Conservation Congress Meeting Vote
Wisconsin
I will be unable to vote this year at the meeting, have to be out of town.... is there a site on the DNR web, that you can bring up, and vote on the proposals, like you can with the cdac?
razor you can look at the questions on line. Then voice your concerns to your conservation congress rep for you area. I would also call the dnr to voice you thoughts on any proposals.
okay thanks I will do that,,,,, maybe someone could suggest an on line system to them, I really like the cdac system, why not do that for the CC,,,,,
Razor, only guessing here but one issue with online comments is that it would open it up and make it easier for the anti's to gain a larger voice.
Razor, you don't have to attend in the county you live in. You just won't be able to run for any position in the county that you attend.
Good point Mike, the requirement that a person must be in attendance insures that they only get one vote.
If there was on-line voting the lefty tree huggers would all vote and the hunters and fishermen's voice would not be heard like it is now. Another reason to end this Spring Hearing fiasco.
never thought of that, yep your right,,,, never mind that.......
When I worked nights over 10 years ago I would pick up the booklet at the D&T expo, fill it out and mail it in.
Considering the Congress hearings are open to the public, I don't see how "lefties" are being discriminated against in any way through this process. Sure, the people who attend are generally hunters and fishermen, but that is because the questions pertain to hunting and fishing.
Why would we get rid of the only process in the whole country which allows the public to weigh in on how natural resource decisions are made? Try starting a grass roots movement to make a change anywhere else in the United States and see where you get. Nowhere. Without it the only people with input are the DNR and legislators.
"I don't see how "lefties" are being discriminated against in any way through this process."
They are not being discriminated against. If they choose to show for the hearings (which they often do) they are allowed their time and vote, just as are sportsmen who choose to attend.
"Why would we get rid of the only process in the whole country which allows the public to weigh in on how natural resource decisions are made?"
How much does the public input really weigh on the final decisions? Voters voted down xbows a couple of years ago and the Legislature voted 96-0 to allow them. These spring hearings are just a feel good process when it is all said and done.
Like happy said how much does our voice or vote really matter? We vote one way and they vote a different way. Plus do we really want people with no experience in biology or law enforcement making decisions? While the idea sounds like a great idea in actual use it isn't IMHO.
Unfortunately or not, we get wildlife laws in one of two ways. Either through the DNR or else through legislative action. That is why we need to be active on both fronts. I too have often felt I was wasting my time attending CC meetings or DNR or legislative hearings but the fact is, if we stop making our voice heard, then we have no chance of getting our input even considered.
I have often said, and will say again, hunters and fishermen are some of the most apathetic people. We are almost never proactive, but rather only react when an issue hits far too close to home. Playing defense is not the best way to score points.
If you want to see the "lefties" come to Portage County, where the college students show up in droves. They try and get their "people" elected to the board.
There have been some good resolutions that have passed in recent years and some really "wacko" ones that have been defeated.
It's the last thing we really have to change and protect what we have. I would rather have the hunters and fishermen vote on these laws than elected officials who haven't spent and hour on the water or in a treestand.
Yes we are some of the most apathetic people who wait until the sky has fallen to react to the problem. I remember the "Old Days" when every question was read and then the vote was taken by raising hands, I remember my first Spring Hearings, we didn't get home until well after midnight. This years meeting should only last 2 hours at most.
It took me 5 years but I got the silly 50% concealment rule changed for hunting waterfowl with boats. This greatly increased huntable areas and should help ease crowding.
So the CC does work for the common Joe.
I agree Drop, I do not credit myself, but I can tell you I was advised by a CC member, after I proposed to be able to cut up a deer, to get it out of the woods, that others joined on that...... That took 5 years also..........
so I agree it did work,,,,, problem back than, was the NRB was mostly filled with some, and I only say some that were not serious hunters and trappers,
I see that once again, the question on who should appoint the head of the DNR, they must have had that question, on for now at least 10 years.......
again, wish I could go, I always enjoyed the process
OK, I know I am complaining but the Sawyer county meeting is in Winter this year. A 40 minute drive from Hayward. I guess the people around Winter probably complain when it is in Hayward. I guess the good news is that if I decide to drive that far I am not likely to see or hit any deer on the roads.
More likely to hit a wolf.
Once again Drop-Tine, one of the biggest success stories for the majority of waterfowlers. At the same time, I live a few minutes from Koshkonong, where I'm sure there's a few people not as pleased as you and I. Again, thanks for your effort.
Pete Pec, please explain the waterfowl issue, you are talking about
Razor, many years ago, there was a rule that while hunting from a boat, you had to be in emergent vegetation that offered some concealment to the boat, blind, and the hunter. The discretion of what the word "some" meant was up to the warden, and had varying opinions that didn't favor the hunter.
This rule was changed to the offering 50% concealment from one vantage point, but you still needed to be within 3 feet of emergent vegetation and anchored. There was still plenty of opinions on what was legal. The problem with emergent vegetation was most of those same plants that grow in the water, often die, or break down quickly as weather changes and hunters hunt these places. So there is plenty of water that is public, but this stupid rule making hunters be near emergent vegetation made hunting from a boat blind very difficult. It caused a lot of hunter conflict because people wanted to hunt those same spots.
You might ask why not build a blind, or hunt standing in the water with waders? Well in waders you had to stand. You sat in a chair, and all of a sudden that chair can be considered a blind. The blind must be built on public land, or on private land if you had permission. A lot of conflict with landowners because they often felt they owned the water adjacent to the shoreline they owned. Hunters never wanted to hunt their land. We just wanted to hunt the water. The water WE ALL own. This is where Drop Tine and myself, and many other people became active. The credit goes to him. He did a ton of the legwork and failed attempts to get people to listen.
Forgive me if I don't nail this exactly, but his proposal was to allow people to hunt three feet from any shoreline or island that offered 50% concealment as a backdrop for example. Meaning emergent vegetation was no longer a necessity. You could have grass on the bank or trees behind you. You have to be 3 feet off the shoreline (I believe), and cannot rest your boat on private land unless you have permission. You still must be anchored, but this single rule just opened up hunting in places that were once unhuntable because there are plenty of waters with zero emergent vegetation. Wisconsin River has many places with nothing, and I know of a million places I could hunt that I once could not. Now this might have pissed off those private landowners that once had the water to themselves, simply because they had a permanent blind on their property, and there was zero emergent vegetation. I don't feel it will cause a ton of new conflict simply because there are so many new places for duck hunters to spread out. I hardly duck hunt Wisconsin any longer, but I might just partake in it again. This was a great thing for Wisconsin, and this might attribute to more hunter recruitment than any other source.
Thanks again for your efforts!
thanks great post,,, this was covered today in an outdoor radio show... I hunt a fair amount of waterfowl, and you are right this is a great thing.....
"How much does the public input really weigh on the final decisions? Voters voted down xbows a couple of years ago and the Legislature voted 96-0 to allow them. These spring hearings are just a feel good process when it is all said and done."
That is exactly what they are.
Spring hearings and legislature are two different entities.
As stated above, the Coservation Congress and the state Legislature are two different entities. The legislature doesn't always follow the vote of the conservation congress, but they do pay attention. It is important to note that much of what happens at the Spring Meetings have nothing to do with the Legislature.
Many of the questions are things that will eventually be acted on by the Natural Resources Board. The track record of the Board following the votes at the hearings is much better.
No matter what, Wisconsin is the only state that offers the opportunity for citizens to weigh in on natural resource decisions through the spring hearings and committee meetings that follow throughout the year. If you don't participate, you are part of the problem. I look at it just like voting. If you don't do it, you have no right to complain about the outcome.
I took a similar resolution to Portage county. The difference between the 2 resolutions is that the handicapped and older hunters would still be allowed to use a crossbow until the end of archery season as in the past.
Who knows how it will go. There were no questions about the resolution.
The room was 50/50 hunters and fisherman and anti's there so they can get a passing grade in some college class. We had one fellow from Green Bay that was a plant form the Humane Society and he ran for the congress and lost. After the meeting there was some discussion as to if he was even eligible because of his residency outside of the county.
Without the college crowd I would say the ages ranged from early 20's through mid 70's. We had a good cross section from the area. Of course there was plenty of room for more people.
Stevens Point is becoming the new Madison..... Deer lives matter
The hearings are a joke, that's why no one is going to them anymore. They've out live their usefulness. The only people who go to them are old timers who have nothing better to do on a Monday night and those who love to hear themselves talk.
Speaking of laughable turnouts, during the "Dr. Deer" process, 35 public meetings with James Kroll were held, strategically placed across the state at a time when deer hunters were supposedly crying for change. Guess how many attended? A whopping 490 — in total! That's LESS THAN one-tenth of one percent of state bow, crossbow and firearm deer hunters.
Then, when the Deer Trustee package was ready to go — and was promoted far and wide in print, radio, TV, online and in social media — a mere 3,812 individuals took the time over the course of WEEKS to indicate support, opposition or comment on the report. That's fewer than took the time to drive to the CC hearings, and all they had to do was go online and spend a few minutes checking boxes.
Someone should make a proposal to get rid of the hearings!
Zinger-
The people who go still believe in the system. If we let the tree huggers take over you will have to use plastic TP to wipe.
Zinger -
Perhaps you could author that proposal?
I on the other hand have chosen a different route and I was recently elected as a delegate to the CC. I am already a CDAC delegate. So far - very positive experience with our CDAC program and I enjoy the members I work with. I also enjoy speaking to the public on issues that concern both of us as hunters.
I thought that instead of standing around - I would jump in feet first and see first hand how this all goes down and if in fact I will be wasting my time or not. I plan on working hard towards the betterment of the process.
I plan to work hard with other delegates and plan on attending the CC State Convention in May to get a first hand - hands on experience. Time will tell.
Naz, are you attempting to show how apathetic hunters are or was that just another cheap shot at Dr Kroll, someone we all know you do not care for?
Yea , exactly what Zinger said . Some of you may think your getting something done but you are not . Madtown & the DNR will do what THEY want no matter what the vote is .
The real problem is most people (DNR employees, Congress Delegates, Media and Sportsmen) do not have an understanding of the spring hearings or the role of the Conservation Congress.
The Spring Hearings are 100% totally non-binding, advisory, an opinion if you will. Nothing more and nothing less. The outcome can be rejected by the Congress the DNR and even by the NRB. I doubt if people will ever truly understand the process.
Without a proper understanding of the process you will forever be disappointed in the outcome.
The thing with the process is for the most part the rule changes or suggestions are coming from those that know or are most passionate about the idea. Some are spot on some are not but to disreguard or abandandon the process and just letting legislature go willy nilly making or changing things is a mistake in my opinion.
Shotguns resolutions that are similar are lumped together into one resolution. Doesn't matter if there were 72 and passed in every county. In the end they all will have the same number and only one vote taken to advance or kill it.
Capt. Mike, it was in direct response to Rancid's predictable slam at the CC process, in which he tends to believe there are almost as many anti-hunters who attend as hunters (obviously not the case or they'd be winning seats across the state; I would guess 1-5 percent might be antis in most counties). He says "ouch" when fewer than one percent of state hunters show up for the CC hearings and talks about manufactured hype and drama hoping to fill seats, yet when the drama over Dr. Deer and the supposedly totally ticked off deer hunting community had its chance to roar, it was instead a whimper with a mere 490 attending 35 hearings across the state and fewer than 4,000 completing an online survey that ran for weeks and was promoted far and wide. End of story!
Oh, and speaking of "power to the people" as someone here so loves to say, the vast majority of citizens in Canada and the U.S. who commented oppose Waukesha's request for Great Lakes water. Let's see what happens next.
Naz, I think both instances that you cite only help to prove the general state of apathy that WI sportsmen have. And, I will add my vote against Waukesha taking water from lake Michigan.
Sadly that Canada has no vote in this.
Glad that there is a NO majority on this too!
What does this have to do with WCC?
I would say the bunny huggers were about 20- 25% of the Waukesha meeting. Look at Dane Co. results on resolutions and tell me what you think. I have a couple young guys committed for next year. I urge everyone to do the same.
Right now the DNR is busy analyzing the results of spring hearings. If there are any resolutions that they do not like they will be in full spin mode reaching out to the CC delegations directing them on which resolutions to kill. The "process" is now at work like it is any year.
Luckily we caught their plant this year and when it comes time to elect your CC members I urge you to ask one simple question of all the candidates-
"How long have you hunted and fished and are you currently a member of an anti-hunting organization?"
You have the right to know what the person asking for your vote stands for.
I find it hard to believe that anyone woudl vote for someone not knowing what they stand for.
Oh wait! We've been seeing that for a long time.....
Huntnfish- The DNR has nothing to do with citizen resolutions. They were sorted through by a Congress committee yesterday and have been assigned to the appropriate committee for action. DNR only evaluates the responses to their questions on the questionnaire.
Waukesha and Dane are two counties of 72. Majority? No.
How is 490 people attending 35 meetings better than the CC's statewide turnout? LOL
But even if you took this year's CC attendance (over 4,300) it beat a weeks-long statewide Dr. Deer poll (3,800, though you could vote more than once on a different computer or browser …).
You can't look at votes on most issues and say "anti" or hunter. Many hunters through the years oppose(d) proposals that would make it "easier" to hunt various species, such as longer hunt hours, longer seasons, more liberal bag limits, opening up a sandhill crane season, etc. That doesn't make them an anti, just a hunter with some common sense that can think for themselves.
The DNR has nothing to do with citizen resolutions.
OK if that's your story, and you actually believe it.
A great, mythical conspiracy …. HF, you'd do far better to see where many bills passed by the legislature originated.
RC summed it up well. Anyone believing any different is a fool.
It is obvious hunter apathy is huge. Maybe because we have no decent, state based outdoor publications that give true, unbiased information to the readers?
"Outdoor writers are dependent on the DNR and WCC for commentary and quotes and interviews so outdoor publications and their writers refuse to be critical"
LOL
So many pieces written critical of DNR and CC decisions/issues through the years by almost every outdoor writer I know. None rely on them for stories. Do the writers use some of the info from news releases, etc.? Certainly, that info is available online to anyone and facts are facts.
Some how every spring around this time of the year we all end up beating each other up over things we have little or no chance of changing.
We all know that there are certain people withing the CC that have their agendas, that will never change either.
That being said, does the proposal to shorten the crossbow season have a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed before I am so old I will have to use it if I want to hunt deer before the gun season?
Or does someone in the CC have a promise to someone in the crossbow industry?
And please don't be shy of hurting my feelings or anyone else's here. We seen to be doing a pretty good job of it lately.
Mike, no one has a crystal ball to predict what may come of the hearings. They are advisory in nature and, as with the crossbow issue that was voted down numerous times in a row, we still ended up with one. Only time will tell.
The simple answer is that many on the CC also want the easy path for themselves. Time will tell if the resolution gets anywhere.
RC.... that is exactly what I ran into, when I was pushing for, the ability to cut up a deer, at the very least in half, to get it out of the deep woods......
5 years later, we got it, but I ran into delegates, that said "no one needs to do this",,,,,,, really, well where do you hunt.......
however, I like the CC process, and the way to change it, is not to stay away from it, but to engage it, and explain, what is wrong, and get it changed for the better, for all......
we are lucky to have it, and if we would only go into the meetings, by the hundreds, and exchange ideas, things could change for the better......
if their is a delegate, who does not do his job, elected by fellow sportsmen, than throw him out,,,,,,
the same with the NRB, sportsmen by the hundreds, should lite a fire under those people, at times....
the same with our legislators, most who have no clue to hunting and trapping, sportsmen by the thousands should get on them, when appropriate......
hunters and trappers in this state, need to get organized, because things are going the wrong way, in many cases
That's bull crap!! One delegate can not kill a resolution. The committee that it's assigned to can vote to not advance it. But a lone delegate has no power to do so.
I've attend those meetings also. I have never had a negative outcome at the meetings I have been invited to.
Someone got caught,,,,again
Many resolutions get passed at the local level, only to not advance — often for good reason. Some, depending on your point of view, are indeed "good" ones but they also don't advance for one reason or another, at times due to reasons the author hadn't thought of (inaccuracies, no possibility of it advancing due to political climate and many other reasons). Many others are tweaked, with the author's permission, to more fully address the situation. A few go all the way. There are occasionally no-brainers that pass, but the legislature won't touch. It's politics through and through. It is what it is, but it's far better than what other states have. At least there's additional opportunity to "vent" and possibly get press/traction for a "good" idea.
State WCC convention coming up soon in Manitowoc. Gov. Walker, Sec. Stepp, NRB members, etc. among those in attendance.
