Whats up with Bayfield County ?
Wisconsin
Hi All, I'm a long time lurker and first time Poster. My question is what's going on with Bayfield County's CDAC Committee ? I keep looking for the minutes of the March 13-22nd 2018 meetings with regards to the public meeting for Review of Preliminary Harvest Recommendations. The minutes are supposed to be posted no later than March 26th with a public comment period beginning April 2nd -12th. All surrounding counties Ashland, Douglas, Iron, Price, and Sawyer have posted the minutes regarding their public meetings. The public comment period starts tomorrow. Am I missing something ?
I may be wrong but, the last I heard they they wanted to reduce the herd in Bayfield County. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, we have had some good threads about Bayfield County. It's a place very near and dear to my heart. I've started a couple threads where I expressed my concerns as well, but was put in my place by the several resident expert's here. Ha!! The idea that Bayfield County will reduce its deer herd the next three years, while all surrounding counties are not doing the same, IS ridiculous. Apparently the Forrester's feel the deer are devastating the red Oak regeneration.
These March 2018 Public meetings are in part to set actual public and private land antlerless quota numbers for the Fall 2018 deer season. Check the WDNR website CDAC link.
Bayfield County, yes more or less the same as last year "reduce the deer population". Just doesn't add up!
there are a lot of counties that have not posted yet, Vilas and Washington Co are 2 that I checked on, I am sure there are others
add Vernon,,,,,, Ozaukee showed not antlerless goals???? You should see Sheboygans report, what an embarrassment,,,,, it was hand written, looks like a 7 year old wrote it,,,,,,,, I mean come on...............................
I have said this before and catch hell from some of the DNR Kool-Aid drinkers. CDAC is a joke. It's a feel good move to make some people think they want and value landowner/hunter input.
Pretty much I agree with Rut. Its a great process if all anyone wants to do is raise deer numbers and no permits get issued. When antlerless permits are issued however it's deer management by the squeaky wheel gets the grease method. Bayfield county really made a joke out of the process last year by trying to issue 10K tags after issuing zero the previous two years.
Rut - Count me among the Kool-Aid drinkers - you do not have a clue my friend! And you deserve to catch hell.
You sit on here and complain day in and day out and please tell us all how many committees you have taken your precious time to sit in on and contribute? Yep, figured...
Thank God for the citizen that VOULENTEERS their time to TRY and make this a better system. Not Perfect never will be, but low and behold if it's not...there will be HELL TO PAY RUT!!
You pissing and moaning is like fingernails on a chalkboard!
No Todd108, it's not a great process for that/those reason(s) at all!
It's a great process because we now have hunters and sportsmen sitting on Committees. We have the public coming to them and exchanging ideas.
The WDNR finally listens or try's to listen to sportsmen and women and we STILL have the whiner's.
You guys you cry if you were hung with a new rope!! My God...
Don't like it, Sit on a friken committee and change it...
Not everyone has the time to volunteer their time to sit in committees. Good to see those that do, aren't elitists that condescend to the others that don't sit in the committees.
^ A good example of how letting your anger and rage get the best of you can hinder the clear thought/grammar/spelling process. Pay attention kids and let your parents know if you also have bouts of uncontrollable rage so you can get some help before it becomes a life-long struggle.
No system is perfect, but overall this process has worked very well. For decades sportsmen have screamed that the DNR has mismanaged the deer herd. Now there is an organization that uses input from several different stakeholder groups and the public to make recommendations on the antlerless quotas and those recommendations have been used for three years now.
We were lucky in my county because the deer population was decimated by the bad winter we had before this process was implemented. Everyone agreed that wee needed to increase the deer herd. There were some differences of opinion on the antlerless quota but everyone seems satisfied with the process.
Some counties are more complicated because there are larger disparities within the county due to differences in landscape or public/private distribution, but overall I think that the process has worked out well. Bayfield is one of those counties and I don't know it well enough to weigh in on the recommendations.
BT. Does church, school, 4h, community table, food shelf, and youth sports count? If not, you are correct. I don't volunteer at all. Yes some of those have been committees.
Here is a smart idea by the CDAC committee and DNR advisor in Washington Counties,,,,, I was hopeing they would redraw the Metro Lines, so the northeast end of the county could also be hunted till Jan 31...... one of the situations where one side of the road you can hunt, but the other side you can not......
By accepting the Holiday Hunt, they can extend the season for the whole county till the 31st, and they also want to issue 3 free antlerless tags, to maintain the herd size,,,, to me that is a win win........
go east, to Ozaukee Co, they do not believe anyone wants the Holiday Hunt, and they have a big herd,,,,,,,,
so this is an example of why the CDAC is better than what we use to have, some input is getting in, and the partnership with DNR personnel seems to go well
I also see where Waupaca County wants to cut doe tags back,,,,,, so its all different
Bayfield County's CDAC posted their preliminary antlerless harvest recommendations. They voted to allow 11,225 bonus antlerless permits to be sold. This defies any and all logic and totally dismisses any input provided by the vast majority of those who have responded in the fall public survey. I know that I'll probably take heat for my next comment but so be it, " I believe its a serious conflict of interest when husband who works for the DNR as wildlife biologist, and his own wife serves as the CDAC vice chair. One would never see a husband wife team serve on a jury. The optics call the whole process into question."
Wink....Good question & comment
There wouldn't be any conflict of interest because the DNR biologist and a member of the CDAC are related (married). The biologist just presents information and answers questions-he doesn't have a vote. The vote of the CDAC wouldn't affect him in any way. In order for there to be a conflict of interest it would have to impact one or both in a financial, personal, or career way. If anything being married to a biologist would probably mean she is better educated than most alternate chairs on wildlife issues.
Until this year, the alternate chair didn't have a vote on the CDAC's, but that was changed recently.
Not sure about the no conflict of interest. I'm not saying it is a conflict of interest, but I think your definition is narrow. She might be more likely to vote as he would (if he had a vote) and less likely to put as much weight on information from other sources that might not be in line with the biologist...Human nature.
You ought to see a staff meeting when a teacher's husband is the principal. Guess which side the teacher sides with? The hubby, every time.
And let's not forget that biologist are only as good as their data, research, metrics, etc. If everything presented to the public was rock solid, that's one thing. We don't or shouldn't expect exact science, but enough has happened in regard to how predator and prey are managed for the public to be rightfully cautious about what the experts tell us and compelled to ask hard questions.
In your analogy, the teacher and principal would have a fiduciary interest a in each other and would have to deal with each other in the workplace every day so there is an obvious conflict of interest there. This case of a biologist that gives the Council information three times a year wouldn't rise anywhere near that level. It's not likely to cause throwing dishes at each other or a divorce. Yes, the wife in this case is likely to rely on the husband's input but it's not like he has an ulterior motive or agenda to promote.
After reviewing the CDAC contact list I came across a name I am familiar with, Jeremy St. Arnold, he is a Tribal Wildlife and Forestry Biologist for Red Cliff, he also is the lead Biologist for collaring and tracking the wolves up here. Here is the question I asked and his response. (Me) Are you in favor of the 11,000 doe tags they want to give out in Bayfield County for this coming deer season, if so why? (Mr St. Arnolds response) Good Question. This year is my first year being on the CDAC. Though 11,000+ tags looks like a lot, when you factor in a 30 % hunter success rate for public land and a 32% hunter success rate for private land, we should end up near our target quota of 3,500 anterless harvest. This 3,500 anterless harvest will still represent a post-hunt population increase of 6% for the Bayfield County deer herd overall. Last year the CDAC voted for a 3 year plan to decrease the herd. In order to actually decrease the herd by -1%, we would need a quota of 5,500 anterless, which would mean issuing around 17,000 tags. I didn’t think the public would accept that, so I voted on the 3,500 quota because it was a compromise between the 3 year goal of the CDAC and what the DNR Natural Resources Board & the public would accept. Essentially we voted to increase the herd at a decreasing rate (last year the herd increased by 13%, this year it will increase by only 6%). Also, another thing to note is that last year not all of the private land tags were sold, while public land tags sold out. I don’t actually think all 11,000+ tags will sell this year. Personally, I think we need to break up the county into different management units, somewhat similar to what it used to be, because we have areas with high deer densities (ag land) and areas with moderate deer densities (mature hardwoods). However, the CDAC is stuck with this management model handed down by the DNR. Jeremy St.Arnold Tribal Wildlife and Forestry Biology Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Bayfield WI
Wink - The last couple of years here in Washburn county they've paid no attention to the surveys either. They'll just do what they want. Two years ago we voted 80% that wanted no antlerless season, but we got 10,000+ antlerless tags for two years in a row. Why do surveys? This year it has dropped. Our county needs to be split into management units.
Careful what you say Hoot. BT will be on here calling you names.
