 deer harvested during the gun season. Mr. Mytton, not only did that blow the snot out of what we had for a total this year (by 20-some percent!), but it was also a record harvest at that time!! So what am I missing?? If that was indeed a 'brown' year, how did we set a record for harvest during gun season? Now I do realize that the population entering the 2001 season was estimated to be about 8% lower than the population entering the 2000 season. But we had a harvest during the deer gun season that was 30%+ lower than the same harvest last year? Are there some stats to explain this discrepancy? Certainly weather conditions played a part. But again, during the last "Brown" year, we still managed to set a record for deer harvest during the gun season.

Further, the following is stated:

Mytton said that following the 1960 and 1990 seasons the DNR became too conservative in deer quotas, because of hunter concerns over not seeing deer. He said it took years to recover from inadequate harvests following 'brown' seasons.

....so I do a little more research, and what do I find? The 1991 harvest...apparently one of the subsequent harvests where the DNR was getting too "conservative"?...ANOTHER RECORD !! In fact, 352,520 taken that year during gun season, not to mention a jump of about 18,000 more taken during bow season that same year.

As stated previously, it is certainly possible that the confusion that this article generates is caused by editing or misquoting. If so, I would appreciate some clarification on the matter. Certainly, given the recent surveys taken by the DNR and others that show, at best, a mistrust of the DNR's population estimates by hunters, I am sure that you will agree that giving information in the proper context is very important.

Yet myself and many others are confused by the apparent discrepancies created by your comments when compared with the DNR's own statistics for the years noted above.

Please feel free to e-mail me your comments at your earliest convenience.