Garmin Xero Bow Sight
Wisconsin deer management changes
Contributors to this thread:
wilbur 31-Jul-12
Naz 01-Aug-12
Naz 01-Aug-12
glunker 03-Aug-12
glunker 03-Aug-12
jaybird 03-Aug-12
Pasquinell 03-Aug-12
glunker 04-Aug-12
From: wilbur
Received the following on an email distribution list. Not sure if you guys had seen it.

Wisconsin: Times, they are a changin’

You may or may not have been following the changes being proposed in Wisconsin’s deer management strategies. Here is an article that outlines where they are at right now. I think you are going to be seeing some sweeping changes in the next few years. What do you make of all this?

Wisconsin should drop its deer goals according to report

A wildlife biologist has a convincing viewpoint on sustaining the Wisconsin deer population. He fears that the current conservation laws could destroy the herd. MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) — Wisconsin wildlife officials should scrap local deer population goals, let landowners hold mini-hunts on their property and establish better connections with the public, Gov. Scott Walker’s deer trustee wrote in a report released Tuesday.

Texas researcher James Kroll’s 136-page study focuses largely on the Department of Natural Resources’ shortcomings but takes hunters to task too, saying they expect the agency to maintain a herd so large the landscape can’t support it. His plan offers the two sides a chance to compromise and save Wisconsin’s hunting traditions from disappearing, he said.

“This is a reset button,” Kroll said of his recommendations. “If we’re going to continue to have the hunting heritage in Wisconsin, we’re going to have to do this.”

DNR Lands Division Administrator Kurt Thiede issued a statement saying agency officials haven’t reviewed the report yet.

“We are not afraid to face recommendations and critiques that are contained in the report and adjust accordingly,” Thiede said.

Deer hunters have been feuding with the DNR over the last decade or so, contending the agency’s herd control tactics have become so ham-handed and rigid they’re leading to anemic hunts.

Walker, a Republican, tapped into the rancor on the campaign trail two years ago, promising to respond to hunters’ complaints. The governor’s administration hired Kroll in October for $125,000 to undertake an extensive review of the DNR’s policies. Kroll and two other researchers have spent the last nine months studying DNR documents and data and meeting with DNR employees, stakeholder groups, Wisconsin’s American Indian tribes and the general public.

Kroll issued preliminary findings in March that were highly critical of the DNR. He picks up where he left off in his final report, picking apart everything from the DNR’s population estimates to a lack of easily accessible, computerized maps.

The report says the department’s population estimates aren’t precise enough to serve as the basis for population goals in individual management zones. Zone goals are crucial to hunters because the numbers determine what herd control strategies, such as antlerless hunts, the DNR might impose on that area.

The agency should do away with zone population estimates and goals, saying most hunters have little faith in them, the numbers are indefensible statistically and the constant argument over the figures erodes the DNR’s credibility. The DNR instead should adopt simple goal statements such as increase, stabilize or decrease population density and establish criteria to measure success based on local trends, such as crop damage, forest degradation or car-deer crashes.

The report recommends the DNR start a program that allows landowners and hunting clubs to run hunts on their property after consulting with DNR biologists. At least 20 states already allow such hunts, according to the report.

The hunts would help manage the local herd, build trust between hunters, landowners and the state and provide the DNR with valuable scientific data from the dead deer. The program could yield up to 25,000 deer and cost about $100,000 annually. The money would come from enrollment fees and antlerless permit fees.

Wisconsin Democrats have accused Kroll of favoring private hunting clubs over public lands, pointing to remarks he made to “Texas Monthly” magazine in 2002 calling people who want more public land “cocktail conservationists who are really pining for socialism.” They feared Kroll might recommend privatizing public lands.

Kroll dismissed that criticism as politically motivated , it came during the height of Democrats’ attempt to recall Walker this past spring , and he insisted his mini-hunt idea could apply across swaths of public land too.

The study also recommends the DNR step up its attempts to connect with the public and stakeholders. Agency biologists should spend more time working with forestry and agricultural specialists and develop local management teams that would include tribal representatives, the agency should involve volunteers in projects as much as possible and involve members of the Conservation Congress, a group of influential sportsmen who advise the DNR, in local deer management decisions.

“You guys almost overnight can go from heels to heroes just by working with people,” Kroll said he told agency officials.

Still, Kroll praised DNR employees as competent professionals trying to do the right thing for Wisconsin wildlife. He ended the report by admonishing hunters, saying they want to see more deer than the land can sustain. They want government officials to maintain a herd so large the state’s forests would suffer and more motorists will crash into the deer.

“Ironically, by attempting to raise more deer than the land can sustain, they wind up with fewer deer,” the report said.

Kroll warned that if the DNR and hunters can’t agree on his recommendations the state’s rich hunting tradition could vanish. Legislators will step in and start mandating heavy-handed changes, he said. Hunter numbers will decline and the DNR will have to rely on predators to control the herd, he said.

“Everybody’s sick and tired of this and they’re ready to do something,” Kroll said. “The ball’s in your court, pure and simple.”

From: Naz
“We should follow Dr. Kroll’s recommendation to eliminate the hated Deer Management Unit and instead follow county lines and even group several counties together in regions.”

Having larger management units has been a DNR recommendation for many years. It was fought by hunters who wanted even more smaller, micro-managed units. LOL that now that the messenger changed, it's a great message!

Schoettel added, “the only way this will work is having more ‘boots on the ground’ with DNR personnel out in the field working with landowners, instead of sitting in cubicles in Madison dictating hunting rules.”

Potshot-taking press releases must make the press release writer and DNR bashers feel good. Though they toned it down quite a bit this time, still couldn't resist a shot or two below the belt. And the HRC wonders why it has little credibility among the media?

From: Naz
LOL you guys ever try to count bears, wolves, deer, etc. in the wild? One guess is as good as the other. The potshot on cubicles makes as much sense as me saying the lobbyist should get out of bed with the politician. Sure, they're tied. But not THAT much. What liberal media posted a bogus report during the tantrum? A blog is not mainstream media and likely has as few readers as a website thread. What real media printed a bogus report?

From: glunker
Schoettel's comment is just cover for the HRC as they just never stop trying too get their way or the hiway. First off Sec Stepp said she was going to digest the Kroll recommendations. Second, I do not believe for one minute that the HRC will follow Kroll on his insinuation to get rid of deer baiting. Third, the DNR does not have the money to deal with individual landowners. And if they did it would not have much of an impact. The QDM is already there, let them sign up landowners, visit website and seminars.

From: glunker
Maybe we just interpeted his study different. From the language he used, to solve the baiting problem you would have to eliminate it. If it continues so does the back and forth that we have now. MN does not have our problem of the bait vs non bait and they are happy.

From: jaybird
A perspective on baiting in MN:

From: Pasquinell
Question: Why did they have to say "Walker, a republican..."

From: glunker
You missed the point as this is not about what I want but how to achieve the goal of the study. Kroll wanted to stop the baiting issue, well most of the issue is: is it ethical?, does it impact neighboring hunters? does it encourage illegal activity? does it contribute to disease and does it lower the ability to kill deer as per the Carolina Study? The full solution to getting "rid" of the issue is to outlaw it. If you will be honest you can come to no other conclusion than that. I think the Legislature will pass on their duty to follow through for Kroll but who knows. Call the MN DNR ask them why they do not have deer baiting or if they are lobbying to get it.

Jaybird, great link. Now does that answer some of your questions about why MN does not allow deer baiting? This is not a discussion about baiting per se but about where we have to go to as Kroll says solve the issue.

  • Sitka Gear