10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 10/30/2009 7:54:05 PM
|
|
|
retch sweeny
Posts: 94
Joined: 2/23/2009
Status: offline
|
I ran into Paul Smith from the Milwaukee Journal while attending the EAB meeting in Pewaukee. He said he wanted to do a story for Sunday's paper that involved asking 10 questions to members of the EAB alternative committee and others involved with citizen based deer management committees. I agreed to his request. Paul said that our entire text would not appear in the paper but the full text would be available in the JS Online version.
The questions
Name and residence:
Ron Kulas, Delafield
Title of any position(s) you hold and name of any group(s) you represent:
Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, District Director and Legislative Liaison.
Number of years deer hunting:
I have been hunting for 33 years. Deer are my primary species if interest but I have also take bear with a bow as well as upland birds and small game hunting. I have not been bitten by the waterfowl bug yet but currently my fall is already filled just spending time bowhunting. The ducks and geese get a pass for now.
Primary method of deer hunting:
I am first and foremost a Bowhunter. I still enjoy the gun deer hunt every year but choose to shoot more deer with my camera than with a firearm. I have two Sons that are eager to help fill the freezer during the firearms season and since I have taken my share of deer, I would rather they have the experience of harvesting deer for our table.
Number of people you represent:
Wisconsin Bowhunters Association has roughly 7,000 members. We have been established for nearly 70 years and we would love for more of the state's 250,000 bowhunters to join but data shows that only about 17% of our states sportsmen and women belong to any form of state org. People just don't feel the need to participate in an organized effort for Bowhunting since they can enjoy the benefits of the work that WBH does on a statewide level without becoming a member. WBH works to improve the situation and conditions for all bowhunters not just those that belong to WBH. The concern is that when threats arise to bowhunting that our numbers won't count as much when a strong voice is needed. Having 250,000 voices would certainly help the future of the sport and ensure our bowhunting traditions.
Recommended statewide overwinter deer population goal:
From a social standpoint, there is a higher tolerance for deer than the current goal allows for. The current statewide, overwinter goal (Jan. thru April) is 740,000 deer. Department estimates show that we have overwintered in excess of 1 million deer in 10 of the last 14 years. This includes last year and I doubt people were complaining about too many deer in the stae last year. Once again, car kills have dropped, crop damage has decreased and certainly the harvest and sighting have dropped. All this took place last year with an estimated 1 million deer in the overwinter period. If we successfully overwintered over 1 million deer last year, why then is the goal 740,000?
A good example of this can be seen in DMU 62B which covers parts of Waupaca and Shawano Counties. Since 2004, car kills have dropped 61% in Waupaca County and 55% in Shawano County. During that time frame, the gun buck harvest has dropped 22% and with unlimited antlerless tags and EAB, there has been a 15% reduction in antlerless harvest. This year, there are only 2 farmers enrolled in the crop damage program in Waupaca County while Shawano County only has 1 farmer enrolled. Clearly the population in 62B is way down, there is very little ag damage, a huge drop in car kills and harvest and all this took place at the Department's estimated 55 deer per square mile of range. It's clear that 55 deer per square mile of range is socially tolerable yet the goal is 25 and the residents of unit 62B are told by the Department that they are 120% over goal. If half the deer in 62B dropped over dead today, that unit would still be 20% over goal. 62B was scheduled to be EAB again this year. That is why hunters from 62B went to Madison in April. As evidenced by last year's statewide overwinter numbers, it's clear that there is a social tolerance over 1 million deer on the landscape. Perhaps an overwinter goal set at 1.1 million deer would work.
Recommended alternative to EAB:
I reject this premise all together. Hunters have said that they oppose EAB. They laid out what the core issues in deer management are and what should be addressed. Getting rid of EAB was never about asking for an alternative that goes by another name. Whatever the alternative is, if it further lowers the deer herd by killing more deer to reach a goal we disagree with while herd estimates exaggerate the population it will be equally opposed. Any alternative(s) will simply be like using a band-aid to cover up cancer and will fail to address hunters concerns over deer management decisions.
Position on baiting and feeding:
The WBH has a neutral position on baiting and feeding as set by the members. At last year's annual member meeting, this topic came up in the form of a motion for WBH to adopt an anti baiting position. The vote was 80% in opposition to the motion. Annually, the members gather to set the direction for the association and like every vote or election in any organization, those that turn out to vote, determine the stances and positions of an organization for that term.
Baiting is currently banned in 40% of the state and has been for over a half decade but where baiting is still allowed, it is a concern. In regards to baiting and the EAB alternative committee, baiting was taken off the table as a topic of discussion in our deliberations. There was however a motion made in the final minutes of the last meeting to add a baiting statement to the report. 6 of 10 members agreed so the statement was added. As a member of the EAB committee, I personally felt it important to look at baiting in regards to EAB for the sake of our deliberations. I looked at baiting in regards to the Department's usage of the EAB tool. Mine was not an evaluation of baiting and ethics or baiting and disease transmission but simply baiting and the Department's use of EAB to see if a correlation exists between the two. To address this question, I looked at the areas of the state where baiting was practiced, as well as where EAB has been most widely used. I reviewed the most recent years of 2006, 2007 and 2008 since EAB usage was at its peak during that time and baiting bans had already been in place for several years in these units.
Since 2003, the number of bait ban counties has increased covering much of the state. During the years evaluated, data suggests that in the South, where baiting has been banned for over a half decade, EAB usage was very high. Conversely, in the North, where baiting is most prevalent, EAB has seldom, if ever been used (especially north of Hwy 64). Hunter complaints of not seeing and harvesting deer were a statewide concern that did not correspond with specific counties or DMU's regardless of baiting laws. North or South, baiting or not, I could find no direct correlation between baiting laws and EAB usage, despite suggestions that a statewide baiting ban would lead to a reduction or elimination of the EAB management tool. This is neither a statement in support or opposition to baiting and is strictly an evaluation of baiting in relationship to the Departments use of the EAB tool.
Three biggest deer management issues:
While you asked for 3, there is really only one that matters. This issue is at the very heart of every single deer management issue. The number 1 issue is the adversarial role between the Department and deer hunters. Not only is there no agreement between hunters and DNR in regards to population estimates, overwinter goals, what is considered deer range, predation effects and season structure, there are no talks talking place to address these core issues. Instead of addressing the core of deer management, the EAB alternative committee was told specifically that we were not allowed to discuss these topics.
All season structures and management prescriptions are based on how far the estimated deer population is from the goal population. If we do not have an accurate estimation of the herd size, we ought not be making management decisions to kill even more deer. If there is a social tolerance for a higher overwinter population, we ought not set the goal as low as it currently is. Since deer live and thrive on all wooded acreage, we ought not exclude those areas of less than ten acres from the deer range calculations. If we don't have an accurate handle on the number of predators out there or the number of deer they kill, we ought not be reducing the population further without regards to more accurately assessing the deer these predators consume. This is the core management issue that needs to be addressed because this is the basis on how deer are managed in our state. Weapons, methods, hunting rules and season lengths mean nothing in the grand scheme until the core issues between the Dept. and hunters are addressed.
Deer committees, study groups, etc. you have participated in:
Prior to being a member of the EAB alternatives committee, I recently served on the DMU, overwinter goal board and the CWD stakeholder advisory board. Including state sporting organizations in these sorts of game management decisions is imperative since these groups bring perspectives to committees that are often overlooked by those only addressing game management from a science and biology perspective. The social aspect or the human dimensions of game management determine whether or not management prescription will be successful or not. EAB and CWD management are perfect examples of how science and biology alone fail to reach an outcome and drive a wedge between hunters and DNR. There are two halves to the deer management team in Wisconsin; DNR and hunters have to work together but currently a master and servant relationship exists which is an adversarial relationship that confounds management efforts. These sorts of issues are more about managing hunters than managing deer herds. Until hunters and game managers reach agreement, or at least an understanding, on goals, population estimates, Predation, deer range and hunter satisfaction, management will forever stall and we will see increases in legislative intervention, land closures and hunters opting out all together due to frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 10/31/2009 1:56:22 AM
|
|
|
buckhunter21
Posts: 2378
Joined: 4/25/2008
From: West-Central WI
Status: offline
|
Great interview...Thanks for taking the time as always. He has some good points.
_____________________________
QDM!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/1/2009 12:11:49 AM
|
|
|
Osty
Posts: 87
Joined: 1/15/2009
Status: offline
|
I just say this on the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website. Interesting views from some of the reps of different groups out there.
I can say last year I heard several hunters complain that it was a down year last year for deer season. I agree even though I did get a deer but it was the only deer I had seen for gun season in 2 different herd control units. Didn't hear a lot of shooting as normal either.
My take: Keep the youth hunt in October, keep the 9 day gun season. If a unit is herd control/EAB/T-Zone, whatever the name for a high population, increase it to 16 days. Also need to have unit or realistic overwinter goals. More deer survive in the southern part then the north due to habitat.
Also, car kills, where do they happen. I lived in Stevens Point from 1997-2000. Had a little patch of woods that I could see deer on a fairly frequent basis in the city. Even had a doe walking down the driveway of my apartment during a winter night!! If a deer gets hit in the city, do they count that for the county? I wonder what percentage of car kills are within city limits?
Just my 2 cents.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/1/2009 10:33:19 AM
|
|
|
retch sweeny
Posts: 94
Joined: 2/23/2009
Status: offline
|
Here is the link to the online version. I will assume others comments were shortened as mine were which is why I posted them in their full form here so as to remain in context.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/68083187.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/2/2009 11:15:59 AM
|
|
|
highview72
Posts: 45
Joined: 11/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Those answers were as spot on as I have seen. I couldnt have said anything better myself.
_____________________________
A man only has so many hunting seasons. Make the most of them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/2/2009 1:40:21 PM
|
|
|
Dan Salmon
Posts: 73
Joined: 5/5/2008
From: Kenosha, WI
Status: offline
|
It's not just about the deer. I'm glad that this has been put in print.
We live in a video game society that wants instant gratification. That is, and will continue to be, an issue that faces the science involved in natural resource management because it's a well known fact that natural things do not regenerate in minutes or seconds like video games do.
This, my friends, is the fight of the future. One only needs to look at the endangered species list and the near impossibility of making changes to the management of species that come off that list (I.e. wolves) to see the future of hunting and natural resources in America. It is no longer about the greater good, it's about the select few.
< Message edited by Dan Salmon -- 11/2/2009 1:45:20 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/6/2009 4:45:19 PM
|
|
|
Fish
Posts: 233
Joined: 11/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
We live in a video game society that wants instant gratification. That is, and will continue to be, an issue that faces the science involved in natural resource management because it's a well known fact that natural things do not regenerate in minutes or seconds like video games do.
I'd imagine your referring to forest/plant regeneration. If so, please state the science your referring to. Really, I'm very interested
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/6/2009 8:12:49 PM
|
|
|
gruberr
Posts: 18
Joined: 8/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Great interview Retch. I sure wish you were running the show at the DNR. You have great insight to the REAL issue(s) going on.
BTW: I went to the Eau Claire meeting and it was not apparent at all that voting against the proposal was a vote in favor of bringing back EAB. Keith Warnke was there himself and I am 100% positive he did not mention this nor was it stated in the handout.
I completely agree there exists a social tolerance for more than 20-25 deer / sq mile of over-winter deer range.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/6/2009 11:21:43 PM
|
|
|
buckhunter21
Posts: 2378
Joined: 4/25/2008
From: West-Central WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
BTW: I went to the Eau Claire meeting and it was not apparent at all that voting against the proposal was a vote in favor of bringing back EAB. Keith Warnke was there himself and I am 100% positive he did not mention this nor was it stated in the handout.
Of course he didn't mention it, because he knows what the outcome would have been. Said it before and I'll say it now...I'd much rather have EAB over a prolonged 16 day season. BUT, I'd rather have EAB managed correctly if this is the case...It was mis-managed in the past.
I am just west of Eau Claire but was unable to make the meeting unfortunately. Glad you were able to make it...How was the turnout?
_____________________________
QDM!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/7/2009 10:54:47 AM
|
|
|
gruberr
Posts: 18
Joined: 8/10/2009
Status: offline
|
It was a decent turn-out, roughly 150-200 people. Of the 40-50 speakers, only 2 were in favor, 2 riding the fence, and everyone else firmly against it. Gun hunters and bow hunters were both united against this, w/o doubt.
Couple people did mention EAB would be better than this plan (which I agree, at least a more controlled EAB, maybe only 2 years at a time and only when 50% above goal). I also believe there are areas of the state where EAB is not needed at all (like the north).
The biggest issue I see is exactly what Retch points out: social tolerance goals. DNR states social tolerance will only put up with 20 deer per sq mile. I believe Wisconsinites are willing to put up with 30-40 deer per sq mile, which is a reflection of supposed true population estimates over the last 10 or so years. That's an issue onto itself: Is SAK accurately estimating the population everywhere? Or only in certain areas?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: 10 questions from Paul Smith of the Milw. Journal - 11/7/2009 11:13:03 PM
|
|
|
Osty
Posts: 87
Joined: 1/15/2009
Status: offline
|
Social tolerance does apply to others outside hunting. Farmers, commuters, wildlife watchers, insurance companies, everyone has an interest either positive or negative.
As a hunter, I'd like to see a bunch of deer. My father-in-law that crop farms, not so much. There has to be a balance of what the land can hold and how it affects the habitat and those maintaining it.
Good luck this season.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
