Bowsite.com

Bayfield County CDAC meeting

April 1 600PM Bayfield County CDAC zoom meeting. Preliminary harvest quotas are to be discussed.

.

I'm planning on commenting at the meeting, I hope others will as well. We need a critical mass to MAYBE get someone's attention.

Milw +1 I will also comment and I hope a few more hunters from this site will come on board Thursday night and share their comments.

Question... Is it necessary to pre-register or submit comments in writing beforehand ? I’m not finding any info as to how the CDAC will be accepting public comments.

No, not this time. Here is what the DNR sent me

Thanks for your interest in being a part of the CDAC process. For our upcoming meetings, there is no need to register. Simply join the meeting and be prepared to speak during the public comment period. I recommend using a PC to connect if possible as you will be able to use the chat features and hand raise options. There will also be an online public survey made available April 12-25.

Find your meeting information here: https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/CDACFind.aspx

So how many deer per square mile do we have now?

According to them way too many. Want to kill 4000 antlerless next year before there are no more forests left in the county. 65% private tags, 35% public (like 12,000 tags) With all these deer my new strategy will be to pretend I am a young sapling and when they rush up to eat me I'll grab one.

They did respond a bit though to the public outcry. They initially wanted to take nearly 7000 antlerless!

Very sad

From what I understand Ashland county wanted the same tags as last year. I believe that was 1000 to get a 500 kill. The wdnr wants 2600. Looks like its going to the NRB again. We know what side they took last time and will this time. Cdac IS A WASTE OF TIME............................... Sad to say.

I believe we need to go back to pre-CDAC days and return to Deer Management Units. This “one size fits all” county wide approach to deer herd management under the control of few individuals with personal agendas and biases as evidenced in Bayfield County are totally contrary to what the authors of the CDAC concept ever envisioned.

Wink,, I agree in part. We do need to go back to the original deer units up north. I can't speak for the south. That's a WHOLE different world for deer management. The Cdac could have been a good way to control the wdnr but when you have only ONE seat on the Cdac stakeholders committee that has to do with hunting ( and I will add the biggest money profit for the wdnr) you are right to many other agendas. The wdnr has found a simple way around the committee's recommendations. The NRB where the Cdac committee has no say but the wdnr does and recruiting new DNR friendly and supportive Cdac members. When you have the wdnr using a example of deer over browsing and the county foresters calls them out on their miss leading facts and browsing field tests. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HONESTY WITH THE WDNR>>>> And the NRB is right in bed with them .....

The 4000 intended antlerless harvest is almost 3x the quota of 1500 last year (when 1800+ were takes). This follows two pathetic years of hunting. The last time they took more than 2600 antlerless the population suffered significantly. Forestry concerns (which are of course important) dominate the conversation without anyone ever addressing the real tradeoff between forestry concerns and hunting. In a nutshell all they say is "deer eat trees making it harder to regenerate a diverse forest". No doubt that is true but nobody quantifies the actual benefits of a diverse forest nor do they have data on exactly what the impact on forestry objectives would be if the herd was 10% or 20% larger. It's like forestry and hunting get equal weights no matter what the real implications are.

Wink X 2

tags =$$$$$$$$$

It sure seems like a tough fight for all parties involved. Some people are money driven for sure. The economic impact due to lack of out of town money going into local economy is a driver. License sales are a driver as well, but now add a few other elements and you'll find it very difficult to please everyone, and perhaps even difficult to please the majority? The stage of a hunter for example is a hurtle. Some people want to kill, no matter the impact on the resource, and some in the latter stages of a hunter have a whole other perspective. Add in private land owners versus public, and you'll certainly have another perspective. I think it's pretty fair to say that most of us have our own agenda....especially considering "our agenda" is typically judged by others who ironically have their own agenda. I really believe that there needs to be some real consideration differentiating public land versus private, and that's not just in the north woods. That should be statewide. I want to give you an example why. I hunt in southern Wisconsin in CWD country. I saw what the DNR and the media did to eradicate the herd. A lot of people took the bait. Then we saw the results. You can complain about the wolves and four-legged predators, but man is the worst there ever was or will be. We wiped out the herd, and because the land is mostly private, it took private landowners to wise up, and stop the insanity. Today, we are in a much better place. Perhaps not perfect for everyone's agenda, but the majority of hunters will agree that it's better than the mess the "north" is in. Personally, you have one less hunter there, because it's not how I remember it! Sorry. Who do we blame? Sadly, people.....all of them!

Great post Pete!

You right on Pete. There needs to be a difference in how public and private land, hunting seasons are managed. Hate saying this for public land to get back to reasonable hunting experience there would have to be restrictions on types of "tools" used and seasons. Doubt if that will ever happen though. Two vastly different hunting worlds and experience 's hunting on public vs private.

Sounds like you guys need to go directly to the NRB with your complaints.

Boomer,,,,, I DID....... I made calls ....... It was 50/50 and the chair went with the wdnr. The cdac had NO voice at the review. As you and I debated when the cadac was born I pointed out to you the flaw when the wdnr had a voice at the review but the committee has NONE.

I agree with Pete's post.

The public comment period began on 4/12. A link can be found on the WDNR CDAC website. A questionnaire and comment section are provided to allow input as to your views on the proposed antlerless harvest quota.

https://dnrwi.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6u2vseCbWjo6dEO

Doesn't appear thing will get much better on the NRB. Couldn't you keep your garbage in Bayfield?

Bayfield

Did an explorer find himself in a field overlooking a Bay? Thus the name Bayfield?

Register here to reply to this topic