|
|
Post by terrifictom on Apr 3, 2017 14:45:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Apr 6, 2017 7:26:28 GMT -6
Filled mine out last night. Also suggested again they break Marathon county into two units due to sheer size and diversity of the habitat.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Apr 6, 2017 8:48:04 GMT -6
I also suggested that they split Langlade county. Almost all private with farmland South of 64 and mostly wooded with a lot of public North of 64. Another thing I noticed is that a lot of the Northern counties that were buck only and voted to increase their deer populations are now recommending antlerless quotas close to quotas that they had 3 years ago when the deer herd numbers crashed. I went thru the minutes and it was DNR personal that are only suppose to advise if asked questions that gave these quota recommendations. This DNR advice went straight to the committee's recommendation. A lot of these committees are just DNR puppets that are hand picked by the DNR. My prediction is that the Northern counties will be in worst shape than what they were 3 years ago if this continues. Total bullshit.
|
|
peeps
New Member
Posts: 46 
Likes: 16
|
Post by peeps on Apr 7, 2017 7:45:00 GMT -6
I also suggested that they split Langlade county. Almost all private with farmland South of 64 and mostly wooded with a lot of public North of 64. Another thing I noticed is that a lot of the Northern counties that were buck only and voted to increase their deer populations are now recommending antlerless quotas close to quotas that they had 3 years ago when the deer herd numbers crashed. I went thru the minutes and it was DNR personal that are only suppose to advise if asked questions that gave these quota recommendations. This DNR advice went straight to the committee's recommendation. A lot of these committees are just DNR puppets that are hand picked by the DNR. My prediction is that the Northern counties will be in worst shape than what they were 3 years ago if this continues. Total bullshit. I sat in at the Marinette county meeting and was very disappointed. The meeting started with presentations from a dnr biologist and a dnr forester. To sum their presentations up - they believe there are too many deer and the forests are being destroyed from over browsing. This was for northern Marinette County. Huh? Then the public could comment and the forest industry had several people talk about how there are too many deer and they are eating all the trees. I'm sure these speakers have never hunted deer. What a joke. The cdac is now recommending increasing doe tags again. Makes me sick. |
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Apr 7, 2017 8:23:11 GMT -6
I also suggested that they split Langlade county. Almost all private with farmland South of 64 and mostly wooded with a lot of public North of 64. Another thing I noticed is that a lot of the Northern counties that were buck only and voted to increase their deer populations are now recommending antlerless quotas close to quotas that they had 3 years ago when the deer herd numbers crashed. I went thru the minutes and it was DNR personal that are only suppose to advise if asked questions that gave these quota recommendations. This DNR advice went straight to the committee's recommendation. A lot of these committees are just DNR puppets that are hand picked by the DNR. My prediction is that the Northern counties will be in worst shape than what they were 3 years ago if this continues. Total bullshit. I sat in at the Marinette county meeting and was very disappointed. The meeting started with presentations from a dnr biologist and a dnr forester. To sum their presentations up - they believe there are too many deer and the forests are being destroyed from over browsing. This was for northern Marinette County. Huh? Then the public could comment and the forest industry had several people talk about how there are too many deer and they are eating all the trees. I'm sure these speakers have never hunted deer. What a joke. The cdac is now recommending increasing doe tags again. Makes me sick. You think that is bad, in Bayfield county where I use to gun hunt. It was buck only last year and this year the committee is recommending 10,856 antlerless tags for this year. The seat that is suppose to represent the hunters is vacant. The forestry seat is filled by the Bayfield County Forester who is only a couple years out of school and said that the deer herd should be brought down to single digit DPSM because there is no regeneration in the forest. He is so full of bullshit. It seems that the DNR is really influencing the CDAC's in the Northern counties. This has to be bcause every antlerless tag in the Northern Forest area that is sold brings in 12.00 dollars revenue vs the freebe tags that are included with license in farmland. |
|
peeps
New Member
Posts: 46
Likes: 16
|
Post by peeps on Apr 7, 2017 10:14:27 GMT -6
Last year they set a "quota" of 350 and the final antlerless kill was around 900. Just a bit over the quota. This year they came up with a quota of 500 but increased the amount of antlerless tags available. How does that make any sense? They could have cut the number of tags and they still would be above their set quota. Now they will be way over. I agree about the forester being high. Both the forester and biologist appeared to think the northern part of the county is being over run with deer.
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Apr 7, 2017 10:50:37 GMT -6
I sat in at the Marinette county meeting and was very disappointed. The meeting started with presentations from a dnr biologist and a dnr forester. To sum their presentations up - they believe there are too many deer and the forests are being destroyed from over browsing. This was for northern Marinette County. Huh? Then the public could comment and the forest industry had several people talk about how there are too many deer and they are eating all the trees. I'm sure these speakers have never hunted deer. What a joke. The cdac is now recommending increasing doe tags again. Makes me sick. You think that is bad, in Bayfield county where I use to gun hunt. It was buck only last year and this year the committee is recommending 10,856 antlerless tags for this year. The seat that is suppose to represent the hunters is vacant. The forestry seat is filled by the Bayfield County Forester who is only a couple years out of school and said that the deer herd should be brought down to single digit DPSM because there is no regeneration in the forest. He is so full of bullshit. It seems that the DNR is really influencing the CDAC's in the Northern counties. This has to be bcause every antlerless tag in the Northern Forest area that is sold brings in 12.00 dollars revenue vs the freebe tags that are included with license in farmland.
No kidding. Maybe the answer is to cut more then? But no.......... we leave all the forests turn into parks and don't log nearly as much as we used to.
Regen doesn't happen without sun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tooln on Apr 7, 2017 21:04:05 GMT -6
Just got done filling mine out. Tom thanks for posting the link.
|
|
