Deer Advisory Council Meetings
Wisconsin
Just came home from my advisory council meeting for Ozaukee County. I was late to attend because of my coaching commitment but, did arrive in enough time for them to allow me to speak. They voted to maintain the target deer per square mile number of 17. I expressed that IMO that was too low and thought that the area would sustain 25 per square mile. Real interesting is that the River Edge Nature Center reported that about one week before the gun season, even the deer in the refuge moved nocturnal. They have not had a deer on a trail camera during daylight since Nov. 16. All in all, it was a great experience and look forward to future participation.
Good that you attended. I believe if more did, they'd see that it's not all black or white; there is a give and take, and varying opinions based on experiences and desires. I agree with you; believe that 25/sq. is something most ag areas can sustain overwinter. Builds up in the spring/summer, knocked back in the fall and winter. If 10-15 sq. is the cut-off point on deer density for regeneration issues, then Houston, we have a problem.
Agreed Naz, we will be right back where we are this year next year at 17 per square mile. All we will do in Ozaukee is replenish fawns with no growth in age structure. That in my opinion is not hunting. That is killing for the sake of killing.
25 deer per sq. Mile would be like 20 more then we have...in the decimated 19..not sure the big woods would handle 25.. but 10 would be nice.
"They voted to maintain the target deer per square mile number of 17."
Although it is not the fault of these committees as this is new to them and for years managing deer to a specific number is all they know, there is no choice for # DPSM.
Their options are: increase, maintain or reduce. It's is a problem noticed and is being addressed.
Here is the problem with their approach. 60% + is considered non-deer habitat. They are nuts! You could paint all of Ozaukee County with a green brush that represents deer habitat. The winters are mild enough and the deer spend half their time living in the fields, backyards, parks, golf courses…They look at corn and see nothing more than a crop. I look at corn and see a deer hiding place, food, and source of moisture from mid-July until December or harvest. Their computer models do not account for that.
If the cdac wants to increase the herd and at some point the wdnr disagrees with the cdac to increase, who is the tie breaker ? What are the guide lines cdac has to work under to resolve the difference in opinion between them and the wdnr ?
DMAC?
Establish a Deer Management Advisory Committee in each county in 2014 that will hold “herd status” meetings to evaluate local data regarding the deer herd. The committee will begin making recommendations to the Department for the 2015 deer seasons.
? Membership may vary by county based on interest with potential membership including: ? Conservation Congress ? Local group representing deer hunting interests ? Agricultural ? Forestry ? Tourism ? Transportation ? Urban (city/village) representative
? The population goal for each DMU will switch from a specific overwinter population goal of deer per square mile (e.g., 25 deer/mi2) to an objective of increase, maintain or decrease that would be evaluated every 3 years. All Northern and Central Forest DMUs will have an increase objective for 2014 and all Central and Southern Farmland DMUs will have a maintain objective for 2014. ? The recommendation for the DMU objective would be based on a variety of metrics or categories of data that might include: ? Deer health indicators ? Deer impacts on other natural resources ? Societal impacts ? Information provided from hunters ? Population model estimates Three members of the county deer management advisory committee are required to have held a license authorizing deer hunting in 7 of the previous 10 years.
The CDAC advises the WDNR. It consists of a variety of stakeholder groups, all with different interests in deer management.
With this being said, it is the "boots on the ground" population guide for the DNR.
If there is a disagreement in numbers, I would imagine each side would need to have a very good sound argument to support their position to the NRB. The NRB would make the final decision and IMO, they would probably kick it back to the CDAC and DNR to figure it out.
There is no "tie breaker" as the WDNR manages wildlife in WI. On the other hand, I highly doubt any CDAC would ever put a deer behind every tree, the make up of the committee insures this.
If a forester on the committee states there is no problem with over browse, the Ag guy states crop damage is low, hunters are upset with low numbers, etc. Then the committee agrees an increase is in order, the DNR would be in a very difficult position to go against the committee.
The purpose of this type of management is for it to be localized and all user groups working together with the DNR.
Lincoln County had, what looks like, 124 online comments and there were 49 present at the meeting last night. It is nice to see that much interest and participation.
Geitz, what you posted looks like it is predetermined to me. So why bother to go through the CDAC process. I would call it nothing more than lip service!
10, 2014 was "predetermined" as increase in the north and maintain everywhere else since the CDACs weren't yet set up. That's the early info on the groups before they were even formed. The first three-year recommendation of increase, decrease or maintain runs in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 seasons. The majority of "maintain" counties didn't even come close to selling out their public/private permits. I believe that'll continue to be the case unless they significantly reduce permit numbers and/or reduce the cost.
I attended the Door County meeting last evening. There were seven additional people in attendance. I considered it a productive evening and am looking forward to continuing to be engaged in the process.
That said - this process has a big learning curve. Will be interesting to see where we're at at the conclusion of the three year experiment.
"I considered it a productive evening and am looking forward to continuing to be engaged in the process."
"this process has a big learning curve"
I agree. This is an opportunity for people to engage themselves in deer management IF they chose to do so. Previously, there was very little possible other than complain and argue. It will be interesting who will continue to complain and who will chose to be involved.
I know a guy that is on one of these advisory committees and he's a home builder with no background in biology or wildlife management whatsoever. He volunteers at various outdoors programs for youth and gun training, and he's a deer hunter, but other than that I don't know of any credentials he has that would make him any more of an expert on managing deer than the next guy, but maybe that's all that's required? Point being, it seems these deer are being managed by opinions and emotion more than science and studies. What can we really expect from that? Hopefully good things, but it seems a primal, almost arm-chair quarterbacking, type management of a resource that belongs to all of us. Then again I guess it can't be any worse off than a DNR that is manipulated by politicians and insurance companies.
You'd have to attend one to get a good feel for it. DNR biologists and foresters offer insight, data and answer any questions, but in the end, it's up to the local hunters and other stakeholder reps to come to consensus (or at least a majority; if a rare tie, the otherwise non-voting CC rep who runs the meeting can break it). Reps may come from different angles, but both counties I've attended had a majority hunters. One (Door) voted to decrease and the other (Kewaunee) voted to maintain. Keep in mind that no matter the recommendation, there will always be some — many even — who believe it should be the exact opposite. Trying to find the "right" balance has been and will continue to be the DNR's biggest hurdle in deer management.
Agree with Naz (does that surprise you Naz?). Having these committees based on individual counties puts hunter feedback and input on a more personal basis. Interested hunters can now get involved and know that their opinion is being heard. It is a step in the right direction, but only if embraced and used by the hunters.
It's almost Christmas Mike, I expected no less! ;)
Here's a screen shot from a photo I took at one of the meetings, may help better explain things.
Walworth County had 5 people in attendance. Three minutes to talk was allowed. Asked each person if they wanted to see more deer, remain the same or less deer. More deer was the answer from all. Representative said voting to remain the same would be better cause voting for seeing more deer will only make more restrictions.
Talked of the more important meeting in January?
Pasq, that is because the outcome of these meetings is pre-determined.
The important thing is to get involved and gain an understanding of the process. At least I was able to give my view for my area. There is value in that and everyone was very respectful.
Not sure what they meant, unless they felt that a herd "too large" would bring on more rules down the road. But five people is a pretty small sample size when the council took input from fellow citizens via conversations, emails, phone calls and surveys, and also had more insight from the county "metrics" (available on the DNR's CDAC page for anyone to view). Next meetings are in February to recommend antlerless permit numbers for public and private land.
Naz -They did also mention that the insurance companies having nothing to do with deer reduction.
I had flash backs of when I "was involved" the minute they started talking about arial observations as a key player in counting deer. I heard that in many meetings during the CWD kill off days.
I think she was saying a vote to increase the herd will place stricter hunting restrictions on deer harvest overall. They said the "smarter" vote would be to vote as maintain the current levels and stay the course.
Agree with the insurance company part, one of the oldest misconceptions out there. Insurance companies don't lose money from car/deer accidents; they simply have higher rates in areas/states with higher risks.
I see what she was saying, perhaps meaning less opportunity for those who have access to and want to shoot more deer. Even a "maintain" vote can mean "increase" with the tools that are (or more accurately, aren't) available at this time.
Well no Sh&t increase would mean less opportunity for some. You don't increase the herd by shooting more. That's the whole thing, although many areas could use some rebuilding. They are scared to lose the revenue of decreased tag sales if they tell people NO. So they will wait and see. if things get bad as they did up north, they will pull some excuse out of their ass. There is zero accountability, and they know it.
