|
|
Post by leexrayshady on Feb 3, 2017 19:25:17 GMT -6
I should have taken a picture of the article but our very own sanbur was mentioned in an article on the license fee increase, saying more deer license money should go to deer
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 3, 2017 20:36:02 GMT -6
I saw that too. Art's becoming famous  |
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 3, 2017 20:47:12 GMT -6
And if he gets his way there won't be any deer left in SE MN :/
I do agree that more money should go to deer purpose funds as well as basically everything else he is working for.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 3, 2017 20:52:04 GMT -6
When CWD hit WI, I supported the WI DNR's plan pretty much wholeheartedly. At least for the first 2 years anyway.
I can understand why people here support the MN DNR's plan, but I personally believe it will do nothing but decimate the herd and cost millions of dollars. I hope I'm wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Feb 3, 2017 20:55:35 GMT -6
When CWD hit WI, I supported the WI DNR's plan pretty much wholeheartedly. At least for the first 2 years anyway. I can understand why people here support the MN DNR's plan, but I personally believe it will do nothing but decimate the herd and cost millions of dollars. I hope I'm wrong
Yup. I can not understand Minnesota DNR's way of handling CWD when Wisconsin tried the same thing and it failed big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 3, 2017 20:56:37 GMT -6
^^^arrogance and an agenda
|
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 3, 2017 20:57:34 GMT -6
I would be supportive of the plan if IA/WI were doing EVERYTHING possible to stop the spread of CWD. But they're not and I don't feel SE MN should have to suffer the consequences. MN DNR efforts are futile because of this. Plus I think the impact of CWD is way way overblown and it has yet to be proven that it does anything material to the deer herd.
|
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Feb 3, 2017 21:00:58 GMT -6
On top of that there are so many other factors that spread CWD that IMO it is impossible to control.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on Feb 3, 2017 21:05:03 GMT -6
CWD may kill a lot of deer....hunters and sharpshooters will kill a lot of deer.
As far as I can tell, the big reason to be concerned is the disease crossing the species barrier. If that's the major issue, then let's make testing available at a reasonable price for everyone who wants to have a test done.
If a guy can get a test done for $20-$30(or less)...then you can feel good about eating and/or allowing friends and family to eat the deer we kill.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Feb 3, 2017 21:05:12 GMT -6
On top of that there are so many other factors that spread CWD that IMO it is impossible to control. And that is the problem. Wisconsin tried for 10 years to control it and it still spread to other areas. |
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 3, 2017 22:13:33 GMT -6
Sandbur is going to be a rockstar before this is all said and done!  |
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 7:20:28 GMT -6
I am not saying there will not be any deer left in SE Mn. However, deer numbers might need to be reduced in hopes of giving hunters in the rest of the state a few more years.
I have tremendous respect for Stu's opinion as he has been through this before. At some point we need a containment plan for CWD and a elimination(apparent at best) for CWD in this state. Perhaps new cases that are 100 miles isolated from other cases, and where only one or two deer are positive have a chance of reducing CWD below detectable levels. The present situation is beyond clean up in my view and discussions need to be made about how much money to spend.
I have concerns about CWD jumping the human deer barrier. Hopefully CWD remains like scrapie and is never a significant problem in people. If it turns like BSE, we are in trouble. Evidence suggests it evolved from scrapie which gives me hope. It might have evolved from man's actions other than the occasional random spontaneous occurrence of a case.
I would like to point out that there has been apparent clean up of the disease in at least 3 occasions. Adirondacks of New York, Shell Lake, Wis., and Pine Island Mn. I say apparent as it could easily reoccur at these locations again and probably will.
The data from Texas, I don't believe at all. Too many deer farmers and commercial interests involved. It will be interesting to see what Dr. Kroll has to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 7:23:12 GMT -6
Here is what I sent to 4 members of the deer planning team. I also forwarded it to ON as of this morning.
Deer Management Plan Advisory Committee
Suggestions for Funding
1-12-2017
Designation of Deer Hunters License Dollars to Dedicated Accounts
Overview
5% Communication
10% Deer Population Management, Monitoring, and Research
15% Habitat
10% Negative Deer-Human Interactions
10% Deer Herd Health and Diseases
10% Dedicated to deer issues to be used at the discretion of the DNR
TOTAL 60%
Why is this necessary?
COMMUNICATION- Funding is needed to better distribute information on deer populations, goals, hotspots of high deer numbers, and areas of controversy that arise such as disease issues. Public support is needed for management decisions to work.
DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH- All groups desire better information to manage the deer herd. We need accurate estimations of deer metrics with refinement to demographics of the herd in smaller geographic areas. This information is needed to manage deer diseases and to deal with localized areas of deer/auto collisions, forest, nursery, and agricultural damage.
HABITAT- Dedicated funds need to be available for habitat projects where the main focus of the project is for the whitetail deer. Emphasis should be placed on managing wintering areas in the forested and agricultural areas of the state to reduce large fluctuations in deer numbers after severe winters. R3 benefits from adequate deer numbers. Small town businesses, outdoor retailers, and regional retail centers benefit economically from a good deer herd.
In the agricultural areas of the state, wintering areas with conifer cover, browse, and foodplots could keep deer away from private agricultural crops, stored feedstuffs, and nurseries/orchards .Deer numbers in our ag areas would also benefit R3 for hunters unable to travel to forested regions of the state. Again, these funds should be for projects where the primary goal is for deer.
NEGATIVE DEER HUMAN INTERACTIONS- Funds need to be dedicated for the purposes of dealing with special hunts in small areas of high deer density where problems with car/deer collisions or crop, livestock feedstuffs, nursery, or orchard damage maybe occurring. In rare instances fencing maybe needed.
DEER HERD HEALTH AND DISEASE- Funds are needed for monitoring and control of diseases such as TB and CWD. Some of these diseases have impacts on human or livestock health. Businesses are hurt from the presence of these diseases in the state. Dealing with the predator issue can be part of this funding.
Estimation is that 10% of license sales to disease would increase potential funding by 500 to 600%. ($.50 to $3 per license sold)
DEER DISCRETIONARY SPENDING- Dedicated to deer focused projects to be determined at the discretion of the DNR as new or cyclic problems arise.
Submitted by Dr.Art Reuck
Morrison County Chapter of MDHA President
Rice Areas Sportsmen’s Club-member
Eastern Morrison County Sportsmen Club member
Farm veterinarian working with dairy and beef producers of central Minnesota for over 35 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandbur on Feb 4, 2017 7:30:46 GMT -6
My breakdown of dedicated funding was based on some notes from the first deer planning team meeting in Dec. where these items were identified and someone on the team suggested 50- 60% of deer hunters license dollars be dedicated.
All of these suggestions are not favorable to me as a hunter, but to get the diverse group on the team to go along with it, you have to throw thems oem bones. Bones like considerations for ag interests and municipalities with high deer numbers. Another bone might be dedication for deer programs for the DNR to use as they feel fit. I don't really like it, but they will do it anyway and this might force them to be somewhat accountable.
I have also forwarded this to Paul Gazelka, my senator and have had no reply. MDHA leadership has it as does Adam Murkowski.
These are just ideas for discussion and development.
Have at it and pick it apart. I ain't always right!
Somehow we need to keep this as appealing to members of the deer input team who are not avid hunters like us. That is the hard part.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 4, 2017 7:34:26 GMT -6
I think you are pretty on point Art, looks like you are trying to cover all bases. Probably lots of other "special interests" that would like a piece of that cash, but this is about what's best for the herd and those who help the DNR control said herd.
|
|
