NRB reverses Bayfield CDAC
Wisconsin
NRB voted today 4-3 to reduce antlerless tags on public land in Bayfield County from 2750 to 500.
This is Awesome news… what happened? Why the change
In a nutshell, Kaz had data on diminishing harvest on public lands and showed that the quota the CDAC recommended would have resulted in a population below the maintain level the CDAC set two years ago. That was enough to get enough votes to change it. You can watch the discussion on youtube.
Wow. Overruled again by the NRB. The Bayfield tree huggers took one on the chin again.
The latest information I get here is very helpful. Share about
cookie clicker access online on any browser.
They did it to feed the burgeoning wolf pack, do not be fools.
The Politically appointed NRB comes through again! The local county CDAC was over ruled. Now the DNR is legally required to issue the NRB's 500 public tags rather than the local CDAC's 2750.
It was interesting that the 8250 private land tags number was unchanged, even if some may go unsold.
Awesome !!! Second year in a row. I hope the Bayfield CDAC gets the message that their personal agenda driven policy is neither popular or environmentally sound !
I could understand people being all excited about this if it would make some sort of difference or help something, but will it really make a difference to the guys that struggle to harvest deer or at least see enough deer to make them happy?
I could see it helping IF in previous years the majority of those free antlerless tags were filled, but was that really the case? If not, how will this make a difference and help anything?
Has the wolf problems been resolved? Every year I read on this forum how the locals are taking matters into their own hands and dealing with the wolves, but one would think if that tough talk is true, by now there would not be as much of an issue.
So I've gotta ask, what is the real problem? Is it the excess tags because people are filling them all? Is it the out of control wolf population? Is it the separate (separate=wonderful) crossbow season killing all the deer? Is it that guys keep trying to hunt the same stand and the same area they've hunted for 30 years and they refuse to move to an area that's more productive and they're hoping the 1990's come back?
I'm really hoping this helps the guys that aren't happy and successful in the area they keep trying to hunt, but I just don't see how this will make a big difference?
HunterR, I've said the same thing many times. The land might look the same, but if deer are not on it (for a multitude of reasons), perhaps the land is not the same, and it is in fact time to move on. Inconvenient? Yes. Costly? Yes. Change? Yes.
Pete and Hunter… It is a small victory, but a victory to be sure. I love Bayfield County. I’ve hunted it for over 40 years. The CNNF and the County forests are capable of harboring a larger huntable deer population where hunters can realistically believe they will see a deer. This can be done without destroying every seedling as depicted by the County Forester. It’s called compromise. For years the Bayfield County CDAC had acted with impunity, completely dismissing the overwhelming public comments and voice of the average hunter relegated to public lands. The wolf problem and the hands off management policy is another is issue. We have to work on that. But; It is only by voicing our concerns that we can hope to effect change. We may not win, but by remaining silent or giving up, we will surely lose.
Without a doubt Wink. There needs to be a voice, and ears to hear it.
Economic benefits of a huntable deer population. Economic benefits. I'll say it again economic benefits. They will after all being a political puppet show that's all they will listen too. Motels. Camping areas. Grocery stores. Taverns. Liquor stores. Gas stations. Restraunts. How a larger deer herd brings hunters. Hunters bring cash. Economic benefits. How much economic benefits do Wolves bring? Or White Pine seedlings? Follow the money that's all that matters to the bean counters in the end. Votes and money. Second oldest profession in the world.
The politically appointed NRB board is nowhere near as political and one-sided as the Bayfield County CDAC. An example of the NRB implementing checks and balances on an out of control committee.
The County CDAC is made up of 10 locals from Bayfield County, to ensure local deer are managed by local public opinion. Members can be voted out by local county residents.
Sagittarius, Nope, wrong again.., Page 7 paragraph 4, pamphlet “Governance of County Deer Council Operations” Council members apply to their positions, a review is conducted by the CDAC and WCC representatives with “final approval made by the Department”
I stand corrected. I had thought only the initial members were hand selected.
I would still like to see a public land representative added to list of stakeholders.
Pete at times I find it difficult to justify sitting in a tree hour after hour even when I'm seeing decent numbers of deer as I keep thinking about all the other things I could (probably should) be doing, I can't imagine sitting there if I was seeing nothing and was confident that no matter how long I sat there I'd continue seeing nothing. I would have to move.
Wink I wasn't trying to say you or anyone should remain quiet and I understand your point as to why this is a good thing. I was wondering when it really comes down to deer sightings and a possibly better and more productive hunt, will this really change anything? 2750 tags, 500 tags, 3 million tags, most years are people filling the majority of however many tags the DNR issues? If not, I don't see a big difference when it comes to the quality of the hunt which seems to be the complaint from guys that aren't seeing enough deer. Then again, every year on facebook/etc there are guys having success in that same county, so apparently there are parts of that county that have deer. That's actually how it is in southern WI too, some areas are loaded with deer and there are areas a guy could sit all day and see nothing.
That all said I do believe the CDAC's are a joke, at least the way the DNR is running them. Unfortunately the DNR found a way around correctly implementing the good Doctor Kroll's (Dr Deer for President) recommendations and still is hell bent on taking all the fun out of hunting.
Hunter, I believe the reduced public land antlerless tag allocation is a good thing. For years we have been battling the Bayfield County CDAC for their over aggressive harvest goals. In less than a decade I watched a truly great place to hunt become a lifeless forest. There are pockets of deer in the private land agricultural areas and around the lake cabins where hunter harvest is limited and predators are fewer. Those of us who are are the most vocal on this thread are either local or have invested most of our adult lives leaning and hunting the land. The time spent and emotional investment we have made over the decades make it very difficult to start over. I personally don’t have the money to buy hunting land somewhere else or enough years to pull stakes and head south in search more fertile grounds. To really know Bayfield County is to know what it once was. I know if you had experienced it you’d be as passionate about preserving and rebuilding it as I am.
" I know if you had experienced it you’d be as passionate about preserving and rebuilding it as I am."
Wink I believe that 100%, and I do appreciate you taking the time to help me understand. As I said in one of my earlier posts I sure do hope things improve for you and others that are dealing with the same issues.
It's a Cascade of issues involved in Deer numbers "up north". There are really no protections for our state wildlife animal. Wolves and heavy predation. Excess antlerless tags year in and year out. Then throw in the lethality of the modern Crossbow and then throw in a bad winter every 7 years or so and the Whitetail Deer hasn't a chance. The age class is screwed too with all this "harvesting"
I have to agree with most of Trickles post. The deer do however have a chance to exist, but the numbers may remain low to very low in some areas.
Oh for sure Deer will find a way and in areas where they can avoid Wolves somewhat like along developed lake shores near community's busy roads, parks and the like. But to have quality huntable population that pulled hunters and their wallets North hoping for that "old swamp buck" those days are gone. They still exist and elite hunters that can move about alot especially scouting and being portable still harvest those Deer. But the days of going North walking into public forest finding a suitable stump to sit on and feel you have a reasonable chance at seeing Deer the first weekend of Gun season forget about it. Those days are in the History books.
If you listen hard enough in the woods of Bayfield County you can hear the Trillum screaming KAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
I shamefully missed the Villas County CDAC meeting this spring. But reading over the allocated tags versus what the public comments wanted..... it's so absurd.
I'm glad the NRB was able to help Bayfield out.
I am grateful for the NRB recent decision to reduce antlerless doe tags on public lands in Bayfield County but am so astonished at the number of private land tags... look at the difference between Bayfield County and Ashland County.... this is crazy. Ashland 100 Public-Private 350 - Ashland - 50 Madeline Island-Public-Private 50 Bayfield 500 Public-Private 8250
If I read the chart right, there are only FIVE counties with more public doe tags than Vilas. Surely I am not reading that right !? Have we gone mad?
MJF, there is a huge difference but I bet most of those private tags go unsold like last year. Locals complain a lot about too many deer on private land but in many cases they do not hunt does on their own private land or do not let others hunt there to thin the herd. Sort of a catch-22.
Douglas County is 675 public, 1000 private.
Price 275 Public, 3675 Private I think these numbers from surrounding counties show how disengaged the Bayfield County CDAC is from realty.
That’s what happens when you put people in charge with a conflict of interest.
I emailed the NRB liaison asking just that - what the justification is for neighboring counties with similar size and similar terrain having such wildly differently number of tags available. No response so far
We will again this year have Universal doe tags in the UP.... just across the border from where Vilas hunts.... Do we have deer? are you nuts, we have deer all over the place...
Wis deer mgt is terrible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I am sorry, but I have seen the change.... Like Covid nuts and Climate crazies, they think that if anyone baits, CWD will kill everything....
In SW Wis, we are given 6 doe tags,,,, really I will not kill a doe, on our land down there, because other than bucks I am lucky to see one,,,, but I will kill a few in the UP
as far as Bayfield, its such a diverse county... bottom line is, some want alot of deer, and others do not want any
I agree with Kaz on alot of things, but bringing back, Dr Kroll is not the answer,,,, He should stay on his ranch hunts, with Nugent, the bucks of Tecomate, and Nelson from american archer.... they live in another world t
GH, who would you look to for help with our deer?
The only way we can gain control of the DNR is to vote for a Governor that will make the head of the Dnr an elective position, not am appointed position . I'll E-Mail Michael's today .
Ruger, I respectively totally disagree with making head of DNR an elective position. Instead, reverse Walkers idiotic county political squads and revert to game units run by game management professionals rather than barstool politics
Both Ruger and Black Wolf make good points.... I agree with Ruger, without an elected official, you get a bufoon, that may or may not give a crap, about deer mgt///// Black Wolf, I agree go back to game units, but on the other hand, deer mgt today is not what is was 30 years ago, and so many of these WOKE , DNR MGT TYPES, i would not want///
Captain Mike,,,, in order to handle the disenfrangise status of Wis deer mgt, you need to bring in someone, who gives a crap, about Public Land.... kroll is not it, nor does he care..... He had great credentials, he knows alot, but he is strictly a private land guy, its that simple.................... Easy for you and I with prime private land,,,,, but the future of hunting is still public................
Clinton said at one time, Its all about the Economy Stupid,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Well when it comes to deer mgt, Its all about Habitat Stupid
GH, look at the bufoons we have throughout government who ARE elected! Managing public land is not so easy when there are county lands, state lands and federal lands, all of which are managed differently regards logging and habitat. Kroll gave WI deer hunters a viable opportunity to get involved with deer management through the CDAC's. Through their apathy, those deer hunters have turned it over to a few extremists. For proof, see the Bayfield CDAC thread. I do not see how Kroll can be faulted for the lack of interest by the majority of WI deer hunters.
Kroll is only out for one thing. Making money for himself and getting slapped on the back by all you who think he is a deer god. Perhaps Mike you should read what the hunters say about him in his home state of Texas. Cheat and huckster are some of the nicest comments. Go ahead look it up I'm not gonna do it for you
The fake deer doctor had been pushing for the privatization of hunting on Texas public lands. That these lands should be managed like the private deer hunting lands in Texas. That "he" and his company and their 15 (and counting) deer food, feeders, seed etc etc be taken and used on public Texas land and the state would charge a hunting fee for hunters on said private lands just like the huge private hunting clubs and owners do. As you can imagine that went over with Texas public land hunters about as well as a topless bar owner requiring all the dancers be covered at all times or to use another analogy like a lead balloon. You REALLY need to educate yourself about this clown. Hunters in Texas are now calling him a communist. Read how things went for him recently in Minnesota too. He scoffed at 3 state veterinary doctors, ballyhooed about how bad deer management is there and that public lands need to be managed like private lands are. I ie..... pay to play. Lucky he got out of Minnesota with his scalp intact
The fake deer doctor had been pushing for the privatization of hunting on Texas public lands. That these lands should be managed like the private deer hunting lands in Texas. That "he" and his company and their 15 (and counting) deer food, feeders, seed etc etc be taken and used on public Texas land and the state would charge a hunting fee for hunters on said private lands just like the huge private hunting clubs and owners do. As you can imagine that went over with Texas public land hunters about as well as a topless bar owner requiring all the dancers be covered at all times or to use another analogy like a lead balloon. You REALLY need to educate yourself about this clown. Hunters in Texas are now calling him a communist. Read how things went for him recently in Minnesota too. He scoffed at 3 state veterinary doctors, ballyhooed about how bad deer management is there and that public lands need to be managed like private lands are. I ie..... pay to play. Lucky he got out of Minnesota with his scalp intact
The answer is do not allow deer managent and hunting to be profit driven. Let the DNR (rehire) biologists to make population goals and set antlerless quotas. You can only do that nature will do the rest. The fake doctor wants this....pay me to manage your deer herd on public land then offset that cost to the hunter by charging hunting fee's. He would love to turn the public lands into his own private ranch paid for by tax payers then hunting fee. You know why he puts down CWD so much? CWD and mechanical feeders and food plots don't exactly coincide. Deer group together at feeding area's and CWD spreads more and more. Of course that would hit his deer feeder company pretty hard huh? That's why he says the Veterinarians are wrong. His exact words in Minnesota were "ignore CWD" no cattle, people have ever gotten it from deer or the consumption of venison. He knows better than 3.5 million years of evolution of disease and wildlife impacts too I guess
Ask yourself this. Has deer hunting in Wisconsin public lands gotten better overall or worse since his "plan" was introduced by Walker. It's been 10+ years after all so that's enough time to make a judgement.
Trickle, Dr Kroll owns you as much as Trump owns some people. You spewed a lot of dislike but refuted nothing I said. I am not concerned with what those in Texas or other places think, I am looking solely at his plan. Can you specifically point out the flaws in it and if you can, explain why it is his fault and not the fault of how it was implemented and is being handled?
"Deer group together at feeding area's and CWD spreads more and more." That is a pile of BS. Deer interact in farm fields, at watering spots and in areas of natural food. You could take away every man-made bait spot in the country and deer would still interact.
The greater the number of feeding sites, the less the concentration AND interactions. A second grader could figure that out, but evidently not some hunters.
Cwd is in the soil. There's no stopping it and the number of concentrated sites at this point, wouldn't matter. Studies have shown through testing, deer in the effected areas are carrying a new prion that fights off CWD.
I agree, the fake deer doctor.
Wisconsin needs multiple changes in order to bring it back to what it use to be. Leave CWD to mother nature, hire a real biologist without political ties, manage bears, wolves, lower the bobcat preference points, set APR's on public lands, and listen to the hunters input.
"...hire a real biologist without political ties..." In this day and age, that is a pipe dream.
Hunting is political and controlled by the government and voters. You have no right to hunt, despite what you believe. How dumb!
"Let the DNR (rehire) biologists to make population goals and set antlerless quotas."
.
That statement alone shows how naïve you really are and how much you are clouded with your hatred of Kroll. The past and current DNR biologist are the reason we are here. They greatly influence CDAC and herd management right now. To hand over the reins again would result of the Deer 2000 debacle. Bayfield is being manage the way DNR biologist want, 3-4 deer per sqr mile. Good thing you have the NRB and Kaz.
17 full time accredited biologist positions have been eliminated in the DNR since 2012. That includes not only mamilian but also herpologists, fisheries, and all migratory species which was given to the Feds. Noc you are right on about CWD. My belief.is it always has been present and lies dormant in the soils. I also believe they found it because they had the ability to test for it which they did not have back before 1997. Wow Mike you dissed Trump? That's a first but I regress. The Deer (and others) need to be managed not only for hunting but for tourism, travel safety and economic impact to a myriad of small business especially in northern areas of the state. The fake Doctor Deer took no account of tradition of deer hunting in Wisconsin or worse the carrying capacity of the eco system. His view is if the habitat can not support a larger herd then artificially (feeders) alter that landscape to carry more noses to populate that habitat. If you have to feed deer (like Texas) to grow a population then that deer herd had no business being on that landscape in the first place. Manipulation of the eco system to increase hunting and in his words produce trophy bucks is not natural or healthy. Neither for the deer or the habitat. The biologists (real) manage species by managing what impacts the deer herd not the deer herd itself. Like noc said managing predator and habitat impacts including winter stress. Kroll doesn't know the difference between a birch tree from a tumble weed or a Wolf from a Armadillo. But he sure knows how to sell Deer hunting gadgets and gimmicks. They put more money in his pocket (taxpayer money) than they did those years fighting the Emerald Ash Borer.
Mike you can not when talking CWD compare deer feeding in a crop field or orchard to how they bunch up at a bait site or under a spread feeder. If a farmer had a spill of corn sure but saying it's the same as a 80 acre hayfield is nonsense.
Former WDNR Biologist Todd Naas served as advisor assigned to the Bayfield County CDAC for several years while his wife Sandra Dee Naas served on the CDAC as it’s Vice Chair. Gee, No conflict of interest there.
Naw no conflict of interest there wink that's just good old home cooking! Sigh
We actually do have a constitutional right to hunt in WI.
Only if voters and the government provide you a season.
Native Americans of course are different.
Trickle, based on your comment to Wink, "Naw no conflict of interest there wink that's just good old home cooking! Sigh" you seem to acknowledge the DNR and CDAC's can and might be subject to be used in a partisan manner yet you still advocate to allow them to operate in this manner. I am confused on your position.
I don't know squat about the CDAC nor did I comment anything about them Mike. Should go to those meetings but I never have. I did go to the fake deer doctor presentation up in Point back then. Trust me the real DNR deer and big game biologists had little or no time for his speel. I've said this before when dealing with politics either DNR politics or state or federal politics or even office politics remember Facts have nothing to do with politics.
Like wink said yes conflict of interest status quo. Same old scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Like nocturnal said the DNR lead position should be a elected position but never will be. By being appointed you are in servitude to whoever is governor at the time. Like Kathy Stepp who Walker appointed didn't have any credentials or experience to head up the DNR. Just thanks for your support here is a big job for you honey. Evers did the same thing. Why? Because facts have nothing to do with politics
Trickle, you should learn about the CDAC's. They were Dr Krolls idea. Used properly and by the masses, they have the potential to give hunters a legitimate say. Unfortunately. hunters choose not to participate. That is hardly Kroll's fault. He took the horses to the water, they just refuse to drink.
You said, "Evers did the same thing." Isn't that, in and of itself, proof that being elected does not hold any guarantees as to performance? I could list many politicians who are the same, including our current president. He vowed in 2020 to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the murder of Kashoggi but now he is over there fist-bumping and begging them to increase oil production. Point being, putting an elected person in control does nothing more than having a person appointed by an elected person.
Well first off Dr. Kroll is a Dr.? He has no doctorate in wildlife management. None. Zero. Zip. His doctorate is in philosophy which all grads get that title by completion of a doctorate thesis in many fields. He uses his prefix Dr. With a doctorate in philosophy. Good actually great if you want to debate a Deer not so much if you manage wildlife. But good if you want to debate a deer.. CDAC again never been. Maybe I should. But I bet they won't answer any questions I have. And alot not all but a good percentage of elected officials do answer to their voters. I still think that should be a elected position. At least we would have a say. 6 year term
My goodness Trickle, the good Doctor sure does trigger you. But I get what you are saying. Sounds very similar to the good doctor Jill Biden. ;)
I hold a doctorate in North American Native culture Mike. So I'm a Doctor right? Message me if you need your gall bladder removed. He uses Dr. Deer to sound official to sell his crap. Jill Biden holds a doctorate in some kind of studies. Not political science obviously. I have never and will not ever use Dr. You have to make that distinction when you graduate. She did I didn't. He the fake doctor just needs to be called out for what he is. Fake. Hukster or fill in the blank
Yes he triggers me. Some Texan who purports to be a Dr. Of wildlife (isn't) comes to Wisconsin to tell us how to run our Whitetail Deer programs and who not only never ever has been here or bought a license to fill up his pockets with our tax cash then heads back to Texas laughing at us all the way. What's not to like?
So your requirements for a deer biologist in this state are they need to have purchased a license and must work for free?
I was very surprised to read above that Dr. Kroll did not have a PHD is a wildlife related field, it's in philosophy? Is that correct, or a joke that passed over me? BC
"The PhD, also known as the Doctor of Philosophy, is a research degree, which is one of the most common types of doctoral degrees, and is awarded to graduates in many different fields. For those asking, “Is a PhD higher than a doctorate?” the answer is simple: no. A PhD lies within the doctorate category, so one is not better than the other. "
"A doctoral degree (PhD) is a degree that one earns after a master’s degree. A PhD entitles a person to use the title doctor. These are the social and physical scientists who conduct and evaluate published research. A PhD degree is normally obtained after six to eight years of hard work past the bachelor’s degree."
Faculty member: James C. Kroll Academic Rank, Specialization, Appointment Basis: Regents’ Professor, Joe C. Denman Professor of Forest Wildlife, and Director, The Institute for White-tailed Deer Management & Research, Education: Ph.D. (1973) Texas A&M University (Distinguished Graduate) M.S. (1970) Baylor University B.S. (1969) Baylor University Professional, Teaching and Research Experience: Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University 2004-2009: Director, Columbia Regional Geospatial Service Center. 1981-present: Professor of Forest Wildlife. 1975-present: Director, Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research 1973-1981: Assistant and Associate Professor of Forest Wildlife
Looking back……I believe former Governor Scott Walker who is neither and avid or knowledgeable hunter, made an honest attempt to address the concerns of deer hunters. He brought in Dr Kroll whom many thought was among the best the science of Deer Management could offer. The results of Governor Walkers efforts are certainly debatable. I will gladly take a Governor who is responsive to the concerns of actual hunters, trappers and fishermen over the woke based science we have now.
Here is a copy of WDNR Secretary Preston Cole’s curriculum vitae
Jeff, you have far more patience than I. However, my guess is Trickle will still not get it. He is quick to berate but in the next breath admits he knows nothing of CDAC's which was an important tool given to the deer hunters of the state.
Thanks boomer. There it is
Mike I go fishing a few days and I don't understand what? And yes I know zip about CDAC
