Bowsite.com

CDAC Meetings

Got a report tonite on the Rhinelander meeting. Average age of attendants was over 65 yoa. good showing about 80 guys...... Positive was that if you wanted to speak you were allowed too.

Negative - Kaz ideas that most think are being rammed thru, from a NRB member that knows nothing about the North,

They hate the youth hunts for deer, and think that only the Class A disabeled should be able to harvest a doe

everyone remains confused on borders

also a lot think that even with phone call in registration, you should still be able to register at a station, if you want to,

Razor, all that says is that the older guys have the time to attend and display an ignorance on how the system works. I fault the CDAC hosts for failing to adequately inform the attendees.

Tells me the average age of hunters who give a hoot is old and dying. Also rc needs to leap into this century with a smartphone to register that next trophy unicorn. The northern zone guys are furious about 10,000 doe taken in the no doe counties. The dnr have a pr grenade ticking. All they here are crickets out of madison. ....

From he DNR website: New automated methods including phone and internet, in addition to walk-in registration, are anticipated for 2015.

further information - they were told of a proposal for APR, similar to what MI has, but MI offers a combo tag, this proposal does not, so I have no idea where that is going......

I have no problem with phone in registration, but like anything new, it will have to work out the bugs.

a lot of guys could not believe that many does were shot, and were not happy, and they let them know it

I remember when we were in our late 20s early 30s, if there was a meeting about deer, we were there. we never missed spring hearings, and they got lively...

we teach the youth on how to hunt, we need to do a better job to teach conservation, and what is needed to have a hunt, the whole picture

it will be interesting to see what they come up with for this year, with a mild winter it will not surprise me, if they will give out doe tags

the north wants a large deer herd, its that simple

regardless of predators, if you give the deer a younger forest, and some milder winters, they will bounce back strong, but stop killing does and fawns

I never would have believed that 10,000 were shot up North, That's too bad

10,633 antlerless in the northern zone red. Shocking that in the 2014 deer hunt report the Dnr cited the antlerless tag fee increase from free/$2 to $12/$20 as a factor that hurt the antlerless harvest. It was also cited in the Waupaca Cdac minutes.

I would be interested in hearing more about APRs. Is there a proposal of some sort? What was said? BC

"further information - they were told of a proposal for APR, similar to what MI has, but MI offers a combo tag, this proposal does not, so I have no idea where that is going......"

The survey sent, along with some information discussed at the CDACs, were to gauge hunter's interest in certain herd control tools prior to the permanent rule. The survey was poorly written.

These tools would be used in an order of priority. For instance, a county in "reduce" mode would have a scale of tools: more antlerless tags, free antlerless tags, t-zone and/or Holiday hunt. A county with a need to a small reduction, could issue more antlerless tag while a county like Waupaca could have free tags and T-zone. For a county in "increase" mode, they could have tools like: reduction of antlerless tags in several different levels based on previous buck harvest or no antlerless tags.

There was a problem with explaining what exactly "increase", "maintain" and "reduce" actually means. Columbia Cty voted to "maintain" but what did that actually mean to the county? Columbia Cty had a significant amount of tag(basically unlimited) and a Holiday hunt. But some counties chose "maintain" but had a limited amount of tags and no special hunts. This was poorly explained by the Dept.

Second, each representative of the CDAC must have proof of their stance. If someone from Ag states too much crop damage, he/she must have documented proof the county as a whole needs reduction. Not because one or two farms in a corner of the county have the problem. Those landowners could/should be address separately.

Finally(and to finally answer Arrow question), the CDAC really didn't understand how important their decisions where as to increase, decrease or maintain. Each county decision will be reviewed buy the NRB. The only way the DNR could override a CDAC decision was substantial evidence the county was wrong. Even with that, the NRB may disagree or kick it back to the DNR/CDAC to review. Basically, the county's decision is weighed very heavy.

Each county will manage deer population based on social concerns, biological concerns and hunter satisfaction. Less hunter satisfaction, sounds familiar, huh? The DTR was to localize deer management to the "boots on the ground" people who reside and are affected in the community. Also, we are not managing to some imaginary number of DPSM but as a range which all user groups give input. This is not a drastic change as some try to make it seem.

Unless you would like to give deer management back to the guy sitting at a desk in Madison, tweeking SAK as seen fit, managing to a specific/unscientific number and giving unlimited tags and specialty hunts in each unit as was done before.

BC, whether asking for a baiting/feeding ban, APR, ban group hunting, etc., CDACs can "recommend" but that's all it is. All these things would take legislative action.

Correct, at this point they are simply trying to compile a list of tools that might be used. This is necessary because any future tools a CDAC might use need to be identified by law. It does not mean that any or all of them will be used. Simply that they can be used.

Naz is correct, these are all recommendations. However, a lot think that the nrb has their own agenda

Again I was not there, but my friend said that the proposal was for a 4 point restriction on one side and came from Kaz on the NRB.......

that is only what he reported, so it may not be accurate...... both Bortz and Durkin was also there and spoke, what they said I do not know

I like MI rules in the UP, where you have a choice to buy a combo tag with apr restriction or you can buy a single tag, and shoot one legal buck 3 inch or more

Geitz ""Second, each representative of the CDAC must have proof of their stance. If someone from Ag states too much crop damage, he/she must have documented proof the county as a whole needs reduction. Not because one or two farms in a corner of the county have the problem. Those landowners could/should be address separately.""

Geitz I checked with most of the CDAC members in Ashland Co. and not one heard of this (documented proof) or were told anything like this. At the last meetings no documented proof followed any recommendation.

What many in WI, at least, don't like about MI's combo tag is that it allows the taking of two bucks with bow, crossbow or firearms. That would not be popular here, IMO, where "one buck bow/crossbow, one buck gun" is the law (outside of group hunting, which requires consent from another hunter in the group vs. individuals being able to do so alone). The gun-only crowd in WI would not be in favor of the bow/crossbow crew getting a crack at two bucks prior to gun season (even though we know most hunters will shoot zero or one buck, it's the perception and, in some areas with a lot of deer and avid early hunters, could impact the number of quality bucks left for the gun season).

"Geitz I checked with ALL the CDAC members in Ashland Co. and not one heard of this or were told anything like this."

Within 10 min of my post, you were to personally contact and discuss my entire post with all of the members of your CDAC? Very impressive

Yes, they were poorly informed. You have to remember this is a work in process. There have been several people on the CDACs already stating they wouldn't have voted they way they did if they knew more.

Called a phone and I change it to most because one was from another Co.

Still very impressive, even with speed dialing before 9 am on a work day.

I guess Ashland County could vote to have the prior Big Game Biologist manage your population from his desk in Madison.

Well there it is again Gietz. Someone questions what you posted because members of the cdac haven't heard of it and you assume the I and I guess the committee aren't backing the cdac. You suggest in your last post if we don't like the cdac let Madison manage your deer.

As I stated before I support the cdac but will continue to question your posts on items the cdac has never heard of . You admitted your self " Yes, they were poorly informed. You have to remember this is a work in process. There have been several people on the CDACs already stating they wouldn't have voted they way they did if they knew more"... Based on that statement I don't understand why you get offended when someone questions what you post.

I just talked to an other member while posting this again and he said it is impossible to travel the whole Co. for his " documented proof "

His question was,, What meets the " documented proof "?

Again I support this committee in case you missed it.

Each committee was given information from the Dept on Ag damage, Forestry and deer/car crashes. Actually, the information was probably too much and possibly confusing.

As for "documented proof"......Look at it this way. If the Ag committee member votes a reduction, he/she would need the proof. They are not going to take a persons word for it, therefore, that person need to back his/her stance. Traveling the entire county is not needed. If Ag tags are had been issued throughout the county, that would be proof or if 50 farmer attend the hearing and complain, that would be proof also.

Same can be said about hunter satisfaction, large group attends unhappy with population or a continued drop in harvest rates, that is proof also.

Arrow, you answered your own question. I've stated several times the CDACs were poorly informed, therefore I'm not surprised the individuals never heard of this. Actually, you could have saved a bunch of time calling them to see if they ever heard of these things by understanding what I previously indicated, they were poorly informed.

"Based on that statement I don't understand why you get offended when someone questions what you post"

I was not offended. I attempted to clarify the current issue some are having with the rules, explain what had happened and acknowledged the problem with poor communications. You decided to prove the CDAC had none of this information which is exactly my point so I'm not sure what you were questioning?

Register here to reply to this topic