Bowsite.com

Raise the price on park vehicle stickers, and camping fees to drive the cost up to make the revenue numbers appealing to a private management company. It won't belong before a private management company signs you in at a state park.

Make your bed, you can sleep in it.

Right to work will be signed you can book that.

Now he just went all Jim Doyle on the transportation budget and is going to bond most projects. We just dug out of that the last time and we jump back in with both feet.

To those that think putting a moratorium (He is NOT ending the program just holding off on more purchases) on additional land acquisitions, exactly when is enough, enough?

Making the NRB advisory is a shrewd move and makes since. All the NRB members are political appointees accountable to no one. The DNR is a huge government bureaucracy with a massive budget, run by a small group of political appointees.

Give it 24 hours and the media will trot out a bunch of Doyle DNR appointees trashing that they now are only advisory and not king makers. The print media will run to their go to guy a former DNR secretary turned lobbyist who will be crying in his milk over this. The land trusts will be squealing now that the Stewardship gray train is now leaving the station with yesterday’s train load of debt and an empty box car of tomorrows tax payer funded borrowed money. We cannot manage the land that we have, let alone borrow to buy more as it will take decades just to pay off the debt load.

Under Act 21, wasn't it already basically advisory?

Go see how a credit card works. Bonding the transportation budget (which is most of the $1.6B) will mean less dollars in the future to maintain infrastructure. By cutting transportation 30% and then bonding on top of that is going to cause a lot of companies to layoff workers or close their doors (just like under Doyle) because there will be no money left over.

He is burning every bridge (unless you are manufacturing) just to look ultra conservative to the far right for his presidential run. He had my vote for gov but he is not qualified for prez and will not get my vote anytime in the future.

Right because that is all I have to vote for is dems.

Rolls eyes....but yes nice rebuttal.

You missed his point. There are 19 other R's to choose from in the primary well before the general election. BTW, they all have degrees and a clean undergrad record.

From the eyes of a usually pretty quiet observer, it seems like you often inject politics into your thread postings. Before you do so, you should probably educate yourself first.

I'll get you started.

Please look up the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, §26

Yep and without an NRB board as a check and balance how could an anti hunting gov define "reasonable restrictions"? no wolf hunt, 1 day bear hunt, 2 day bow hunt, 2 day gun hunt?

Let me help again. Refer to the section of the Constitutional subsection that says "as prescribed by law". The NRB does not have the power to draft and pass legislation.

Isn't that blue fist sticker on your car starting to peel off yet? :)

"Isn't that blue fist sticker on your car starting to peel off yet? :) "

No idea what that means.

Why would a Gov. want power/control stripped from the NRB? If the NRB has no say then what does that make Cdac and the CC process?

The CC? While I believe they (mostly) are good intentioned, it has become painfully apparent that the DNR will do whatever they want to, regardless of CC input, sportsman input through the spring hearing process, etc.

No matter whether a site leans hard right OR hard left, what they don't tell you is the full story. In this case, of course the number of full-time jobs as percent of population is going down. More folks are retired today than ever before, and they're living longer than ever before. Many other factors but that's one important one. They also talk about 13 million jobs lost during the recession vs. only 3 million gained under Obama — incorrect numbers, but either way the recession began in 2007.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States:

"Employment expanded consistently during the 1990s, but has been inconsistent since due to recessions in 2001 and 2007-2009. By some measures, the number of persons employed regained its 2007 pre-crisis peak only in 2014, but the labor force participation rate remained below its 2007 level."

More jobs were created in 2014 than any year since 1999, as unemployment fell from close to 7 percent to below 6 percent.

With the economy adding 257,000 jobs in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, up from December’s estimated increase of 252,000 jobs but down from a revised December estimate of 329,000. Taken together, the job growth for November through January was faster than for any three-month period since September-November 1997.

Unemployment was 5.7 percent, a slight uptick from December’s 5.6 percent. The unemployment rate has not changed significantly since October.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/state-of-the-union-2015-fact-check-20150120

"Obama's critics charge that the president's unemployment record is falsely inflated by these labor market departures, and some point to the growth in recipients of disability benefits and other social programs as proof that the federal government is incentivizing workers to quit. And it is a troubling trend: The labor force participation rate has been declining for at least 15 years, and as workers make up a smaller part of the population, it strains programs such as Medicare and Social Security, as there aren't enough workers to keep paying into the programs to keep up with the beneficiaries who are taking money out.

There is another wrinkle to consider, however: While individuals who quit looking for work certainly account for some portion of the drop in unemployment, not all of those individuals are victims of the bad economy. Some are people who decided to go back to school or, even better, decided they had saved enough money to retire. Indeed, as the baby boomer generation ages, it would be a sign of economic distress—not vitality—if the vast majority of them continued to look for work."

Walker has not been flawless but he is taking the right steps overall. He has removed the big power union chains from we the tax payer while actually empowering the teachers themselves. We need to make cuts. The only tax problem we have is that they have been way to high, we have a serious spending problem in this country. We need to sell more state held lands, the ones that make no sense to keep. Get that property on the tax roles, and start cutting the debt they cause. A double win.

November, I agree with a lot of what you write, but your bias on this shows. "Real unemployment" percentage could be figured much higher with every president if you're doing the typical "including those out of work who gave up trying" etc. figures.

Not sure where you're getting the 10 million number from. The accompanying chart is from nonpartisan Politifact from late 2014.

Overall though, employment has a lot more to do with economic environments than a president's policies. And presidents don't have the power to spend. That's a Congressional deal.

"We’re thankful to see that Americans were able to go back to work in January, but before the White House spikes the football, they need to come to terms with a troubling fact: There are millions of Americans who are struggling to find jobs. The unemployment rate doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t count those who have given up looking for jobs altogether or those who are working part-time but want a full-time job."

It's hard to argue with that point, of course, and even in the best of economic times there are millions left behind.

Nevertheless, the Labor Department report contained none of those hitches. Wages grew by 0.5 percent (or about 12 cents an hour) over the previous month, easily beating forecasts. Another 703,000 people joined the workforce, bringing the labor force participation up to 62.9 percent from 62.7 percent. Even the rise in the unemployment rate—by a tenth of a point to 5.7 percent—was good news, as it reflected the return of discouraged job-seekers to the rolls. The revisions to two previous monthly reports were eye-popping as well: In November, employers added 423,000 jobs, the most for a single month since 1997.

Kevin Naze ("Naz")

That has always been the case — in EVERY administration.

Gallup guy continued, "If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this."

Again, this has always been the case.

Pick up your favorite daily or weekly newspaper. Check out the help wanted section. Pages and pages of businesses looking for full- and part-time help. Many folks aren't even qualified for the jobs.

Thank you Rush Limbaugh, I mean Ron, for more conspiracy theories.

America wastes so much time on the BS on R vs. D …. all rise, the Common Sense Party of America. One can dream anyway.

- Peter Pan

In case link is too long, this is it: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/06/scott-walker/despite-deliberate-actions-scott-walker-calls-chan/

For those who like data, the FACT is that Gov. Walker has had 61 statements rated by the nonpartisan PolitiFact as mostly false, false or "Pants on Fire" vs. 41 true or mostly true. Not a good record!

As you can see at top left, President Obama's latest statement is given a mostly false rating. Overall, his record on PolitiFact is 260 true or mostly true statements analyzed vs. 144 mostly false, false or "Pants on Fire." He has fewer (9) rated "Pants on Fire" than our governor.

Keep your cool LOLs and ROTFLs and ;-) faces going along with your HaHaHahahahahas and red herrings and remember, it's all in fun. But you and your fake names aren't fooling anyone, just as your lies about me being a lib dem don't fool anyone who knows me (and even a lot of folks who don't).

Back on topic. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau has come out against pulling more power from the NRB. Considering they represent Wisconsin's largest industry, one would think that might mean something.

They are of course in favor of a slimmed-down Stewardship program (more land to farm). Speaking of which, I saw where a national potato mega-farm has already bought and deforested 12,000+ acres in NW MN with another 15,000 acres possible — roughly 42 square miles of pines-to-potatoes! Google Pinelands Water Appropriation Project EAW.

As for NRB, "Farm Bureau wishes to maintain the current authority that citizen boards have at Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources, and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Just as Farm Bureau’s policy is driven by its members, the farmers who serve on citizen boards should retain their direct regulatory rulemaking authority, rather than serving in an advisory role."

(The Farm Bureau also questioned increasing the level of our state’s debt service for transportation projects, without seeking new sources of revenue).

“I was going to support Mitt whatever he was going to do,” declared Ryan.

“You would have endorsed him?” asked host Chuck Todd.

“Oh, sure,” declared Ryan. “It’s no secret I think Mitt Romney would have been a fantastic president.”

No equivocation. No debate. No dodging. Ryan would have backed Romney, absolutely and ardently.

But Romney’s not running.

“Does this mean,” asked Todd, “(that) it makes it easier to support your home-state governor, who is a likely presidential candidate?”

Well, no.

“I have to be neutral on this,” said Ryan.

Why? Ryan explained that he is chairing Republican National Committee's Presidential Trust, a slush fund that is assembled during the course of the nomination fight in order to help the eventual nominee.

But, hold it, Ryan was the chair of the trust a minute earlier, when he said he would have endorsed Romney and raved about what a fantastic president Romney would have been.

So the chairmanship of the trust would not have prevented him from endorsing another candidate. But it does prevent him from supporting Scott Walker.

Awkward, yes.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-paul-ryan-declines-to-back-his-friend-scott/article_0c38f5ed-9f53-59a8-bb9b-e070fb3a19b0.html#ixzz3RCztYp5W

Could it possibly be that he just doesn't think Walker would make a good candidate? Not everyone has their nose buried in Walker's posterior like you RC.

"What's next, a Gogebic Taconite employee being named to a top DNR post?"

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/scott-walker-proposal-to-limit-citizen-oversight-of-dnr-criticized-b99440120z1-291171781.html

The NRB thing has drawn major ire already. I would not be surprised if Walker reverses his stance on this one.

I wonder if our Governor, one who I like (but don't worship like some), has ever rendered a poor decision? Now where is he in getting the wolf debacle resolved? He still owes us for the laughingstock called DTR, one of the biggest farces in WI hunting history...

You're welcome ;-)

DTR = Debacle. When Bonus Buck is the highlight, it is laughable. I give Walker an A for effort though although it was all for show. Good attempt at helping the disgruntled hunters.

Your move, Mr. Walker.

This was not his smartest rule, but I think he gets bad advice,,,,,,, I would be surprised if it goes thru.......

I might disagree with him on this, but than you have Meyer and the WWF,,,,, I remember how they bought into the wolf projects along time ago,,,,,,,,,Na, they aren't going to affect our deer hunting,,,,,,, what a joke

"That open, honest practice of regulating conservation, hunting and fishing issues has been a model for the rest of the country and should not be sacrificed to the back-door process of hidden interests that catch the governor’s ear.

Management of Wisconsin’s natural resources is too important to be left to the ever-changing winds of political power; the power rightfully belongs to the citizens of the state and the citizen members of the state Natural Resources Board."

http://journaltimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/journal-times-editorial-natural-resources-board-deserves-protection/article_633288d1-92ea-5240-bf42-5adb58a6c16c.html

Of course now we'll hear from Howatt/RC how the administration has always had the power, etc. etc. but in the end, at least the NRB is a chance for open-door debate which often leads to changes or halts something that common sense says is not good for Wisconsin's natural resources and the businesses that rely on clean air, water and wild lands and wildlife.

At this point it is just a proposal. The governor, this one or any other one, get input, advice and pressure from many people. Have you given any consideration to the possibility that the governor may not want every item in the proposed budget? Some of those may be there due to pressures from constituents, lobbyists and legislators, to name a few.

It is quite possible that the governor has included some items for perusal and comment by the public that he does not particularly favor and he just might be looking for some public outcry to give him reason to delete some of those items.

Happy, I don't worship Kroll but until his plan has been implemented and given a try, it is merely speculation to guess if he is on to something or not.

Aren't HuntnFish43 and RC the same person? I think we decided that a couple of years ago didn't we? Hope your doing well Dean. BC

That aside, do you know of ANY politician who does not reward his supporters? Tell me how pure your president, Mr. Obama, must be under those same guidelines?

What degree is needed to expect the word "intention" to be spelled correctly?

Must be a really old talking point since Wisconsin is facing a $2 billion-plus deficit right now.

Back on topic. Here's what some of some of Walker's own supporters think of his plan to strip the NRB:

"“I’m not sure where this came from,” said Greg Kazmierski, of Pewaukee, the NRB’s secretary and one of five Walker appointees on the Board. “It was a total surprise that it was in the budget, but other people than the governor have budget input. This might not be his initiative. That’s my gut feeling."

"Walker’s budget proposal would also make the Wisconsin Conservation Congress an advisory group to the DNR secretary, according to WCC chairman Rob Bohmann, Racine. The 360-member WCC dates to 1934, and was created to systematically provide public input to the DNR Board on conservation matters. Each April it holds public hearings in Wisconsin’s 72 counties to vote on conservation issues, and since 1972 it has been legislatively sanctioned as the Board’s lay advisers.

Bohmann has openly supported Walker the past four years, and was “caught off guard” by the budget proposal. “I don’t understand it; not at all,” Bohmann said. “Five of the seven Board members are already his appointees, and he can name his own people to the other two seats in May. I would like an explanation, because the working relationship between the Congress, the Board and the DNR has never been better. You can’t fix what isn’t broken. This is a bad idea for Wisconsin.”

“This is ugly,” Bohmann said. “I don’t agree with removing the Board’s policy-making power. Wisconsin has led the nation in keeping its citizens involved in the decision-making process, and the Natural Resources Board is a crucial part of our system.”

"Does this change how I view Gov. Walker?” Bohmann asked rhetorically. “No. He’s still our governor. It’s just a bad idea and everyone can get a bad idea. We all make mistakes. One mistake doesn't change how I feel about someone.”

Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/outdoors/patrick-durkin-governor-s-budget-proposes-stripping-nrb-of-power/article_8b8ebfa8-a1d7-5075-9bfa-906b0599d9b3.html#ixzz3S1RHZE43

It is refreshing to see that even those close to Walker know he's a politician and is therefore wrong umpteen times over. Nice to see them not make excuses and be worshippers and apologists. Call it as you see it.

Another thing for all of us to keep in mind is that some of the more unscrupulous legislators may try to insert other types of legislation into the budget, thereby avoiding the normal vetting process.

This process will not be over until June I believe. I expect there will be a number of changes/adjustments made to the budget before it is presented for approval.

From: Naz …. As for NRB, have to wait and hear more on that one before I can say for sure whether it's a good idea or not.

From: RC ........ Date: 04-Feb-15 Ill save you the time "naz". Its a good idea. ;-)

From: FullDraw 2015 ….. If this goes through there is no need to continue the congress.

From Howatt: Never thought of that. So now there is another reason to advocate for this.

From Howatt: Im sure the gov does not sit in a room alone and draft the budget word for word himself. Perhaps one of the others folks tasked with drafting the budget inserted that language.

Perhaps one of the other folks also decided to cut $4.6 million in funding from the budget for the state's parks, trails and recreation areas, too, as well as increase user fees. Perhaps others decided to cut science positions from DNR and leave dozens of warden and biologist positions unfilled. Perhaps others also named a former Madison Gas & Electric executive as secretary of the Department of Administration, a spokesman for Gogebic Taconite as executive assistant for the Public Service Commission and long-time lobbyists and a party vice-chair to other top administrative posts recently.

To address the rest of the comment that was obviously written as a means of slandering the governor, let's start from the top. 1) Walker ran on cutting taxes and the only way to accomplish that is by trimming spending. Naz, "perhaps" the users of the state parks, trails and recreation areas are not coming close to fiscally supporting those things. Perhaps the governor is trying to make all recipients of tax dollars a bit more financially responsible? 2) Perhaps the science positions that were cut have been deemed duplicate or un-needed? Is it only true or correct if you say it is? Where would you get the money from to pay those extra positions? 3) Are Madison Gas & Electric executives not qualified to serve as Secretary of the DOA? Please tell us who you think is. 4) Is it against the law to appoint an executive assistant for the Public Service Commission if that person previously served as a spokesman for another company? Would it be legal to hire part-time outdoors writers? 5) Same regarding any other appointments. If you are so good at this, why in the world didn't you run for and win the position of Governor? Then the world would be perfect and we would not need have this conversation.

Several people RC = Howatt? You and Mike … that's it. Whoop-dee-flippin' do. Yeah, I took the time to compile that … all of less than a minute. All those responses are in this very same thread. You, the master of the cut and paste on multiple boards across the web, should know how easy it is.

Thanks for the chuckle.

It's Fat Tuesday.

Molotov!

That you completely ignored the rest of my post which addressed your purely partisan statement is testament that you wrote without thinking. I have no issue with you or anyone stating your opinion but purpose and reason go a long way towards supporting that opinion.

I see a lot of this here on WI Bowsite with Kroll and Walker too. It is more like worshipping though in those cases.

While I support his plan, I do so more from frustration of how our past deer management was handled as compared to thinking that he alone is the savior to all things deer.

I am willing to give his plan a chance and will reserve judgment until it has had a fair opportunity to play out.

With Walker we have had enough time to see results from his actions. I personally like them as they are favorable to me as a taxpayer in the state, in addition to sharing some of the same values.

I've mentioned plenty of NRB members through the years, including Christine Thomas multiple times and all the recent members who hunted (even if they weren't "avid bow hunters" one and all). Kaz sticks his foot in his mouth more than most so he's an easy mention. He and Terry Moulton greatly benefited from the crossbow law change. Hey, good for them. Bad for us, at least according to most Bowsiters.

Regarding Moulton and Kaz with crossbows, you know as well as I do that they were both very instrumental in the crossbow bill getting passed as it did. If they were only looking to make a buck off it, they certainly would not have spent the time and energy to fight full inclusion but rather would have welcomed it with open arms.

Either you are very confused or you simply attack to vent some deep-seated anger. That you continue to spew this unfounded talking point is testament to your personal bias and hate (that you are entitled to but I am entitled to reveal).

And yes, if you had any sound reasoning for your earlier statement you would have offered it. That you once again decline to try and defend it only shows the lack of any logic and fact to support your statement.

Your non-answer says much.

"You and everybody else here" LOL …. you two ("everybody else here") could sing a duet.

You confuse anger with truth. No anger here. Just countering b.s. as best possible.

"The big difference between you and Kaz is he works for all hunters while your involvement is solely for your own personal gain."

I didn't see Kaz at the first or second Hunters Heritage Conference or the Hunting Future Conference. There were, however, dozens of reps from orgs across the state, including from conservation, hunting and gun clubs and everyday hunters with no agenda to fulfill. No need for "boots on the ground" hunter recruit/retain efforts when we have the legislature and "Waukesha Connection" doing, as you say, the heavy lifting? I disagree. You guys kiss Kroll's back side when he says DNR needs to listen to "boots on the ground" but yet feel special interests/lobbyists/legislators know what's best for us when it comes to rules.

Then you guys want to stick it to nonresidents with a huge license fee hike (10-20 percent might be fair, you want 100 percent or more). Good luck with that one. Michigan found out how well that worked (didn't) last year with a 40 percent drop in nonresident anglers and the resulting backlash from fishing-dependent businesses.

Finally, you might be interested in a few ideas thrown around at meetings and included in the Sporting Heritage Council's biennial report. The Council was created by 2011 Wisconsin Act 11. Four of the members are legislators.

IDEAS FROM THE SPORTING HERITAGE COUNCIL

Badger Forever program. People that leave WI but have a history of hunting, fishing and trapping in the state can receive a resident license.

Add 16 and 17 year olds to the eligible participants for Youth Hunts.

Allow ATV’s on more lands to help access areas to hunt, fish and trap.

RJN commented in between …. you (RC = Howatt) usually jump right in after all things Naz. Right after my first post on this thread, and many others. Take a peek. Right on cue.

If they fought full inclusion they failed because we have full inclusion right now. Care to make a wager that after this so-called-for-show "2 year trial period", the seasons will still be concurrent and still full inclusion?

You have no idea on what had transpired, why even comment?

In WI, you can thank WWF, George Meyer, the WCC and WON/liberal outdoor writers for being some of the head supporters for full inclusion.

If it wasn't for the people you "believe" had their own agenda and a few others, you would not have what we have now.

I'll try this again - Care to make a wager that after this so-called-for-show "2 year trial period", the seasons will still be concurrent and still full inclusion?

"In WI, you can thank WWF, George Meyer, the WCC and WON/liberal outdoor writers for being some of the head supporters for full inclusion. "

You powerful in-the-know smarter-than-everyone-else guys lost this important decision to a bunch of liberals? Worst part is, Walker signed it into law. I forgive him though because he's done well on most accounts.

No takers amongst the big 3? Still got the skirts on ladies? Full inclusion is here to stay. The liberals won this war and that sux.

Of course once the kill data is out and the gun hunters see the impact of the crossbow hunt one never knows what will happen. For now I'll let you continue to hike your skirt and flaunt your ignorance. You are getting very good at that.

I shoot my stick 98.0 per cent of the time, but have no issues with the xbow,,,,,,,

The deer do not care where the arrow came from, I have issues with the wanton killing of does

Really the xbow should be allowed in any gun season for any game, but not in general bow season, but that hand has been played,,,,,,,

I think a separate season may come out of it, but really we have so many special seasons now, whats one more,,,,,, said sarcasticly

The ability of CDACs to recommend bonus buck, antler point restrictions and buck hunting on only the first two days of the nine-day hunt has been removed from the rule.

Also, antlerless permits issued with junior deer hunting licenses may be restricted to only units where an antlerless quota has been established. In other words, could not be used in buck-only units.

The Honorable Governor Walker and Wisconsin State Legislators,

With full appreciation for your efforts to bring more efficiency to state government and the public sector, I must respectfully but vehemently disagree with the proposal in the 2015-2017 state budget to remove the policymaking authority from the Natural Resources Board and make them strictly an advisory council. The repercussions of this action will have a significant and adverse effect on our state’s natural resources. Wisconsin has been widely regarded as the center of the conservation movement. It was renowned conservationists Aldo Leopold, William Aberg, and Haskell Noyes that helped forge the Conservation Act of 1927, which created the Conservation Commission (predecessor of the Natural Resources Board).

With great foresight these pioneers of conservation created a unique system to keep conservation and politics separate by creating an independent board, beholden to no one. The Natural Resources Board has successfully operated with its policy-making authority uninterrupted for the past 88 years during which time Wisconsin has continuously been a national leader in environmental protection and wildlife conservation efforts.

Nowhere else in Wisconsin state government do the people of this state have such a direct avenue for input as through the Wisconsin Conservation Congress and the Natural Resources Board. Currently, natural resource policy decisions are made in full view of the public, broadcast online, and with ample opportunity for citizens to provide testimony or written comments. The unsurpassed level of citizen involvement we have in the management of our state’s resources is the envy of many other states. This proposed change would take the policy-making authority from the public arena to the political arena. Giving the policy-making authority solely to the department secretary would potentially allow for important natural resource decisions to be made behind closed doors without any public vetting. Any potential gains in efficiency that may result from this proposal do not justify the loss of an open and transparent government. The division of power and citizen involvement is essential for the long-term management of the state’s resources which are held in public trust and belong to all citizens of the state.

The Natural Resources Board and Wisconsin Conservation Congress have been working tirelessly in shaping conservation policies for over 80 years. Eliminating the authority of the Natural Resources Board and making the Conservation Congress advisory to the DNR secretary would undermine this proven system of citizen engagement that so many have worked so hard for and would irreparably mar the legacy we leave for future generations. I respectfully ask that the Natural Resource Board retain their policy-making authority and Conservation Congress remain the citizen advisory body to the board to ensure the continuation of Wisconsin’s rich tradition of citizen involvement in conservation.

Respectfully,

Rob Bohmann, Chair

Wisconsin Conservation Congress

For Immediate Release

Wisconsin Conservation Congress Opposes Proposed Change to Natural Resources Board; Urges Citizens to Take Action by Contacting Their Legislators

The Conservation Congress is calling on conservationists, outdoor recreationalists, and sporting groups of all kinds to contact their state legislators and request that the state’s independent Natural Resources Board (NRB) be allowed to retain their policy making authority. The recently proposed 2015-2017 state budget would strip the board of its authority to make conservation policy for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

The NRB is part of an 88 year-old system that was engineered to keep conservation insulated from political influences. And throughout the history of the board, Wisconsin has remained a national leader in environmental protection and conservation efforts.

In a recent letter addressed to Governor Walker and Wisconsin State Legislators, Rob Bohmann, Chair of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC), stated, “This proposed change would take the policy-making authority from the public arena to the political arena. Giving the policy-making authority solely to the department secretary would potentially allow for important natural resource decisions to be made behind closed doors without any public vetting.”

The budget item eliminates the NRB’s policy-making authority and makes the board advisory to the DNR secretary. Under the proposed changes in this budget, the WCC would become advisory to the DNR secretary as well.

He goes on to say, “Any potential gains in efficiency that may result from this proposal do not justify the loss of an open and transparent government. The division of power and citizen involvement is essential for the long-term management of the state’s resources which are held in public trust and belong to all citizens of the state.”

Currently, natural resource policy decisions are made at public meetings which citizens are welcome to attend, participate in, or view online. The NRB utilizes research and recommendations from agency experts, as well as input from the Conservation Congress, sporting groups, and citizens to help shape the decisions they make.

“The unsurpassed level of citizen involvement we have in the management of our state’s resources is the envy of many other states,” said Bohmann who is Chair of the Conservation Congress, the NRB’s statutorily created citizen advisory body. “Nowhere else in Wisconsin state government do the people of this state have such a direct avenue for input as through the Wisconsin Conservation Congress and the Natural Resources Board.”

"Shame on him and his editor for allowing such rubbish."

And shame on you Capt. Mike for constant jumping on anything Naz pushed by anything RC/Howatt. You two (Mike and RC = Howatt) are a real circus.

"Too late Mike. I wonder if he will print a retraction. LOL"

No need to. From the NRB's own green sheet:

"This rule has been modified so that there is no sunset of the crossbow season after the 2015 season."

You guys want to debate semantics? Take that up with the writers of the green sheet.

Now it was modified so it doesn't sunset, and instead if it's judged that there has been no negative impact and thus no reason to change after just four months, no need for further rule-making.

"I think once the bow, gun and xgun harvest numbers by license sales (re effective rate of kill per weapon) come out the public will always want to keep the data gathering separate."

So you're saying the 2016 crossbow season dates will look a lot different than this past year, and 2015, then?

Looks like you lost out on your call for shooting albino deer, too. Fortunately they listened to the majority of the public on that one. Genetically inferior or not, those white deer are tourist attractions and worth a lot more $ alive than dead.

Being wrong is excusable as it can happen to anyone. Trying to defend a position when you know you are wrong is something entirely different. It is not due to semantics, it is due to poor reporting.

Yesterday I heard that some in the legislature are dusting off a bill that would split the DNR if these budget provision fail. Now that's what I call progress. If you want to change the culture in a bloated government agency change is necessary.

What the legislature created the legislature can remove, modify or change. If no change was ever desired/intended the make up of the NRB would have been placed in the WI Constitution rather that in state statute. All power and authority that the DNR currently possesses is at the pleasure of the WI state legislature now and in the future.

I heard that there are a lot of empty hotel rooms in Rockford, IL and maybe its time for some in the legislature to fly south.

As to the DNR secretary wasn't that bill recently vetoed by a democratic governor and upheld by a democratically controlled senate and assembly? How did those nasty republicans do that???

The NRB would/could address the seasons every year after 2015.

Maybe we will read all about it in some local outdoors publication?

Give it time Mike. If nothing else it may slow the loss of hunters seen in so many other states.

"Some of us knew that." Ah yes, the insiders! Only 10 percent? With a margin of error based on honest reporting of plus or minus 10 percent, lol. How many opposed to crossbows reported their bow kills as crossbow? Yes, the folks who asked for a separate license were wise so the DNR could make an extra $3 on those who'd buy both tags so they could report their bow kills as crossbow. Didn't happen? Then sharing does or using roadkills to earn buck tags years ago didn't happen either. We know all hunters are honest. Why would those opposed to crossbows in the bow season report bow buck kills as crossbow? Why would folks bait in a bait ban county? Why do some guys shoot well after hours? Why do some guys post under fake names on Bowsite and lie about it while fooling no one?

One could also make the case that, based on accuracy and ease of use stated by so many here, that crossbow shooters are simply wounding less, increasing the take-home numbers. Either way it's still a dead buck. One is feeding a family, one is feeding predators and scavengers.

Read what Geitz wrote. 10% more successful than bow and GUN. That is not insignificant, unless you are a crossbow proponent.

Maybe your perspective on honesty is formed by the company you keep? I believe most hunters (and others) are honest people. To formulate an opinion with dishonesty as the main reason does not make for a very persuasive argument, unless you feel we should all be guilty until proven innocent?

As stated earlier, this includes GUN harvest so your accuracy comment is irrelevant, lest you consider X-bows more accurate than firearms.

It would be very refreshing to have a publication with writers, that hunters of the state could read, that presented issues in an unbiased light.

We would all benefit from that.

My perspective on honesty is certainly not based on the company I keep, but on interviewing multiple wardens through the years as well as hearing and reading stories from many, many others. One has only to look at the "hunter" harassment thread to realize that the bulk of the harassment is coming from fellow hunters, not non- or even anti-hunters.

So it includes gun harvest ... not impressed. As you know, some gun hunters are "part-time" hunters (including a few who do it for the photo op), not all that passionate and don't put in a lot of effort like a bow or crossbow hunter with 100+ days of opportunity might. I'm sure you know some like that. We read about 'em on here year after year, guys who show up a week or even a day before season, drive out on a four-wheeler and dump a pile.

Ten percent is not significant IMO based on the reasons I provided. It may be some day if enough new folks come into the crossbow, but if it's simply dropping the bow for the crossbow, not as significant. You may want to ask a three-crossbow-owning guy here if he's a crossbow proponent (wait, why would one own three crossbows if he wasn't?). I don't own any and don't plan to ever buy one. However, I have tracked and found deer shot by a crossbow-shooting old-timer neighbor and have no problem with him preferring to tag deer that way. He could go out there and do the same with gun (it's his own land) come November but doesn't. Prefers his venison earlier in the fall.

Hopefully they're following up with all who bought the crossbow license or $3 add-on to see the reasons behind it, if they were already crossbow users age 65 and up or disabled, or crossed over from bow or joined new as a gun hunter or a youth of age for the first time. Anything else on numbers is practically meaningless without knowing that.

This was corrected as it was an error. As I previously stated, the Dept needed to address its management of the crossbow season. Without doing so, it could appear to be in limbo.

Naz, there is no two year look. The crossbow season was set by rule to be concurrent to the archery season fro two years, thereafter, managed separately from the archery season by the DNR. The NRB, DNR and the WWC cannot un-separate the seasons.

Do those wardens you interview feel we are guilty until proven innocent?

When I point out your lack of comprehension in what Geitz wrote your only comment is "So it includes gun harvest ... not impressed." My guess is there will be many hunters who are impressed with these numbers when they see them.

Kaz? Kaz who? Kaz is pushing nothing. Are we talking about the same issue? This issue was settled last year and nothing has changed from the way it was initially written.

Kevin, you marginalize yourself. My guess is that more than me, myself, my RC, my Howatt and my Dean see that.

Speaking of an ignorant comment. When you invest money, you are speculating on future performance. If you bet on a football game, you are speculating on the winner. You are making what you feel is a calculated risk. EVERYONE speculates time and time again. When you drive your car, you are speculating it will perform and you will arrive at your destination safely. Mike, it seems you love to use the word ignorant a lot but I feel you are ignorant to its meaning. Did you just learn it recently and promise to use it in sentences daily ;)?

Still got the skirt waving in the wind there Ronny and Mike. No takers on my wager that after these 2 trial years, the xbow season still runs full inclusion concurrent? I am speculating and willing to put my money were my mouth is. I'm guessing you know the whole gambit was for show. The money spoke. Walker signed it (yet you 2 never bashed him for that but would have clobbered a liberal on it).

No takers because it would be a foolish bet. "If" the NRB/DNR would decide to make any changes to the length of the crossbow season, it would be 1 1/2-2 years after the requested change. Everyone knew this when the amendment was drafted.

" Walker signed it (yet you 2 never bashed him for that but would have clobbered a liberal on it). "

He signed a bill which had the entire support of the Assembly and all but one Senator. Plus, George Meyer, the WWF and WCC supported full inclusion and strongly lobbied for un-amended full inclusion bill.

On Bowsite I'm just another hunter with an opinion, back and forth with a few folks, not thousands of potential readers. Are your condescending comments here representative of your charter fishing service? Is that how you treat your customers?

I write/photograph for dozens of outlets, print and online. If it's a news story, stick to what happened or what a majority believe (or common sense says) will happen. If it's unknown and is being talked about in public places or online forums, ask questions and get others to comment. If it's a column, speak my mind and choose whether or not to use similar and/or opposing points of view.

Gotta disagree here. The real anti-xbowers were pretty confident that as xbows ruined hunting the xbow season would be modified/shortened after the 2 years. Many said (speculated) that once onboard, they are staying onboard, full inclusion. Lots of disagreement there.

"He signed a bill which had the entire support of the Assembly and all but one Senator. Plus, George Meyer, the WWF and WCC supported full inclusion and strongly lobbied for un-amended full inclusion bill. "

Walker could still have made the decision that would have followed the results of multiple hunter's votes. He had final say.

"Your welcome"

And by the way - speaking of dumber than dumb, when will you learn that it is "you're welcome" and not "your welcome". You can't fix that level of stupid.

If he really had any inclination to make a difference he would be present at hearings, writing letters, and making calls to make his opinion known. As time goes on, he continues to expose himself more and more as a toothless dog. Not sure what he is barking at and with no bite. This may come from general apathy, a lack of education as to how laws are made or pure laziness. Your guess is as good as mine.

Now happy, if you'd like to extend the time range of that bet to five years I am in.

Naz, I have personal experience in trying to get an opinion in one of your employers rags and you know how that went. My comments are directed at the things you have written and so as far as I am concerned it is perfectly OK to address them with you here.

I'd say the fact that I have been in business, full time for 32 years, speaks enough about my fishing business. Yet I'll tell you that my comments can be directed at customers just as easily as to you. A spade is a spade, if on my boat or on this site.

The biggest difference is there is no hypocrisy with me. If I make a mistake I'll admit it, something you have proven to be unable to do.

In any event, you continue writing what you will. I'll keep working with those who are able to make a difference, not just talk about it.

In all seriousness, have you read the original? If so, you will see there never was any mention of a "sunset" clause.

Happy, I am not trying to kid anyone. As I have mentioned many times, this legislation was backed by the NRA, the WI Bear hunters and quite a few ignorant legislators (undoubtedly swayed by NRA dollars). Had we not fought as we did, we would now have full inclusion with no chance for any separate oversight by the department (despite whatever label you put on it).

Is that what I hoped for? Hell no, it was the best we could get. Maybe we would have had better success with more support from the bow hunting public.

noun

a stipulation that an agency or program be disbanded or terminated at the end of a fixed period unless it is formally renewed.

Though it is still designed to run concurrently with the bow deer season two years, the change appears in the wording where NRB green sheet says "the rule has been modified so there is no sunset after the 2015 season." Most believed this would be a two-year "trial" and then modified as needed. The green sheet, right or wrong, makes it appear as if there's no negative impact after the 2014 season, no need for further rule-making.

After reading the meaning of a sunset provision above and considering that since "sunset" was the word used in the NRB green sheet, the word used in the NRB Powerpoint and the word spoken out loud at the meeting yesterday, you're arguing semantics. I understand your point about the original rule wording. I hope you can understand mine reporting it just as it was called in NRB meeting materials.

Meanwhile, a good read from Paul Smith on the value of the Natural Resources Board:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/wisconsinites-should-support-the-natural-resources-board-b99451842z1-294132651.html

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Keep Science in Wisconsin Fish and Wildlife Management The proposed state budget eliminates 18.4 research scientist positions from the DNR’s Bureau of Science Services. These are the staff that do the bulk of the applied science research in the field that forms the basis for scientific management of fish and wildlife in the state. This research helps DNR fish and wildlife managers estimate populations, set seasons and harvest levels. This research provides DNR field managers and private lake and land owners with the information that they need to manage DNR’s public land and water. The loss of these positions will be a major blow to future professional scientific management of fish and wildlife in Wisconsin. 1. In the last two years, these scientists have been involved in 204 Wildlife and Forestry research projects and surveys and 130 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences research project and surveys. This research is fundamental to the future of fish and wildlife management in Wisconsin.

2. In the last two years, Wildlife and Forestry science researchers conducted research projects involving wolves, many elements of forest management, endangered species, spruce grouse, turkey, deer, bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, pheasants, beaver, bobcat, fisher, otter, black bear, Canada goose, blue-winged teal, mallards, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, squirrels, common loons and grassland birds.

3. In the last two years, Fisheries and Aquatic science researchers conducted research projects involving invasive aquatic plants, smallmouth bass, rainbow smelt, woody fish habitat, phytoplankton, impact of shoreline and lakebed alterations on fisheries, walleye, impact of culvers on migratory fish, forage fish, lake sturgeon, bighead and silver carp, shovelnose sturgeon, lake eutrophication, inland trout, Eurasian milfoil, northern pike, Asian carp, phosphorus loading and eutrophication of lakes, invasive crayfish, brook trout, stream habitat restoration and yellow catfish.

4. This type of research is necessary to protect hunting, fishing and trapping from anti-hunting, fishing and trapping groups. This research information saved Wisconsin the ability to harvest bobcat in Wisconsin when an anti-hunting organization sued the WDNR in court all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This type of research established the information upon which the US Fish and Wildlife Service was able to take the timber wolf off the Federal Endangered Species List.

5. The elimination of these positions does not help reduce the $2 billion General Purpose Revenue (state tax dollar) deficits because virtually all of these positions are funded with sportsmen and women’s dollars: state hunting and fishing license funds, Federal Pittman-Robertson funds, Federal Sports Fishing Restoration funds and Federally funded State Wildlife Grants.

6. Contrary to some claims, most of this research cannot be contracted out to the University. University researchers, in general, do not do this type of applied fish and wildlife management research. Secondly, the University system does not have the research capacity to do all of this research. Thirdly, even if it were possible to contract out to the University, it would cost substantially more since the University charges 30% overhead above the actual cost of the research project.

7. Some politicians have expressed displeasure at the findings of two or three DNR research projects. Researchers do not set policy but rather publish scientific information. Policy makers still have the ability to ignore the research findings when they make public policy decisions but at least having the research done provides them information on what the results of their decisions may be.

8. What to do if you are concerned about the elimination of these scientific research positions: Contact your state Senator and Representative. Their contact information is on the Wisconsin Legislative website. Just type in your address information on the front page and you will receive information on who your Senator and Representative are. Ask them to retain the DNR Research Scientists in the state budget.

She was not even consulted on this decision and did a complete 180 based on previous comments.

Here is a snippet from the article:

-------------------------------------------

"She said Walker did not consult with her on his plan in advance, but that she considered it a "smart way to go now."

"I think the current structure is what is compounding the bureaucracy," she added. "The way the structure is currently, I think, is unnecessary."

Her comments were in conflict with what she said in April 2011, shortly after Walker appointed her DNR secretary. Then, Stepp — a former member of the Natural Resources Board — praised the board for its objectivity and called it "a really, really critical part of Wisconsin's history and it's something that's treasured by me. And I know the governor feels the same way.""

All Former DNR Secretaries Endorse Current Authority for the Natural Resource Board

In an unprecedented letter of unity, all six former living DNR Secretaries endorsed that the Natural Resources Board should retain its current authority over the Department of Natural Resources.

The former Secretaries careers span 36 years of leadership from 1975 through 2011 and represent Secretaries that served under both Republican and Democratic Governors and served as both Board appointed and Governor appointed Secretaries. The Secretaries are Anthony Earl (also a former Governor), Bruce Braun (Deputy Secretary under the late Secretary Buzz Besadny), George Meyer, Darrell Bazzell, Scott Hassett and Matt Frank. The letter was sent to the Chairs of the Joint Finance Committee:

Dear Senator Darling and Representative Nygren:

The state budget that is presently before the Joint Finance Committee proposes to change state law by removing the decision-making authority of the Natural Resources Board and making it solely advisory to the Department of Natural Resources Secretary.

The below signed individuals served as Secretaries of the Department of Natural Resources from 1975 until 2011 (36 years). The group includes Secretaries that served in Republican and Democratic Administrations and as Board-appointed and Governor-appointed Secretaries. We have worked very closely for and with the Natural Resources Board over those years and have direct first-hand knowledge of its operations and value.

We all agree that the Natural Resources Board should be retained as the decision-making body for the Department of Natural Resources. As presently constituted the Board provides immeasurable value for Wisconsin citizens and the natural resources of the state.

The Board provides an extremely valuable function as a major gateway for average citizens to directly impact all forms of natural resource management. This is done through citizen appearances at the monthly Natural Resources Board meetings and through the thousands of individual citizen communications that Board members receive each year and bring to bear in their decision-making process.

Secondly, we all have benefited from having the direct input from the highly respected conservationists that have served on the Board during our tenures. Natural resource decision-making is often complex and controversial and we found it very valuable to have the ideas and direction of these individuals in making decisions. The Board as decision-makers brings the perspective of average citizens to the table and is valuable in molding agency decisions to be less bureaucratic and workable for the average citizen.

It has been set forth by some that removing the Natural Resources Board as the decision-making body will increase accountability for agency decisions for Wisconsin citizens. In fact, having the open process of monthly meetings of the Natural Resources Board as a decision-making body where average citizens can comment and bring forth any issue regarding the agency problems is a far higher level of accountability for Wisconsin citizens.

Lastly, we believe that if the Natural Resources Board is changed to an advisory body, the state will lose the high level of individuals that have historically served on the Board and that their “advice” will be easily dismissed at the discretion of the Secretary.

Funny ... they say they will loose their advice by making them a advisory group...

Ya.. no politics involved there at all..

if they have been the reasons for the advice over the past 20 years... why does hunting stink so bad?? Might want some better advice.... ya think?

And hunting stinks? If you don't get off the computer, maybe so. But for those who venture afield, Wisconsin is No. 1 in total bear harvest and bear record book entries, No. 1 many years (and consistently top 3) in wild turkey harvest and led the nation in average annual deer harvest during the 10 years running from 1998-2007 ... plus tops in B&C and P&Y. Incredible duck and goose hunting (Great Lakes and inland), abundant small game and enough predators and fur bearers to please anyone who wants to make the effort at hunting or trapping them.