Owners responsibility. This would be self policing and a simple solution.
Wisconsin is backwards in this law. Fifi shouldn't be allowed to interfer with my property. I pay the taxes and should be able to control the environment
What makes my dogs more valuable than anything on your private property? Absolutely nothing. This is all driven by greed!
One proposal that I would like to see pass is that guides who are convicted of hunting or fishing violations should also have their guide license suspended for the same amount of time. If a guide can't respect the resource while hunting on his own time, what makes you think he will respect the resource on your dime?
If you want examples just ask.
Any thoughts?
However - I do have a comment on dogs on private property!
I think anyone that would shoot a dog on or off their own property should be arrested and jailed. A number of years ago I did just that with a bozo that shot a Lab with a bow and arrow.
That being said and tempers heating up - take a listen!
The dog is NOT at fault - the blame lies with the hunter that brought the dog to the area.
I believe that anyone.... bear hounder/grouse hunter/duck hunter/ect...who allows a dog to travel upon the lands of another unescorted (at large) should be cited by law enforcement.
Killing someone's dog will not solve the problem and may very well end up in a shooting with no dogs involved.
Bull - I cannot believe you feel this would be a "simple solution?"
I was involved in a case that involved a property owner shooting 3 dogs chasing coyotes on his property.
The property owner killed all three and the dog owners found the dogs shot and each one dead.
Thank the Lord someone had the common sense to call the Sheriff's Office and cooler heads prevailed. I kid you not, I believe if deputies were not there... there would have been one more shooting incident.
Anything but a "simple solution."
I really hate dogs running at large on people property including my own. But let's be real here.
As nor you or I have a crystal ball and are able to predict the future, I whole heartedly believe that this will never pass in a million years. For that matter the ability for a hunter to trail wounded game onto the property of another - never going to happen.
"God this state is getting more f'ed up every year"
You may want to look around at some other states and see just how bad they have it!
But if ya find a better one, I say abandoned this one and perhaps hunt that one? I like it here Rut!
The current rules are well written and need to be enforced as written. Owners need to take responsibility for their dogs.
These are not pets, they are tools used to harvest animals.
Simply shooting the animal because it is doing what it was trained to do is not acceptable. Letting your dogs run private land where you do not have permission is a great display of lack of respect to the landowner and continually to do so should result in a stiff monetary penalty and loss of hunting privileges for repeat offenders.
Something that would be enough to change behaviors
As far as this proposal, it's probably just another controversial ploy to gain attendance. They know that if attendance keeps dropping they will be eliminated. Which would be a good thing as the outcome of most of these things is predetermined anyway.
We "had" a problem with a nieghbor that let his dog run constantly - I spoke with him on several occasions and was done talking. 3 different times I issued him citations and the last time I saw the dogs chase a deer across the road, I wrote him two.
He paid both and burned his dog houses and gave the dogs to the shelter.
I could have ran over both dogs, but again - no fault of the dogs, when left to run they will find trouble.
Sad part is the guy letting the dogs run was kinda nice - hated to do it, but some folks dont get the picture.
We can do it.
We can do it.
Perfect logic and in 10 years we will be Minnie. Just google MDDI and see what really bad deer management is.Don't participate or vote. Amazing.
As for the trespassing dog thing how can the DNR, or anyone else, say that I have to allow someone on my land? I don't see how a law like this would pass a court challenge.
The only reason certain people think it's a farce is because they are in jeopardy of loosing their ability to make the rule changes because they continue to violate and break laws!
It is your right to attend these meetings as a citizen and voice your opinion. Violators should be banned from attending, voting, writing resolutions and serving on committees for a minimum of 3 years.
At my local hearing this past spring we had a convicted sex offender run for the board. This was not a mild sex offender like a 18 year old guy who has consentual sex with a 16 year old girl, this was a guy that spent the last 20 years in prison! Thankfully he didn't win.
This was very obvious last year with the DTR and its known violator, right rickflare?
Just who is the "know" violator(s) and what was pushed through - that's my first question.
MikeF perhaps you can enlighten me?
Never heard the "mild" sex offender - interesting!
Thanks!
These people also serve on committees and are always bringing in outside influence to the table.
As we all know the WBHA has a strong influence on the WCC and continues to push through things they want to pass, and don't give a crap about the people's votes!
Happygolucky- You are very correct in stating that there were people convicted of hunting violations sitting and pushing their personal agenda on the DTR Committee. At the time, there was no rule against this. The WCC does have the rule, but fails to enforce it!
A very close relative has been on the big game committee for years and has not experienced this. Ultimately any significant change boils down to what the DNR wants the NRB to rubber stamp regardless of the roughly 2% of sportsmen who are actually engaged in the process. I am sure politics and "donations" influence the process. Welcome to Merka! All the hoopla and major changes that came out of the DTR process will not affect how I manage my property one bit.Our camp rules are much more strict and specific. If they take away my ability to manage antlerless I would simply get ag tags.The DNR can no longer(EAB ban) regulate private landowners to manage deer to DNR wishes.
Still waiting for a response from my friend MikeF - looks like he forgot about me?
"Just who is the "know" violator(s) and what was pushed through - that's my first question."
Any thoughts Mike?
I sent you a PM.
Mike
Thought I'd post some of what I answered Mike on.
I have never met any of the board members that are being referred to.
The only one I'm familiar with is Ron Kulas or ole' RC.
Now I know there are some that are glad Ron left and wont return here, but I gotta tell ya, I do miss his posts. The ones with the DIY stuff about venison, tool making, tent making and such.
Did he get under some folks skin - Yep!
I told Mike "He without sin, cast the first stone."
And I think that is a fair way to look at things. We.... and I mean everyone including myself make mistakes, were all human.
Where do you draw the line with potential committee members?
No conservation violations? No DWI convictions? How about traffic (speed/moving violations.) How about misdeminors? Possession of marijuana OK?
I would say anyone with a CRIMINAL conviction should not be allowed, but even there, some good folks made a mistake and are great people now.
What should we do? I need to look in the mirror along with some others. I am not religious, but "for the grace of God, I go"
I think of any one of us, doing some deep soul searching can think of a time when and if a warden would have been several feet away - Oh crap!
Was it the gun case you forgot to zip all the way? Was it the tree step you screwed into the tree to hang your bow on public land? Did you sit in your tree a few more minutes than you should have? Perhaps, you drove your truck or ATV on a closed road for 100 feet or so, to take a short cut?
How many of us are without sin? Time for a reality check folks!
Just saying!
Are you suggesting that there are no ethical hunters out there and that EVERYONE has purposely broke a hunting law at some time or another? I think I would whole heartedly have to disagree with that.
I sent my reply.
Knowingly breaking the law is what sticks in my craw!
I am also suggesting that it is all too easy to sit in judgement of others when we ourselves at sometime,in our lives have acted stupidly and made our share of mistakes.
rjn - When gun cases were required it was a requirement of that law that all gun guns be fully enclosed within a gun case. If it was opened several inches, it was a violation and you or me would be "convicted of breaking the law." could be an honest mistake, but we broke the law! You know what they say about common sense rjn - NOT so common my friend!
Most conservation citations are "civil" and NOT criminal. The citation RC paid was a civil citation. A fine - not a criminal conviction! Im not standing up for RC, he was wrong - he knows it - move on!
So I ask you, would you want a party convicted of 2nd offense DWI - that's a crime. Or one that paid a civil forfiture fine which is NOT a crime on your boards.
How about simple possession of marijuana - an ordinance violation (fine)? Is that OK?
How about someone with their driver's license suspended - do you want them? Second or subsequent offense is a crime - DWI related 1st offense for after revocation is a crime...can we have one of those guys?
How about a shoplifter? They get a fine - no jail. Can we have a shoplifter?
Do you want every candidate to submit a full set of prints and we can then run them through NCIC/CIB and do a full criminal history before appointment?
Heck, ya had Bill Clinton smoking weed (didn't inhale) and playing around in the White House on company time... :^)
The State "Thank the Lord and Greyhound", is chuck full of "ethical" hunters and sportsmen and ladies.
But do not lose sight of the fact that each and everyone one is prone to mishap, mistake and lapse of good judgement as well.
While committing a conservation violation may make us some what less ethical based upon the circumstances - what it really does without a doubt.....is proving we are human!
I say - no "criminal convictions" of any type.
"The End" :^)
Sounds like you condone hunting violations. I don't. Never had one and have not violated ever. Maybe I am not human according to your definition.
I would not want someone with a hunting violation on any hunting board.
Now not placing your customer ID # on your camera on State land is a conservation violation. I cannot be on your board because I forgot to put my ID # on my camera? Really?
How about the backtag I lost somewhere in the 300 acre marsh I walked out of and the citation I got from a warden for not displaying my back tag? Is that OK? Can I be on your board?
I validated my bear tag, but I forgot to punch the month, I just punched the day. Is the citation I got for failure to validate a tag going to keep me off your board. I was really excited when I shot my bear!
To ban good people, who want to make a difference, donate their time and abilities after they made a mistake is bad mojo!
Let me ask you a question Happy - How about my second offense DWI conviction? Can I be on the board - I never have had a conservation violation? Is that alright?
Let me know!
And by the way, your human Happy. Denial is part of being human!
P.S.: Dont have any DWI convictions or conservation citations....
You are who you are, nothing more, nothing less. Some hide, some don't. Some push buttons, some don't. It almost sounds like you enjoy hiding behind your name??
Novemberforever-
Maybe that's why I shoot ReR and Bear? Yup, that's on of the reasons!
As far as violators serving, we'll have to see where it leads. I know that there are people who try and get elected to the WCC and are asked if they have ever had a hunting or fishing violation when they get up and introduce themselves in our county. They are also asked if they have ever hunted or fished before. After having an anti-hunter elected years ago the people have learned their lesson here in the county where I live.
You are making up "minimized" violations that in most cases a LEO would understand and not cite you for. Sometimes, the matter of fact is that one's poor decisions have consequences. Fact of life. It really seems that you feel there are no ethical hunters and that everyone violates. I would not want a hunting violator representing me on a hunting board.
As for the DWI notation, of course background checks should be done. That is common sense.
rickflare, you keep forgetting to use your wink ;) like you used to ;).
And who should be in charge of those "background" checks and who will pay for them being done? Sounds good but when the rubber hits the pavement - little or nothing will be done. For a "real" background check - their expensive and need a qualified individual to do them! I have done them for years for the County and know what's involved. It's money well spent - but convincing people to do that versus all the other needs - it's tough!
If you want to call everyone that makes a "mistake" a violator then we are all violators because we ALL make mistakes. That includes myself - I'm no different!
I hunted many, many years with a fella. Honest as the day is long. I trust him with my life.
We are hunting quite a few years back and I was working as a special warden back then. We hunted ducks for the first time with a motor, prior to that we always paddled.
We pull up on shore and I get my truck. My friend jacks out three shells and cases his gun.
My supervisor was parked there and asked me about it and I said I didnt see what happened. He called my friend over and wrote him a citation for a loaded firearm with a boat under power.
This man is of extrememly high charcter and honest as the day is long - but, he made a mistake.
Those without sin, cast the first stone!
As far as consequences, all actions have consequence I agree. Just like not appointing a fella like my friend the consequnce is far reaching - He could be just what the doctor ordered for any conservation board! But 20 years ago he made a "mistake."
Do you really think no one in the State of Wisconsin has ever recieved citations for camera violations - no back tag display and failure to validate - they have all occurred over the years!
Are there some jerks out there - you bet. Nothing is set in stone - but to blatantly deny anyone...is not only wrong it's borderline stupid!
Let's think before we act!
I coach high school bowling and in order for me to even be on the lanes, the USBC does a background check on me and this is for a silly sport like bowling, one where no weapons and killing are involved. I pay $50 annually for that privilege. For me to hunt locally in the burbs, I have to apply for a Weapons Discharge Permit in which the local police department does a background check. I pay $10 for that. If someone wants to serve on some board, it wouldn’t be too much to ask for them to go through the background check. If they pass, perhaps the organization could reimburse them
Obviously some people care more about ethics than others do. We all have choices in that matter. I for one will err with the person who I feel is most honest and ethical.
As far as violators sitting on the public committees, i have been in touch with the DNR, the WCC and law makers across the state in that regard. More to follow as this progresses through the system.
Some offense's are obvious and of course rise to the level of shocking the conscious.
Do we "brand" people for life now? A guy is 5 bluegills over his possession level - Banded for life as a "violator." Wow!
I've been in the business of law enforcement for many years now. You would think that me of all people would have a skewed swing on violations!
But one thing my many years have taught me is just how human we all are and everyone carries their own set of challenges in life - problems few if anyone knows about. Few, very few of us dont carry those problems daily.
Unfaithful wives, children on drugs, jobs with unreasonable supervisors, working 12-15 hour shifts with low pay and no health care, financial issues and the list goes on and on!
We should be carefull on how we "see" or "judge" people. I believe if you violate, you should pay your fine. In the eyes of the law you have paid your debt and life goes on.
Once convicted - always convicted and the conviction does not go away. If you want to impliment a "self-imposed" limitation that would work fine. Do you use the conviction date or the date of violation?
Not a bad thought however!
Criminal offenses such as theft, burglary, robbery, child molestation and all felony convictions and the high majority of misdeminor offenses should bar anyone from serving.
