Several amigos and I attended the Natural Resouces Board meeting April 28 in Green Bay WI where the 2010 gun deer hunting season was revealed. Just as expected the DNR has no clue about real time deer numbers throughout the state and has not listened to the boots on the ground. "Gun deer hunters are not harvesting enough deer" so the DNR has to continue with seasons in addition to the traditional November 9 day season.

They propose a Youth Hunt October 9-10 state wide, Anterless only gun hunt October 14-17 in herd control and CWD units and December 9-12 anterless only hunt state wide.

The DNR wants to sell licenses and blast the heck out of the deer herd, but some of us have had enough.

I have joined 17 other landowners in Herd Control Unit 73D to not hunt the October and December seasons. In addition, we will not allow others to hunt our land, the exception is the Youth Hunt. Currently the group has 2465 acres of prime deer habitat and we expect more to join us before October.

Why not go all the way?..boycott the gun season too.

I've given enough money to the "tax-state". I'm not hunting small game, bow deer, or gun deer for the first time in 15 years. If I didn't have a fishing license before I decided that, I'd be skipping that to. fugg-em. I've had it.

Great, another crappy deer season, I can't wait, maybe I'll save up and hunt in Kansas or something instead. I like living in Wisconsin but I friggin' our DNR, those guys are retards.

Don't want to skip the 9 day gun season...I have 53 years in. I would have 54 years, but I was on vacation one year in Vietnam with the U. S. Army.

70 years of hunting Wisconsin Whitetails is what I am hoping for.

I'd trade you guys any day for what we have. Our regs suck and do nothing to promote any age structure.

Roundoak and all our other vets-thanks for your service guys. I hear the stories from Cheeseland all the time. The boots on the dirt have pretty much had it with the kill every doe mentality. Pennsylvania pulled this stunt a few years back, and now it's darned hard to see any deer in the woods at all. They had a decent idea, to try to promote some bigger racked, older deer, but they killed off way too many does. 'Hope the same doesn't happen for your guys too.

gophergunner...we need more than hope. We need prayers for some common sense in our deer management.

Wisconsin is a nightmare compared to Michigan. Let them keep their system and not infect us.

It seems the State is using regulations to get us to quit hunting. Well, it worked. I'm done here.

I'm not so sure that isn't their plan. They know that some form of "no hunting" bill wouldn't stand a chance of passing, so the over regulated it.

Tzone,

The saddest part is I see this thought more and more frequently in the youth that I mentor.

I haven't really noticed that yet. I teach hunters safety and most of the kids really want to be there. Some are there because ma or pa wanted the to be. quite a few are gung ho about it.

Some of the rules and regs are just silly. Deer registration for example. Or not being able to quarter the deer/bear to get it out of the woods.

I've only hunted MN and WI, but most I know that have hunted other areas, don't hunt here anymore, or really cut back on hunting in WI.

I don't even complain about MN regs anymore. They are head and shoulders above WI.

I taught hunter safety for many years and I agree most were excited and gung ho. Some gun club members and I take kids out on the October Youth Hunt ("Rent a kid hunt")and this is where I saw the kids attitude change the last two years because of lack of deer sightings. Their attention span gets short in a hurry.

The kid's expectations are high because they grew up in an amazing deer hunting media world and saw the high deer kill success rate in Wisconsin. When I grew up in southwest Wisconsin my friends and I did not have high expectations...there were few if any deer. We joined our grandfathers, fathers and uncles on the Up North migration to hunt deer.

In addition, we were not distracted by TV, game videos, cell phones and etc., or ability to drive ATV's around.

The kids were spoiled with deer sightings for sure. I grew up hunting the iron range in MN, and I can count on one hand the times we actually saw deer while I tagged along with my dad and uncle.

I didn't shoot a deer until I was 14, and it was the first one I could shoot at while hunting. So I hunted for 2 years before I got a chance at one.

Today, I don't think many kids would have stuck it out that long.

I don't know about that...with results this different you'd never guess we were neighbors.



B & C Bucks 96-06:

I'm pulling for Indiana but gotta admit...I think they are trying to kill off our heard too.

Tom, have you noticed any difference in what you see since IN went to OBR a few years ago?

Yes, bigger more mature bucks every year since.

I love the OBR.

Its the killing of does our state does that I have a problem with.

If you were rich and had the time you could kill up to over 430 does in the state if Indiana......to me thats utterly rediculous.

Yep, same thing happened in areas here. Taking does to the point where it's detrimental is not a good thing. The northern lower has quite a bit of controversy regarding that issue. Can't say with the UP as I haven't hunted there in about 12 years.

I've seen the OBR success in IN referenced many times by people here and good to hear someone's firsthand exp. and the positives of it.

Its amazing the difference in size and maturity of the bucks being checked in at the check stations by hunters from when we were allowed 2 bucks.

Seems many people dont want to burn their tag on a dink anymore and I think thats the way it should be, allowing the little ones to grow up.

I know firsthand that the size of bucks I am passing up now are the same bucks I would have shot 10 yrs ago.

Like I said I love the OBR.

That's why many want it here, myself included. The 2 any season bucks really has a negative effect on any older age structure. Shoot, as you say a dink (some here call it the mulligan tag), get another tag and head back out. No selectivity and it shows. Our DNR being financed primarily by license and permit fees sure isn't about to give up their cash cow combo tag either. It's a shame, we have some good looking bucks when they reach maturity.

I've been scheduling out-of-state/country hunts to coincide with our deer season for years.

roundoak-
Add Whelen Nut and I to your list of landowners not allowing hunting during those periods. Sure, it's not in the same management unit but it's a start, and a lot of room in betwixed to add to the lockup. *grins*

The DNR needs to get the message. Quit buying license's. It's the ONLY way they will even think about listening.

The recent "teaming" with the HSUS is a slap in the face to us hunters and fisherman. Don't think for one second they don't know that either.

Wisconsin is regulating hunting and fishing so they won't have to make it illegal. They'll just make it so we won't want to do it anymore.

It's working too, I'm not doing it here.

Sounds like the same complaints we hear in PA, since the decision was finally made to lower herd numbers in 2000.

It was great while it lasted, but we once did have far too many deer here and it never should've been allowed to happen. Unlike WI, we haven't been hit with CWD...yet. It's on both sides of us, north and south, as CWD has been confirmed in NY and WV.

I can only comment on a friend's observations, who lives in Dane County, WI. He recounted how the doe were slaughtered some years ago, in efforts to quickly reduce deer numbers due to CWD in that area. According to him, deer hunting hasn't been the same since. But I haven't heard him complain much about the changes.

I agree that the two buck tag has to go. My objection to Wisconsin style is that you aren't legal until an agent of the State touches his toe to your dead deer. It is a useless expense to the State and the hunter, and a needless burden to the hunter.

After last year I posted here that I'd not be buying a deer license for the '10 gun deer hunt. Today I'm on the fence. It's just a bitcch not hunting when its in the blood to do so, seeing no deer in the daylight be damned. See, by me they've become very nocturnal. Then there is the wolf thing too. Ahhhhhhhh chit!

Roundoak, thanks for your service during that VAC to Vietnam. Hope you get to 70 seasons.

Lots of states where you can hunt and see deer durring shooting hours.

didn't say I'm not going to hunt, that will only happen when I'm dead.

what is this all about? never heard about this before.

Isnt michigans rifle season start in prime rut. correct me if im wrong, but thats what i thought.

2009 was my first year in 35 missing WI 9 day season and 2010 will be my 2nd in 35. Over half those years were non-resident! I'm done until they get their [bleep] together!!

Some like, others dislike mandatory check in. The way we do it I've seen the OH (they're check in also I believe) BG biologist state is a better system but I couldn't say either way. Check in would be a hassle at times I'm sure.



Yep, starts Nov 15th every year statewide, no matter what day it falls on. Some are open (myself included) to changing it and moving it up but many aren't and state it's tradition. It goes until the 30th so it's a full two weeks.

There is a thread on the "campfire" forum that explains it better than I can. However, they did team with HSUS. You might have to read that twice, it made no sense to me at all either.

So. The DNR has joined forces with the HSUS. Interesting, when seeing how they have asked for wolves in WI to be delisted and the HSUS is 100% against it. Slight conflict of interest, bald faced liars or typical WIDNR? A boycott is one of the few ways to kick them square in the nuts. IF there are any public hearings, the participation of hunters is key, as is the continued effort to publicize this garbage.


http://www.fox21online.com/news/wisconsin-dnr-asks-feds-remove-wolf-endangered-species-list

The higher ups in the DNR are nothing more than political whores. The HSUS came waving money and they got down on their knees like the circus seals that they are. The problem is not the DNR, most of the rank and file just want to do their jobs and make the state the best place in the country to hunt and fish, it is the Liberal political leadership in this state that has a strangle hold on all of the state agencies. Every special interest and cry baby gets moved to the front of the line, while the honest, hardworking tax payer gets the shaft firmly placed where the sun don't shine. A mirror image to Washington D.C.

Amen to that.

Same crap over by me in Northcentral, sucks hind t*t.

I'm not impressed with ANY state's F & W or DNR.. or whatever name they want to call it....

anymore.. too political... too many overly educated Morons that their only achievement is Job Security for themselves, and justifying milking more fees out of the public...

I've spent a bit of time the last 6 years researching deer management systems across several states. Specifically in my home state of Wisconsin........because most applicable data and methodology is available to citizens.

I'm curious about your reaction to management in DMU 73D. Here are some statistics from the last 9 years (2001-2009) for DMU 73D.

2001 the DMU was classified at goal population, slightly under goal in 2002, and escalating populations over goal until 2009.....where data isn't available but I suspect still over goal by quite a bit.

2001 - 2009 total registered deer harvest
1669, 1513, 1563, 1586, 2230, 2561, 2788, 2678, 1807

2001 - 2009 registered antlerless as percentage of total
56%, 57%, 48%, 53%, 57%, 65%, 66%, 76%, 60%

2001 - 2009 registered gun bucks
565, 567, 712, 581, 824, 734, 801, 529, 552

2001 - 2009 registered archery bucks
81, 90, 107, 159, 139, 153, 158, 122, 166

At 248 Sq Mi, DMU 73D is one of the smaller units in the state (14th smallest I believe...). That's about 158,720 acres.

There are certainly areas in Wisconsin that are below goal......most obviously in the northeast. Predation and weather are most to blame.

From a management perspective, I guess I don't see the same concerns you do in 73D.

Grandview,

Sorry for the delayed response...been fishing.

What is my reaction to your paper analysis of my backyard.

Horse Pucky!

The basis for over winter goals in this DMU is pseudoscience and probably not as accurate as the pellet group counts of of the old days. Just as the WDNR can not count Bears or Wolves in this state, they can not count deer.

There was a signifcant harvest drop in this Herd Control DMU and the WDNR answer to it is to issue unlimited anterless deer harvest permits for $2.00 each. Well some of us have refused to participate in this nonsense.

Since I first posted this thread the landowners pledged to this public action has grown to 4800 acres +.

Once again thank you for the internet analysis of my backyard.

I just don't see the point in closing more land to hunting, whether trying to make a point or not and working against the DNR than trying to make a fight.

The biggest problem being, the fact that the longer it takes to get to the goal that is deemed correct, the longer your DMU will remain a herd control unit.

Everyone says hit them in the pocket book, well guys, that hasn't seemed to affect them. They just go to HSUS and other anti funded organizations disguised as conservation organizations to get their needed money. That seems to be a bigger problem, at least to me, than some wacked out deer hunting regulations that the general public disagrees with. Take a look at deer management history in this state and you'll see that we are not in a new place, we're actually in the same place that we were 60 years ago.

Pretty soon you'll be looking back and saying, herd control wasn't as big of an issue as we made it out to be. I really liked hunting when it was a legal thing to do.

Hind sight, as they say, is usually 20/20.

We are done listening to the WDNR talking out of both sides of their mouth in our area. They encourage us to be stewards of the land and provide wildlife habitat then turn around and ask us to blast the heck out of the herd. We go to the public meetings and we have questions about less deer sightings and one WDNR manager will say that was by design....herd reduction goals are being met and the hunters are doing a good job...another manager will tell us deer move and one particular week of hunting is not indicitive of a low or high population. So on and so forth.

They buy up land around us, burn the buildings to the ground, tear up the fences and then walk away. Brush and invasive plant species take over the public land and they call this land management.

Our lands will not be completely closed to deer hunting...we will be more selective on who hunts and what is harvested. This is not unusual in this state...there a deer management organizations all over the state.

I'll see your "horse pucky", and raise you a "reality check".

You had escalating deer harvests in that DMU for almost 8 years. Your harvest in 2009 still exceeded 2001 when your DMU was at goal.



Congratulations. Your "public action" affects 3% of the DMU acreage.

Look at the "Harvest" in units 1 and 2 (Bayfield and Douglas counties). The pitiful numbers for the last few years have dropped directly in proportion to the massive spike in wolves.

The rest of the state has been affected, to a degree, but these counties have been absolutely devastated,

Ok, but, his action does affect his 3%, and perhaps a bit more of the surrounding area. For RO that is a positive.

I'll see your "reality check" and raise you.

The WDNR will not admit their DMU over winter goals are based on sound data. It is arbitrary. I have approached several wildlife managers on the subject in the past including Keith Warnke and his boss Vander Zouwen. Their reponses are full of I believe, we think so, but, but, etc. If you want to hang your argument on their pre-set goals have at it.

In your internet paper analysis did you seek out just where the deer kill occured within the DMU? Was the harvest heavy in the north, south, east, west or central portion of the DMU? Is it not possible to have low deer density in certain areas within a DMU? What does the registration stations data tell you?

What percentage of the DMU harvest record occured outside of the DMU zone?

In closing, thank you for the congratulations and the enlightened "GrandView" of my backyard.

grandview-

Over/under goal is quite relative as we're talking about a board of people that insist that their numbers and processes are solid, and, without peer in the states that truly embrace deer management. The WI DNR has continually stepped on their collective dicks with regards to wolf, bear and deer counts, and, in a very roundabout way have admitted so.

I'd long been a proponent of the WI DNR as their role is certainly not without complexity and rationalize that they should be better equipped on wildlife biology than I. I've changed my tune in recent years because the level of arrogance and inability to listen has reached epic proportions.

They are no longer afforded the benefit of the doubt. They're a recurring PR nightmare of their own doing. And it's time the state of WI adds a helping of reality to its science and that comes from actually listening to hunters across the state instead of constantly citing science and talking down to them.

The goal setting is hardly arbitrary. It is based on specific management units. It is derived from the size of the DMU, the physical habitat of the DMU, the hunting pressure of that DMU, and the tolerance of deer population to car/deer accidents and habit destruction.

There are necessary things to consider far beyond what the typical hunter wants.........what they consider "enough" deer to kill. Any reasonable analysis of Wisconsin's deer population over the last 40 years will prove that. I've been hunting deer in this state since 1961. A bit over half of that in Columbia County......the last 22 years in Bayfield County.



It is certainly possible to have deer inequitably distributed across a single DMU. In fact it is a dead certainty that they are. Which is one of the reasons that hunter reactions to "low deer densities" in the area they hunt is of questionable practical value in relationship to the area the herd is being managed to.

There is way more problem with deer distribution across this state than there is in population numbers. And that goes for individual DMU's also.



Hunters would intentionally incorrectly record their harvest? Say it isn't so!



You have defined 4K acres of area within a 158K acre DMU that you don't think has enough deer. The history of population and harvest for that 158K acre management unit shows deer population escalating over goal and a commensurate harvest.

So you believe the DNR should manage to your unique 4K acreage. Is that about it?

That's not the worst scenario I've heard expressed. A lot of people think the statewide herd should be managed to their specific 20 acre parcel.

Escalating wolf population is certainly taking a toll. I hunt in DMU 6 in Bayfield County so I can attest. In addition, the rising wolf population is coupled with a herd that is intentionally being reduced, and aided by two consecutive bad weather years that surrounding states experienced also.

I might add that the two northwestern units you cite are no where near as bad as some of the northeastern units.

Not to mention that the wolf problem is basically out of the hands of Wisconsin's DNR.

Bingo!!!!!!

75% of the reason I'm done hunting there ( I can say that now ) Having worked with CO's for about 10 years.... I was on their side. Even they don't have clue anymore as to what is going on in the DNR org. Too much red tape and B.S.

The meetings are all for political show. They don't listen, and their adgenda is already on it's own track well before they set foot in a meeting.

Which is EXACTLY why it will be in the hands of the resident farmer, hunters, and citizens.

No more BS from the State. They've proven their dumbphucktitude over and over, not to mention the last kick in the dick to the hunters and fisherman by the dnr...the partnering with the HSUS. Duck the FNR.

So.......the state has a "dumbphucktitude" because they adhere to federal restrictions on wolf management???

Federal restrictions that farmers, hunters, and citizens are somehow exempt from..........or who will intentionally disregard them?

And your conscience is somehow salved because you intend to lay that off on the state DNR?

I think what Tom is saying is that the inability to adequately gauge the populations of both wolves and bears is darn near laughable.

No, the state cannot do anything about the wolves. They can, however, take into account their numbers and adjust their deer index "science" appropriately. And, FWIW, the state is the one responsible for bringing them back. Can't say I mind having wolves among us, I can say it's ridiculous to not have a plan at the time of introduction.

I'm in a much different frame of mind. I have studied deer management in Wisconsin and neighboring states for close to 10 years. Everything available in public-accessible media.

There isn't 3% of the hunters in Wisconsin that have done the same and can tell you how goals and estimates are derived in this state. Nor can they tell you (or admit) how hunting and private land management/private wildlife management practices have changed over the last 10-15 years. Basically their major reaction to warden observations of these practices in that time span has been...."They're labeling us as lazy hunters!!!!")

The DNR isn't perfect. They don't always get it right. No state management entity is perfect....nor right all the time. But they are nowhere near as imperfect as the presently aroused hunter population tries to portray.

I've listened and read virtually every complaint, observation, analysis, and proposed corrective action from this "disenfranchised" hunter population. As is typical of anything in the public arena........this voice is largely selfish, ignorant to any other factors other than their own, and largely myopic and self-centered. It's how things work in this day and age..........argue your own specific issue from an extreme position.

There remains a large difference between "wildlife management" and "hunter management". Aldo Leopold recognized it..........and probably was the first to place it in the public arena.

Expand on that if you would please....

Wow! If unit 6 is worse than 1 & 2, I really do feel for ya. Condolences. For real. It's like the early 70s again, except much, much less land to hunt.

Not an inapt analogy.

If goal levels were instantly established in Wisconsin......and that would mean raising population levels in many north and northeastern DMU's.......it still wouldn't be nirvana for many hunters.

The deer statewide harvest was just under 40,000 the year I started hunting. And I was hunting in the southern part of the state where the deer herd hadn't yet taken a strong hold on.

However, we were at liberty to hunt virtually anywhere we wanted. We had access to those "pockets" where deer were.......if we could find them. We roamed a 4 county area at will looking for them. Those days are certainly gone.

But from a management perspective, you can't "inflate" a deer herd to a specific small area to satisfy what is now a rather "stationary" hunting population. Distribution of the herd will continue to be an escalating problem in a time when the mobility of the hunter is becoming more and more restrictive.

I think there is indeed a lot of small sandbox mentality when it comes to this subject. But I also think there are many more folks that would like to see the bigger/long term addressed so we're not in this same boat in years to come. The problem IMO, has more to do with trust and competence of the DNR than it does Ed from Neopit not seeing a buck last year.

My observations and complaints aren't based on whether I see less deer on a couple of tracts that I hunt - I'd like to think I'm a wee bigger picture than that. I have many friends scattered around the state; rationale, reasoning, educated people that simply don't understand WTF is going on. Good hunters that cannot see a DEER in a 9 day season and the DNR puts it in a EAB or Tzone the following year. It's not limited to Joe that hunts on 20 acres in Pembine or Bill that hunts 200 in Hortonville. Yes, I understand there's more to all of this - the problem is that I don't see anyone in the DNR connecting the dots for anyone.

You're asking people to believe in a political run agency that's been very wrong on a number of fronts, yet are still asking people to be patient and to let professionals do their job. You cited Aldo Leopold earlier and I found some irony in that because he's the very one that sought to insulate the DNR from the politics.

I may have been hasty in my "bringing them back" statement as I'm well aware that they were here in the 70's.

The Timber Wolf Recovery Plan in 1989 (IIRC) is to what I was referring......

Oh....OK. I thought I was going to hear the "Wisconsin DNR planted wolves" story again.

The Great Lakes states all developed a "Wolf Recovery Plan" to reply to the Endangered Species Act that afforded protection to wolves in 1973. Having adhered to those plans, the respective states certainly showed that the wolf populations rebounded. In my estimation, and that of many more professionally qualified people, to the extent there exists viable permanent populations in the Great Lakes area.

However, animal rights groups recently did a much better job of proving their point in court than any opposition to them. I think it's using a "sliding scale"....considering the respective Wolf Management plans were ostensibly approved by the Feds when they were established. Whatever.........a better case must be made in court, with the appropriate time for public input as defined by the court.

Fortunately a lot of farmers, landowners, and hunters have wised-up to what's going on at the Wisconsin Department of Mismanaged Resources and are taking matters into their own hands on their properties.

If deer hunting is going to be saved in this state it will be the hunters and landowners who will do it, not the arrogant, managerial, political hacks at the DMR.

They are going to spend millons of our tax dollars on several useless studies over the next couple of years when all they would have to do is listen to what hunters, farmers, and landowners have been telling them. Idiots!

back when I started hunting in minnesota in the early-mid seventies,it was rather rare to even see a deer.
Contrast that to the 2003-2008 (roughly) seasons here ,where the limit in some places was 3 deer,and in others 5 deer,and some other no limit. Now it has returned to much lower deer numbers,I havent seen over 1-2 deer a season for the last few.
Seems to me the DNR said there were too many deer ,and gave out alot of tags to lower numbers.That is what happened.

But what hunters do they listen to? Do they listen to the guys in the Northeast, where I hunt, where there are few deer and lots of public land? Do they listen to the large land owners in the south and west that are leasing land and making money off the resource? Who should be the group that is deemed the winner and the rest are told to suck hind tit?

What you are all asking for is for the DNR to micro manage the deer herd. Do you want to see a bloated over managed bureaucracy become even worse? Keep demanding this type of solution to the bigger problems.

There's certainly something to what you say, but it's not quite as simplistic as that.

The entire state was in herd reduction mode, but even in the north......different regions responded differently.

The northeast for instance has a higher hunter density than the northwest, and showed different stabilization and recovery than the northwest did by historical data. Even after the years of ZoneT and the year of heavy EAB in 2004, the northeast didn't recover like the northwest. And many of the northeast units did not even have EAB.

The DNR is certainly not blameless in this area. Several units in the northeast have been under goal for over 10 years. This under-goal situation could/should have been reacted to more aggressively. But the DNR was gun shy from the same situation that happened to them in the mid 90's. An over-reaction to low harvests produced the population explosion that generated the record 600K harvest in 2000....and its attendant over-goal populations. Enter a couple of years of bad weather and an increasing wolf population......and you get the severe drops of 2008 and 2009.

Plus.....you still deal with a herd distribution problem. A problem that gets exacerbated by multiple seasons that puts constant invasive pressure in the woods over longer periods of time.

There is constant rhetoric from the disenfranchised hunting groups to "leave us alone.....we'll manage the deer herd". Well, if history is any indicator that's not true. Hunter's have a singular goal to "manage" to enough deer for them to shoot. They are largely uninterested in any other factors that true wildlife management must adhere to.

There is no doubt hunters were spoiled by 500K and higher annual harvests. The truth is, from several quarters, the state environment can't afford to keep deer populations that generate those type of numbers. No state in our area can. All of them are in maintenance mode at much lower levels.....or are in herd reduction modes to get there.

My conscience has no problmes. You working for the DNR and all.....probably have some serious issues weighing on yours though huh?

I talked to Ed....he and that whole crew didn't see squat last season.

After studying deer management for 10 years you apparently have got it all figured out, therefore I would like to nominate you for an honorary PHD in deer management. I did not realize I was corresponding with such an unknown expert.
All the while I thought you were pizzing on my leg and telling me it was raining.

I don't work for the DNR......and never have.

I'm just a retired citizen and hunter who spent some time researching deer management issues in this state and others. An effort I firmly believe very few other Wisconsin hunters have spent any time doing.

GrandView-

You certainly have some valid points and appear to be very well versed on your studies. And I can certainly agree that there are likely only a select few that actually take the time for analysis - or have the time to do so.

We can however beg to differ on the topic of what roundoak referred to as "boots on the ground" synopsis. No one is listening at the state level. The WI DNR keeps telling us that their statistical data is proven yet they've also proven and admitted that their data has, on occasion, has left much to be desired in other wildlife counts.

While I don't think we'd be doing ourselves any favors to let the general hunting public manage things, they should at least have a voice. And that voice is currently falling upon deaf ears. Certainly there are the narcissistic that care about their small chunks of ground but there are others that care about the big picture as well.

The apparent coup against the WI DNR has been brought about by years of arrogance and an inability to effectively listen to what "the boots on the ground" have been telling them. The current state of the DNR has left the leaders without followers and there is no longer a benefit of doubt. When this happens in any other type of management, it's time for a change in leadership.

The latest PR nightmare involving the HSUS only serves as a reminder that this group doesn't understand the big picture. While they may have had their hearts in the right place, with the volatility of the public vs. DNR, assuredly SOMEONE within those walls must have asked "ummmm, is this such a great idea at this time"? Yeah, HSUS, the same group that organizes protests on public land against deer hunters is going to partner with the WI DNR.

The WI DNR is currently a bad dream that is in desperate need of interpretation.

Well, the DNR certainly took a major hit to what little credibility they had left by teaming up with HSUS.