Bowsite.com

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

The deer population goal setting process is underway. Stakeholder teams will be convening to reach consensus recommendations for increasing or decreasing the herd on a zone by zone basis. But don’t hold your breath for a big bump in deer numbers. The truth is the DNR planned to cut the herd in half, and they did it behind our backs. Why you might ask? Certified wood.

A dim light came on last Tuesday at a public input meeting in Hinckley when Leslie McInenly (MN DNR) uttered the words ‘certified forest’. The next day in St Paul, Steve Merchant from the DNR stated that we had to reduce the herd in northern MN to keep our ‘forests certified’. In 15 months of exploring why the herd had been shot so far back, I had never heard the words ‘certified forest’. That was by design. The hunters of MN and the rural areas that view deer as an economic resource were kept in the dark.

Certified forests are a green initiative that gives companies the option to use timber grown under a certain set of conditions and parameters. One of these parameters is the deer herd must be lowered to a level that allows certain measurable new tree growth. If you want your wood certified you have to lower the deer herd, and the decrease was to be substantial in MN. In 2005 when our DNR signed up to certify our forests, they knew full well the public would not support the reduction of a resource steeped in tradition and economic reward, so they did something they should have never even contemplated. They cooked the books on a 10 year bender to reduce the deer herd 50%.

The cost of certification is not cheap, and from reports I have glanced at, the economic gain of certification does nothing to replace the lost hunter spending in rural Minnesota. The gains of certification do nothing to compensate the owners who pay taxes on the recreational land that have had their deer stolen from them, or the rural economies that rely on them. The gains benefit only one group in MN, the timber companies.

They say history is the best indicator of the future, and one only needs to look east to see the writing on the wall. Pennsylvania was the first state to certify its forests in 1997. The hunters over there figured out what happened about 5 years ago, but they never got their deer back. One report from a sportsmen’s group in PA claims the state gained $1.2 million annually from the programs while giving up over $4.5 million in license revenue alone. Those 117,000 lost hunters no longer spend $200+ million per year chasing deer in rural Pennsylvania.

My point is don’t be looking to the upcoming goal setting process as a fix. The DNR is the group that decided to lower the herd, and their constant practice of applying percentage increases and decreases to a floating herd estimate is what let them lower the herd behind our backs. They are not done playing with those numbers. My stakeholder team will be voting percentage increases to a ‘perception’. That’s not math or science, that’s an agenda to keep the herd low.

The DNR has no plans to grow the herd which means our elected have to act. I laid a lot of this out in black and white for the Mining and Outdoor Recreation Committee to digest last Wednesday, and they will be the ones that act to bring the herd back. Your elected now control the fate of the herd size in MN. Your DNR already sold the deer for pennies on the dollar to the timber industry, and if you want them back, you best contact Chair Hackbarth and his committee in St Paul. A full blown external audit is in order, and a lot of folk in the DNR should be under the microscope. A select few individuals plotted this course, and its time they are held accountable for their actions. Contact your elected today.

The DNR has for as long as I have been hunting been required to manage deer at certain over winter goals (dpsm). Nothing changed with certification there.

"Background: The audit team is concerned that recent changes to the State of Wisconsin deer hunting regulations may result in over abundant deer populations. As observed in past audit years (particularly during years when deer numbers were higher than they are in 2013), herbivory from over abundant deer populations poses challenges to conformance with forest regeneration requirements of Indicator 6.3.a. Even at the current reduced population levels, county forests are required to use expensive measures (bud capping) to ensure regeneration of some planted stands."

"Finally, the winter of 2013-2014 was the most severe that Wisconsin has experienced in over 30 years, which was hard on deer and many conifers, but may be good for tree seedlings and saplings for the coming years. The impact on deer populations will likely be observed for several years; however, county foresters will continue to monitor impacts of deer and participate in the deer management forum."

For those who are truly concerned about this, attend your local CDAC meetings where your input will matter. Deer management is now addressed on a local level where your input matters.

I much rather spend the extra $.60 on Kemp 2% milk than Piggly Wiggly's since I known the milk is soo much different.

And this does remind me of people who insist on OEM headlight when most are just the same manufacture but putting it in a OEM box. LOL

"Because our primary focus has always been to protect the entire spectrum of native biological diversity, we do not encourage hunting or fishing on the majority of conservation sites that we own or manage"

This is nothing more than a "Green Initiative". Nothing more than dolphin safe tuna, organic foods, saving wolves....on and on...

Again I ask....Where is their science? We know their motives. I wonder if the DNR clear cut of Rowan Creek will make a certified forest in 30 years? Or the Feds refusing to cut Fed lands, were large canopies have kill most of the undergrowth, are certified too?

"Because our primary focus has always been to protect the entire spectrum of native biological diversity, we do not encourage hunting or fishing on the majority of conservation sites that we own or manage"

But you skipped the important part:

"At the same time, when these activities are carried out within the guidelines of applicable state and federal laws, we would not oppose those who wish to take part in them."

Also, "In general, the Conservancy does not take a formal position either for or against hunting or fishing."

The Nature Conservancy has allowed and even encouraged deer hunting on a majority of its properties due to the whitetail browsing. I've been a member for 25 years, great group that has preserved a lot of wild lands and most allowed deer hunting long before Stewardship changes mandated it.

Nice to see your $$$ go to their cause.

Sounds like double-talk. If they take no position, why the statement that they "do not encourage?"

Nothing more than liberals allowing their true feelings to emerge but then trying to counter with the "no position" statement. It would have been much easier to just leave all of that out, if they really had no position.

Interesting read. Kroll sidekick Alt ends the seminar with a playbook to confuse and bedazzle the hunters in the meeting.

"Dr. Alt said none of these changes came easily and he spent 16 to 18 hours a day, during the period between when the law changes were proposed and when they were voted on, contacting politicians and holding public meetings. He gave some tips on holding public meetings including;

1. You need to be offensive, not defensive, in public meetings. 2. Always give an hour to 90-minute speech before opening the floor to questions and comments. This gives you an opportunity to educate the public and cools off the hotheads (they go into metabolic depression). 3. Never present just one proposal because people will band against it and defeat it, give them 5 or 6, that will confuse the opposition and you can get 3 or 4 through. 4. Talk about research you are doing and admit you don’t have a perfect program, admit you have made mistakes and relate a specific mistake. 5. Among people waiting to make comments, you can identify disruptive elements and take measures to deal with them, such as reminding the audience that they should think about the impression they are making (this will be on the news, the Governor’s office is represented here), if they want to kill hunting just start swearing. 6. Stay till the last person wants to go home; after the audience dwindles to about 100 people, go down on the floor to talk with them. These are the people who will influence their communities. "

I was not a fan of Alt on the DTR.

In Door County alone, The Nature Conservancy offers deer hunting with no permit needed on more than 4,000 acres of prime real estate, wild lands with solid deer populations including above-average older age classes of bucks due to the challenging habitat (and ag within reach for nighttime deer feeding missions).

Fall turkey (after Nov. 1) and waterfowl hunting allowed on the Door TNC properties with no permit required. Pheasant, grouse and small game at Mink River Preserve after November 1 with no permit needed. Small game and bear hunting, trapping and unrestricted turkey hunting (per full DNR seasons) on some additional Door Peninsula lands. All the preserve maps are georeferenced. You can download the free PDF Maps app on your Apple or Android device, and it will allow you to view your location, record GPS tracks, add placemarks and find places.

For those who have open minds, much more on TNC's reasons behind hunting on preserves can be found at http://www.nature.org/member-care/hunting-and-fishing-factsheet.pdf.

"Another useless money waster thought up by Crazy Jim Slinsky and the nut jobs that belong to the Unified Sportsmen of PA. So when are they gonna pay back the money they wasted with that retarded lawsuit that was laughed out of court. Thanks for wasting my tax dollars Unified Sportsmen."

RE: Pa deer hunters petition "This is why sometimes I hate being a PA hunter. I am lumped in with these bozos."

RE: Pa deer hunters petition "I don't think 2,600 hunters out of over 500,000 in the state is very many. I think its proving exactly the opposite."

RE: Pa deer hunters petition "After the herd gets reduce and deer are no longer in an area they would have never been in the first place, hunters whine. Yes they are whining. I'd bet the farm 9 of 10 complainers in PA about not seeing deer have land with lousy deer habitat. Plain and simple the deer have moved out."

RE: Pa deer hunters petition "Nodog, you have to understand that the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania are a group that have fought against every act that the PA Game Commission has proposed to improve the deer herd. Anything that doesn't involve an overpopulation of deer so that they can see 30-40 deer every time they hunt is a bad thing in their eyes. They have no interest in QDM or improving the age structure, buck to doe ratio, or carrying capacity of the land. They only care about seeing deer and cry and raise a fuss when they don't."

We looked at the Conservancy and when it came down to reading the fine print and what would happen to the land after I am dead and gone it was NOT in my best interests.

Our timber is sold for a fair price and all parties involved are more than happy.

Certification is not for me or my family, and there is no way in hell that the property will ever be in any government managed forest plan.

We don't mind paying our fair share of the taxes and not having the government involved in the decision making of what happens on the property.

Lol.... Why, because he isn't a liberal outdoor media type?

USP's problem is they attempted to resolve the issue in court vs. legislation.

Did you ever read some of his stuff? A lot of it regarding deer perpetuates some of the same myths, misconceptions and outright lies you can hear from a bar stool. He could have fit right in as a board member on that old two-person "coalition" that used to "represent" hunters' interests in Wisconsin.

No, but I spoke with a couple of biologist in PA which verified what he wrote in his article. Maybe PA biologist are not real biologist because they are not from WI.

As far as from what you can hear from a barstool, I spoke/know several WI biologist using myths, misconceptions and out right lies too. Should they belly up to the bar too?

Maybe all hunters and outdoor writers have to abide by the code, "when in doubt, keep on shooting";)

As alternative land uses such as, agriculture, frac sand, and residential or commercial development continue to increase in value, timber values remain somewhat stagnant. If a landowner is not interested in deer hunting or there are no longer any deer for them to be interested in, the decision to pursue other alternatives is that much easier for them.

Most of us forest landowners are likely zoned and taxed as "Recreational". Unless you have an Amusement Park on your property, the recreational value that you are being taxed at is for one thing and one thing only - whitetail deer hunting. With that, a certain number of deer need to be maintained on the landscape to maintain hunter interest. If the deer are no longer present at recreational levels, there is no reason to be taxed at recreational levels, correct? Perhaps landowners should also be compensated for their loss in property values? Anyone care to estimate what the artificially inflated land and tax value of Wisconsin's 8+ million acres of privately owned forest lands are simply because there are deer present?

I feel that the true economic importance of deer hunting in this state continues to be greatly underestimated. Some economic aspects are easy to assess such as sales of licenses, weapons, hunting apparel and travel expenses during the hunting season. But what about those many purchases and expenses that were really purchased for deer hunting purposes but aren't as easily identifiable? How many pickups have been sold just so that a guy doesn't have to take his deer to the registration station on top of a Subaru? (On-line registration might cause a decline in truck sales!) What about ATV sales, sd cards and batteries for trail cams, food plot related items, items related to taxidermy such as building additions to one's home? How about reciprocal compensation for the wife because a guy went on a hunting trip or spent money on another mount? Anyone notice the new market for hobby sized tractors? Guess what they're used for? What about travel expenses for planting food plots, shining deer, scouting, hanging stands or shed hunting? How about the economic benefit of deer shows such as the Wis Deer Classic or local head shows at taverns? How about the construction of tree stands, luxury blinds, hunting cabins, and pole sheds that are used for hunting related activities? I know I often find myself thinking "I could use this in the deer woods"! I know of a person who is currently pursuing the construction of a creek crossing that will run him somewhere around $40K just to access a small piece of property on the other side to plant food plots for deer...

Once member numbers within a deer camp begin to dwindle due to lack of deer sightings, that tradition is broken and will not be repaired and likely not replaced. The window of opportunity to establish the interest in hunting within the next generation is very limited and if they do not experience at least some level of a quality hunt within the first few years, that window likely will close and remain closed.

Without a strong connection to the land gained through deer hunting, it's difficult to feel comfortable in the next generation's decisions with inherited forest lands.

Another point is the goals in the north have not been lowered since the introduction of certified forests and in some units they have been raised.

I will though give them the benefit of the doubt, and like RC said will wait till the DTR report comes out.........

At the CDAC meeting in the north, you would think the Feds would be there, in some part, as working on the solution, of improved habitat, you would think the state and feds would work together,,,,,

It is going to be interesting to see what comes out, this year.....

I believe the DNR present mission is with private land holdings ,,,,,,,,,,

Nothing is going to change,,,,,, only hope for the north is mild winters, and a disease out break that would kill predators........

I have lost intrest,,,,,,,, the hunting of the north will be controlled by those who do not hunt it, just like the wolf situation is controlled by those who do not live with them,,,

You show me, one piece of info, coming from Cathy Stepp on what she plans to do, to try and help, and I will listen............

all I hear is crickets, time for her to "step up",,,,,

I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so..........

The coordination is all done. It's called certified forests which require no more than 5-15 dpsm for regen.