Hunters lambaste DNR in the north
By Kevin McCullough
Correspondent
Minocqua, Wis. A panel of state officials gathered for a hunters forum in Minocqua the night of March 14 found a familiar piece of common ground the undeniable fact that crafting resource management plans to satisfy all of Wisconsins diverse user groups will be no easy task.
Nearly 200 sportsmen and women filled the bleachers at Minocqua-Hazelhurst-Lake Tomahawk Elementary School to ask questions of, and provide input for, a mixed panel of a dozen state legislators, conservation group officials, and DNR officials.
The forum, sponsored by The Lakeland Times and Wisconsin Outdoor News, and moderated by Eagle River WRJO news and sports director Chris Oatman, provided sportsmen an opportunity to discuss the states plans pertaining to overall deer management, the wolf program, and proposed license fee increases.
The panel consisted of Assembly Speaker John Gard, Assembly Natural Resources Committee chairman Scott Gunderson, state representatives Dan Meyer and Don Friske, Conservation Congress chairman Steve Oestreicher, Northern Wisconsin Beef Producers Association representative Eric Koens, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation executive director and former DNR secretary George Meyer, DNR mammalian ecologist Adrian Wydeven, DNR Northern Region wildlife biologist Mike Zeckmeister, DNR state deer ecologist Keith Warnke, DNR budget director Joe Polasek, and DNR Secretary Scott Hassett.
Stressing that Wisconsin is home to the most wonderful variety of fish and game and boasts incredible access to public lands, Hassett said his role as DNR secretary is to educate the public on his agencys evolving resource management policies. That involved dispelling a couple of myths, he said.
The license fee package is not there to balance the state budget. Thats a segregated account that cant be used to balance accounts in other agencies. Its exclusively for fishing, hunting, habitat, field workers, and law enforcement, Hassett said, adding that the fish and wildlife account is the most scrutinized in state government.
The second myth that Hassett addressed centered on the claim that fish and wildlife monies are being wasted on administrative costs.
This is one of very few accounts with statutory limits on administrative costs, 16 percent, and we have been running at 11 percent. This budget is between 9 and 10 percent administrative costs. No matter what type of business, you run 10 percent or less of administrative costs, thats just phenomenal, he said.
The DNR is facing a $20 million shortfall in the fish and wildlife account across the next biennium, Hassett said, with the proposed license fee increases designated to fill holes, not institute any new programs. Without the added revenue, existing programs will be downsized or cut, and sportsmen will feel the resulting impacts.
My job is to let people know whats at stake here, he said, noting that there hasnt been an increase in the deer license fee in nine years.
Without the license fee increases, fish and wildlife stocking programs will be at risk, and an existing strain on the conservation warden force, which needs to fill 30 vacancies already, will be exacerbated, he said. Wisconsin currently has one of the worst warden-to-sportsmen ratio in the country, he added.
Gunderson told the assembled crowd he has a real problem with whats going on. The states handling of chronic wasting disease is cause for concern, he said, pointing out that the CWD herd reduction zone has crept into portions of Kenosha and Racine counties.
If deer become like pests, thats a problem, Gunderson said. We cant let that happen because deer are very important to our state.
Gunderson also questioned the DNRs wolf management program.
Weve gone the wrong direction when it comes to wolves in this state. We have to do a better job of counting with wolves, deer, and bears. We have to get the numbers right. Nobody here but the DNR believes the numbers for wolves, deer, and bears.
Telling the crowd that there is no free lunch, George Meyer said sportsmen have to realize that services and programs will be lost without the proposed license fee increases.
The money you pay in licenses stays in fish management, wildlife management, and law enforcement. Thats mandated by the federal Wildlife Restoration Act. Please do not buy the argument that the money gets spent on anything but hunting, fishing, trapping, and anything that supports it, he said.
In the late 1960s a deer license cost $5, which is the equivalent of approximately $31 in todays economy, Meyer said. Deer licenses would cost $32 under the proposed increase, up from $20. Meyer acknowledged that could get pricey for a hunting family with two or three teenagers, so he suggested modifying the current proposal to establish a youth license fee at the current $20 rate.
Polasek called the license fee increase issue a zero-sum game, balancing the dollars that come in with the dollars that go out. If dollars dont come in, cuts have to be made, he said.
A summary of the issues
Following introductions and opening statements from each of the panel members, the public took its turn. Questions and statements were taken during 30-minute segments for each forum topic deer management, the wolf program, and license fee increases.
Scott Benson, of Woodruff, told the panel the deer management plan must be favorable to reduce the herd to where it needs to be and to find a way to get a favorable population ratio between bucks and does. There are many hunters who will kill only bucks, he said.
Most hunters I know hunt the first four days and then theyre gone. You need to make it favorable to harvest antlerless deer, he said. Instead of earn-a-buck, go for paying for a buck. If you want to only shoot a buck, pay for it.
Hassett said the most recent deer season had the second highest harvest ever and that the state was only 6 percent off its pre-hunt estimate of 1.7 million animals. There were 28 earn-a-buck units last year, he said, and that number is down to eight (recommended, not yet approved by the Natural Resources Board) this year. Citing management zones that suffer intolerable agricultural damage, Hassett said the herd is managed with other concerns in addition to deer hunters.
Warnke said population-control measures are targeted for deer units where those measures are warranted. Even with control measures its hard to attain a doe-to-buck ratio beyond six to one, he said. In early September, there are four or five does per buck on the landscape, he said. Earn-a-buck units can reduce the ratio somewhat due to the heavy harvest of antlerless deer.
Minocqua town chairman Don Gauger told the panel the statewide herd population estimate is not reflected in the Minocqua area, where deer numbers are spotty. A longer season wouldnt hurt, he said, and could address some of the problems with does.
Steve Hoffmeister, of Mercer, said his main issue is a roadblock to an extending the current nine-day gun season. Deer are yarding less, he said, and the plausible explanation is that people are feeding more. In turn, wolves are being seen closer to populated areas because theyre following the deer.
One of the roadblocks to an extended season, Warnke responded, is in general people dont support one. Wisconsin hunters covet the long-held tradition of a nine-day season, he said. With increased feeding there is a lot more food on the landscape than in previous years, he said, acknowledging that may be one reason deer are yarding less in the winter.
Oestreicher concurred that Wisconsin hunters have rejected a series of extended season proposals dating back to the late 1980s.
John Rasmussen, of Rhinelander, said that its evident science-based research is being compromised by political pressure, and he questioned how hunters are expected to have faith in proper herd management if thats the case.
We stick to science as much as we can, Warnke said, adding that the DNR is open to different harvest options. Finding a way to manage the herd that balances hunting and science is an evolving process, he said.
None of the political representatives on the panel responded to Rasmussens question.
The wolf program mainly concerns with wolf predation and compensation proved unpopular with the majority of the audience. Some connected a lack of deer sightings last season with increased wolf numbers, while others questioned what purpose wolves served and called for an outright elimination of the predatory animals.
I agree wolves have an impact on the deer herd. The question is if that impact is beneficial or detrimental, Wydeven said. I would say its beneficial. T Zones are in areas with lots of wolves, so obviously wolves are not keeping the population down. You cant attach all the changes to the numbers of deer in the woods to wolves. Wolves are a factor, but not the only factor.
Wolves contribute to a healthier biodiversity of plants and animals, he said, adding that its a common misconception that wolves were reintroduced to the state. Wolves migrated here on their own from Minnesota and Michigan, he said.
As for a question regarding wolf predation on black bears, Wydeven said both species coexist well in Bayfield County, which boasts the best wolf habitat and best bear habitat in the state.
The WWFs Meyer said the wolf must be managed properly, just like any other species needs to be managed. The state has set management goals and has done a good job with its management plan, he said, noting that the problem lies with the federal threatened/endangered species management act.
Fish and wildlife are at the mercy of another section of the country. We need to separate out Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota and we dont have to wait until Maine gets wolves, Meyer said, referring to the recent Oregon federal court ruling that overturned Wisconsins delisting of wolves.
The state currently is appealing that decision, Wydeven added, with hopes that wolves can be once again be delisted in the state. That would allow wildlife managers to trap and kill problem wolves, a management technique the was proving effective prior to the federal court ruling, Hassett added.
Koens talked about the concerns of livestock producers who live in wolf country. He said the DNR cannot manage a wolf population that has grown beyond the agencys population estimates. He said the DNRs proposed rules for wolf damage payments for pets and livestock will not address the growing problem.
Others in the audience defended the wolfs presence in the state.
Wolves are a natural part of the state and I think its extremely selfish to eliminate a part of the ecosystem thats always been here, said Eagle River business owner Don Anderson.
While some members of the audience gave an unqualified thumbs down to the proposed license fee increases, others supported the increases outright, or did so with certain qualifications.
Other resource users should bear some of the resource management costs, according to Larry Parks, of Arbor Vitae, who rattled off a list of silent sports as possible revenue outlets. Others said theyd support the fee increases pending a legislative audit detailing where the funds were being spent.
Establishing alternative funding sources was promoted by many members of the panel, including Rep. Friske, who pointed to timber sales on state-owned land as an untapped revenue source.
Friske said the DNR buys land every month, but nothing happens on that land. Polasek said the DNR does not have the money to hire foresters to set up timber sales on that property. Friske said Gov. Jim Doyles budget cuts 40 DNR forester positions.
Instead of cutting those 40, we should hire 10 more and get timber sales going on the property, Friske said.