Public Input CDAC
Wisconsin
I see that it is time, to put in your input, to the CDAC, of the areas you hunt or live. This is one good thing about this process, is that it allows you, to have a say, and to give suggestions, for their consideration,,,,,,, I for one, fill out a few counties, because I hunt them all,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As I just mentioned in another thread but I want to mention it here as well ; Bayfield County's CDAC just posted their preliminary recommendations to allow 11,225 Bonus Antlerless permits. This defies any and all logic and totally dismisses the opinions of the vast majority of those who responded in the fall survey and called to increase or least maintain the herd at present levels. I know I'll take some heat for this next comment but so be it, " I don't believe it is appropriate for a husband who works for the WDNR as the area Wildlife Biologist and his wife who serves as the CDAC vice chair, to serve together on the same county committee. One would never see a husband and wife team serve on a jury. The optics call the whole process into question."
Oh, but CDAC has empowered us and given the sportsman an unprecedented voice at the local level according to BT and other site Pollyannas. Ok, so a litttle over the top sarcasm, but seriously, visit the Bayfield thread from a couple months ago. We hashed this out and plenty of hunters who know nothing of this area or herd got all snarky because several of us voices our displeasure in the absurdity of their 3 year goal to reduce deer numbers.
Here's an even more absurd one: Waupaca Co. (home of approx. 60 dpsm) wants to reduce antlerless permits. This is a county that threatened antlerless-only two years ago.
And then there's Bayfield which has a herd that is finally making a little comeback even when chocked full of wolves, and the county stakeholders vote to knock them back again. They seriously believe there are currently 19 dpsm or more?? I guess deer are the new vermin up there.
Well now we cannot bitch at the WDNR because we have CDAC to whine and cry about.
Instead of posting meaningless verbiage that does absolutely nothing.... be the positive voice to try and right the alleged wrong.
Some people want it both ways and the "cake" as well.
The system is NOT perfect and it will NEVER be perfect - get over it!!
Get busy being busy about working to fix your problems!
The "Bayfield Thread" is only ONE of SEVENTY TWO counties in the State. So one or two counties aren't getting it right...lets TRASH the whole program!
CDAC overwhelmingly has been the HOT ticket for many counties in the State. Hunter now have their voice! NOW USE IT!
Bloodtrail....Gonna try and make CDAC meeting in April day before my turkey hunt. Good luck turkey hunting.
BT- You do the same thing with baiting threads as you do with CDAC threads. Come in as the expert and tell anyone who does not agree with you how entirely wrong they are. Quite the ego. I'll take my "meaningless verbage" to your frequent condescending scolding of posters.
Musky - You write a post and refer to me as a "Site Pollyanna's" and you think I wont respond to you?
You been smoking your socks?
You admit to being sarcastic as well. Is that an effort to validate your name calling?
First off, I never called you a name. (I have a few in mind now, however) - Secondly, I call it like I see it. Some other folks may not like my approach either, but as I grow older, I seem to care less.
I thought I explained your "meaningless verbiage" as one would say, pissing and moaning!
My message is this..fine piss and moan all you want BUT offer a solution to the problem then! If's it wrong...HOW do we fix it and make the committees and the system better for everyone.
Make ya a deal - you start offering up some solutions and I'll be nicer to the posters I scold!
In the meantime, use your voice and that of other sportsmen/ladies in the State to make each of our programs the best that they can be.
We will never agree on everything and NOTHING is ever perfect in life. Applies to the WDNR as well.
Get busy, being busy, changing for the good!
I've been wrong in the past and Ill be wrong in the future -I guess sitting on a CDAC may "kinda" make ya an expert on what their mission is and basically how they work.
One more thing - those baiting threads - I am right, damn straight! (wink)!
buckmaster69 - Yes! So many others should attend - Cool beans! Looking forward to the youth hunt which is approaching - the birds are gobbling EVEN after this snow LOL. Good luck!
BT and I have had a few differences on these pages but I totally agree with him on this. BT, it is easy for someone like Musky to whine from the comfort of his computer. It takes much more effort and belief in a person's thoughts to actually do something about it. I'm guessing he does not really care enough to go beyond the computer complaining stage.
To be honest Captain - you and I have had our differences, yes.
It doesn't feel good to have had those and the same for Musky. I could have handled myself much better in some instances. Pick the wrong route to get a message across sometimes I guess.
As I grow older, I should try and be kinder instead of more cranky! I know your a good guy Captain and I am sure our friend Musky is too!
But, yes.....folks should try and get more involved. It gets so easy to complain about things - we all do it! I know, sometimes life doesn't allow for it.
Do not let them get to you,,,,,,, you are respected on this site,,,, always good information from you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, stay well
Marinette County (northern forest part): Goal....increase the herd, but then recommend to DOUBLE the number of antlerless permits for this year? I've gotten involved as best as my schedule permits. I was at original CDAC county meetings. I provide feedback via the survey process, go to the spring hearings, etc. I've hunted there 35+ years and know lots of folks in the area. The feedback given by me and others that hunt there is to please work toward INCREASE in local herd size, yet then the CDAC committee comes out and advocates a huge increase. And then go ahead and read the county report for the CDAC committee - not one single word about any of the survey information provided via the DNR website. Not discussed? Certainly not taken into consideration.
So is it a big surprise that many of us who just like to go hunt and see a deer once in a while have such a strong disdain for current WDNR deer management, included CDAC?
So your local CDAC is not listening to you or the DNR? Your local CDAC has managed the deer for the last 5 years, not the DNR. There is no "current WDNR deer management", only CDAC. This is what Wisconsin voted for.
Local CDAC isn't listening to the hunters. Why would there be no reference at all to surveys completed? Kind of funny (not) that the topic of this thread is to provide your input. I only looked at the Marinette CDAC report, but I'd be interested in how many other reports sight data from surveys as an input to their "decision" process.
And you are incorrect about there not being "current WDNR deer management". The WDNR sets seasons (i.e. holiday hunt), method restrictions (i.e. weapons, baiting, hours etc.), bag limits per license type/zone, etc.
The DNR doesn't do any of those things actually. The Legislature does.
Just because the minutes don't mention the surveys doesn't mean that members didn't look at them. The minutes are not a transcription of everything said at the meetings, they are a summary of the actions and significant conversations that took place.
So....input from the largest constituent stakeholder group (hunters) relative to deer management doesn't even get a mention in the minutes? Don't you think maybe that should have been a "significant conversation?"
Are you aware that the very first item of the CDAC charter is "...Gather public opinion on deer populations and goals, antlerless quotas and herd management strategies".
Yet the Marinette report offers commentary from CDAC members like "Cited foresters and personal observations of lack of regeneration in forests.".
We continually fall for this kind of stuff because we are told or read somewhere that a select few are indeed looking out for our collective best interests...yet nowhere can I see or read that reflects my position or the position of 99.99% of the hunters (at least in my county anyways).
Florence and Washington County doing a very good job
Deer harvest numbers and deer numbers are both up in Marinette every year since the CDAC's started. Seems like they are on track.
I just read their report, looks like the foresters are concerned about regeneration of sugar maples,,,,,, My friends land is in that county, in the old 49 area, all he sees is does, never any bucks,,,,,,,,,
I started going to cdac meetings last year and know they take what we say into consideration. There's not many people at meetings. The first meeting I went to other than the committee it was me and 2 friends I brought. They completely changed the amount of antlerless tags based on what we said
Does usually have a daddy.
Naturelives - Your RIGHT - NOT many people at CDAC meetings. I wonder why? This important stuff and I bet If we took an honest survey here, we'd find that many of our own posters don't attend.
That being said, it's not the PERFECT answer and the BEST thing since canned beer. BUT, WDNR has been listening to the VAST majority of the committees and making good on those promises to listen to the hunters.
Does the program need tweaking - YES, but again - get involved like our friend Naturelives and MAKE a difference!
I agree with BT,,,,,, I one time I thought that some counties could be joined, that there were too many CDAC 's but now after I have seen them work, I would leave it. A good example is Washington and Ozaukee Counties. I live on the edge of both and Sheboygan County in the N Kettle Moraine area.......... Washington wants to maintain,, and have a holiday hunt, and extend the season........ Ozaukee wants to decrease, but cuts back on tags, no holiday hunt, and no extended season,,,,,,, so to each their own......
Florence County is doing a real good job, and they are tuned in, to the hunters, and such, and have a lot of common sense. that county needs to be cut in half, forest and ag, but the NRB says no, so it stays for awhile...... But they have listened to the guys....
It is true, a lot of hunters do not make the meetings, but I know so many guys with cabins, and land and such, and via the computer, they make and ask for a lot of stuff, and exchange information,,,,, it is a different world today, and the cdac, needs to use social media as much as it can, to get the data, and info they need......
Meetings are good, but that is what you have the committee for, lap tops are cheap, and they should get info, via the system, all the time,,,,,,, the old ways are done
GH, it would be nice to do it online BUT there is so much data presented that would be not attainable in that format.
How many times has someone here made a very good but LONG post and you just skim through it and not read it in its entirety? Information overload.
People that are passionate find a way to show up.
I just returned from my cdac meeting,,,,, the first one I went to, otherwise I always send in my info via the computer,,,,,,,,,,, one thing I learned, from my county is they want your input..................
I was impressed with the wildlife biologist we now have, she is spot on, has a lot of experience, she knew her stuff, and has to cover 5 counties, so she is busy,,,,, she worked well with the rest of the committee......
They covered the public input, the responses they received, during the open response time, on their questionnaire,,,,, they went thru all of the results, and read every response, that was sent in, and discussed at length points that were made, and asked for input, for those of us, that were there, what we thought, in other words, you were part of the process, even though you were not on the committee.....
It was a good experience, I think they are spot on, for what we need,,,,,,, One farmer said, some interesting things. He said, that he knows a lot of farms, that are getting paid crop damage, but are not hunted,,,,,, He also said, there are a lot of deer, but once them guns go off, people just stay in their blinds, thinking them deer are just going to walk by,,,,, heck he said, they drive my farm, and they kill deer, but the access to a lot of farm land is gone""""" he also said, people say there are no deer, but look at the way hunters today hunt,,,, not too much effort...... anyway he was fun to listen too
The one thing that everyone is fed up with, is the way, private deer farms are being handled, and the way public money is going, to cover some of their losses,,,,, One farmers said, if my barn burns, that is why I have insurance,,,, no one helping me cover the loss of live stock
all in all positive experience,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You would think, these meeting would be packed, with all the passion on deer hunting here in the state,,,, I don't get it
Ours is Thursday night (Glenn)
Glad you had a good experience. Our Bioligist is very good also.
We had a good meeting tonight, although only four members of the public showed up. A lot of discussion on how the endless winter should impact our goal setting.
It is interesting to note that nearly none of the comments from the public input process had anything to do with what the CDAC controls. Good to hear tgst people have opinions, unfortunately they aren't directed to the right people. In general the legislature needs to hear them.
went to another meeting tonight, in another county, just to listen, they had one other county resident there, one, that was it,,,,,,, I said to myself if they had this, back in the 80's when we were firing off,,, they would have to have a big room, for all that would be there,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the small amount of interest in deer hunting, season structures, etc etc, is amazing From What About Bob movie "We're a dying breed Leo"
The CDAC I attended tallied up the public votes and and either read public comments or had the person verbally give it. In the end each of the committer voters had a constituency that determined their vote. Although sentiment was close to 50/50 for the holiday hunt it was voted out. I am for eliminating the holiday hunt but it seemed that it was predetermined with or without public support. The end result is that we went from biologist determined deer rules to 6 people representing, WCC, hunter groups, forestry, agriculture etc and the individual has little to no say. I do not see this as an improvement. James Kroll, screw you.
CDAC is a process. It’s not a one and done type meeting. A lot of things are already settled coming into the final meeting. The last one is where tweaks can be made. In our case the snowy month of April pushing the WSI well into the Moderate range and we’ve been seeing some die offs because of it so we dropped the number of tags by 1000 and adjusted the quota. Most left the meeting satisfied with the recommendation we’re sending to Madison.
"The end result is that we went from biologist determined deer rules to 6 people representing, WCC, hunter groups, forestry, agriculture etc and the individual has little to no say. I do not see this as an improvement. James Kroll, screw you." Can you say convoluted? You complain it was taken from a group of biologists (small number of gov't employees) and given to representatives of various user groups who represent their constituency (the public) and then complain about it? And biologists still have input.
The Bayfield County CDAC meeting on 4/16 reccommendation. (Due to this recent storm and the fact that it increased the winter severity, we reduced the quota to 3,000 antlerless as a target harvest. The split we recommended was 55 % private and 45% public. The DNR still has to approve our recommendation.)
Mike I don't have skin in this game per se, but 3k doe tags in Bayfield? That's seems like a huge number in a layman eye where predation, snow etc have a bigger than "normal" impact. But again I'm in Kenosha and don't have a warm and fuzzy about how the deer herds are counted.
These comments are from one of the guys that sits on the CDAC: There wasn’t a huge turn out, some appreciated CDAC and some did not. Not much to be concerned about in my opinion, but some folks voiced their concern online. The main concern from those that were there was over CWD.
The quota goal of 3,000 antlerless would result in 9,625 tags being issued. If winter severity ends up being around 80, this quota should result in the deer herd staying the same, if the winter severity ends up at 90, the herd could drop by as much as 4%, after this fall deer season. The winter severity will likely end up somewhere in between 80 and 90, so I would expect to see a slight reduction in the deer herd if the quota of 3,000 antlerless is actually reached. The 3 year goal of the CDAC, set last year, was to slightly reduce the herd, so this quota recommendation would help achieve that goal.
"The end result is that we went from biologist determined deer rules to 6 people representing, WCC, hunter groups, forestry, agriculture etc and the individual has little to no say. I do not see this as an improvement. James Kroll, screw you." And, you conveniently forget that the legislature and the department have to manage resources for all people of the state, not just hunters.
MF, "(Due to this recent storm and the fact that it increased the winter severity, we reduced the quota to 3,000 antlerless as a target harvest. The split we recommended was 55 % private and 45% public. The DNR still has to approve our recommendation.)"
The DNR does NOT get to approve anything .... The Governor appointed Natural Resourced Board approves the CDAC recommendations.
Sagittarius, The DNR does or does not get to approve anything? My quote is from one of the guys that sits on the CDAC board.
B. Annual Review of Quotas, Permits and Season Framework Options
3. Final CDAC recommendations regarding antlerless quotas/permit levels and season option will be presented to the NRB by the chair of the WCC in April or May in conjunction with department staff.
4. The department will share areas of concern or disagreement on final recommendations with the CDAC and NRB. The NRB has final decision making authority on antlerless quotas/permit levels and season options.
Keep in mind, the 7 member Governor appointed Natural Resources Board is not the DNR. The DNR does have an employee that acts as a "Board Liaison" to the NRB.
I believe the number of Public Land antlerless tags recommended by Bayfield's CDAC is way too high and so do over 75% of the survey respondents. As an example look at our Clam Lake Elk herd which has remained stagnant for decades due to increased natural predation. I believe the CDAC process is a good thing and works in many counties, but not in Bayfield for reasons which I have stated above.
It is getting somewhat difficult to post here, when immediately capt jumps in with unconstructive criticism. Then follows it with rude comments and then wants to fight. Jesus man this is just an exchange of ideas, debate the idea and forget the negativity. I wanted to post my impression of the process I saw at a meeting. I think it worked better before. I think it is now more political and more unscientific. Just my 2 cents.
"These comments are from one of the guys that sits on the CDAC: There wasn’t a huge turn out, some appreciated CDAC and some did not. Not much to be concerned about in my opinion, but some folks voiced their concern online. The main concern from those that were there was over CWD. The quota goal of 3,000 antlerless would result in 9,625 tags being issued. If winter severity ends up being around 80, this quota should result in the deer herd staying the same, if the winter severity ends up at 90, the herd could drop by as much as 4%, after this fall deer season. The winter severity will likely end up somewhere in between 80 and 90, so I would expect to see a slight reduction in the deer herd if the quota of 3,000 antlerless is actually reached. The 3 year goal of the CDAC, set last year, was to slightly reduce the herd, so this quota recommendation would help achieve that goal."
That would probably be fine IF there were the amount of deer in Bayfield county that they are saying there is. But hey,the last 10 years has proved what the DNR really thinks about things up north.
I can’t speak for the Bayfield Bioligist. But ours in Lincoln and Langlade is continually in the high 80’s percent range for accuracy in predicting the kill each year.
Pretty damn good considering the variables she up against when doing so.
For those hunters that spend any amount of time in the big woods of Northern Bayfield county as I do its very frustrating to sit back and watch what's happening and when you voice your concerns and it goes on deaf ears. There truly is not the amount of deer up here that they assume there is. Some big chunks of private land do have some good populations but on public land, there are pockets of deer if you look hard enough but they are not spread out like it used to be so when you do find that pocket chances are others have also, hunters end up stacked up all together in one area. There is great deer habitat all over up here that doesn't even have any deer utilizing it. You eventually figure out when the wolves are near or in the area, the deer move out. The wolves have a continuous cycle, they move in areas sometimes for a few weeks, kill a couple deer, the deer move out then so do the wolves to find better hunting grounds, then when its safe the deer that survived move back in. The wolves aren't the whole problem, its a combination of problems and I hope some day it all gets figured out. Maybe with the decline in hunters participating our deer population will rise!!!!!!
Glunker, that comment of yours is very easily turned around. I can equally claim that it is difficult to read posts that counter themselves in the same sentence as yours did. And, do tell, just how constructive was the "James Kroll, screw you" comment? Pot meet kettle, and don't try to shoot the messenger.
I talked to quite a few CDAC members, since I was interested from different counties, and was surprised that a lot of them, would have extended the bow season to 31 of Jan, if they were allowed to,,,,,,,, they had to have a Holiday Hunt, to get it,,,,,
Some did not want the Holiday Hunt, as it would conflict with snowmobiling, or cause issues,,,,,, bowhunting was okay,,,,, low impact,,,,,
wonder why they had to have a Holiday Hunt, to implement that?
