Deer Trustees prelim. report

[Ron]

media.jsonline.com/documents/deer-herd-032812.pdf

I doubt hunters will find much in the way of surprises in the report by Dr. Kroll and his team but that is to be expected because it’s what we hunters have been saying for years. Dr. Kroll and his team came to WI and met with reps from the state’s orgs and with hunters and then created a web site seeking input from hunters. He and his team also dug deeply into WI deer management plan via requests made of DNR reports and data. Dr. Kroll and his team have now formulated and issued a report of findings that is exactly what hunters in WI have been saying for years.

So what’s the difference between what Dr. Kroll and his team are saying and what we hunters have been saying? The difference is that in the past, the DNR and its willing accomplices in the outdoor media downplayed, dismissed and insulted the hunting community and labeled them complainers and “Barstool biologist” because they dared express their concerns for the direction WI deer management has been headed and because hunters objected to management prescriptions we dared to disagree with (as if we had no place objecting despite the fact that we are one half of Wisconsin’s whitetail deer management team responsible for not only carrying out the mission but paying for it.)

Now we have a preliminary report of findings generated by several Pedigreed biologists with the letters PhD, MS, BS, AAS, and titles such as Wildlife biologist, Chief scientist, Professor, teacher and researcher in the fields of Forestry, wildlife population dynamics, Wildlife biology, human dimensions of deer management who have produced many books, dissertations and peer reviewed papers all focusing on wildlife and deer management that represents a combined 100 years of experience directly related to the subject and this team has now produced a preliminary report that mirrors that of Wisconsin’s “barstool biologists”.

Wisconsin’s barstool biologists have been making these same observations publicly and on this and other web sites and in print and in testimony for many years so it is refreshing and a validation of Wisconsin’s many barstool biologists to know that their combined efforts and their concerns have finally been heard and corroborated by a team of honest to goodness biologists.

So, well done fellow barstool biologists. You are in good company now that there is a team working to address the problems you have been so vocal about for so long even if you saw little if any actions addressing your concerns from the state. It looks like the tide is turning. But be warned, The same willing accomplices that labeled you as barstool biologists, will downplay this as “No big deal” and nothing new and a waste of money, insisting that this was all well known already (essentially admitting that we hunters were actually right all along) or that this team was hand selected by insiders and is scripted. Just make sure to continue to do what you have been doing all along by ignoring those irrelevant folks that would still insist you ought to instead listen to the state’s biologists and the out of date management plans and that they know better than you and to just keep shooting.

Lastly and certainly not to be overlooked is a thank you to Governor Walker for listening to hunters and for having the vision to see the direction deer hunting in WI was headed if we maintained the present course. This may be the beginning of the end of the adversarial relationship between the two halves of Wisconsin’s deer management team that is the states deer managers and the private game managers that are deer hunters.

*update*

After reading some of the comments from various media outlets today about the preliminary report, its clear they fail to understand is the term “Problem statement” as it applies to the work of the deer trustee. See the link for a complete understanding of a problem statement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_statement

but here is the short version.

“A problem statement is a concise description of the issues that need to be addressed by a problem solving team and should be presented to them (or created by them) before they try to solve the problem. When bringing together a team to achieve a particular purpose provide them with a problem statement.”

The title of the Deer Trustee’s preliminary report says:

“INTERIM REPORT OF FINDINGS”

Dr. Kroll and his team went to great lengths to explain where they are in the process and how they got there and what they have learned in order to arrive at a problem statement. In his report he makes several observations and summaries. They can be found on pages 16 thru 21. He then explained the next steps yet some want to pretend this was all we paid for and this is all we got for the money. They are either ignorant or purposefully trying to sour the public to the deer trustees work.

I think people are smarter than they are being given credit for being by some in the media.

[Ron]

Dr. Kroll has made a video for WI hunters.

www.drdeer.com/

[Ron]

I pride myself on being informed on WI deer management and CWD and DNR studies and research but until Dr. Kroll released the results of the Staples marketing CWD research, I had not heard of it. From what I gather, it was conducted but never released to the public. I can find no mention of it on the DNR web site. After reading the results, I can see why. The report is very critical of the DNR and its CWD management plan. Attached is the focus group summary. It details the responses of WI hunters in the CWDMZ. It is very interesting reading. (see link)

If the link does not work, see below

Focus Group Top Line Summary of Group Logistics

Three focus groups were conducted in Madison, Wisconsin, on May 12 and May 13. The groups consisted of landowners who own land in the CWD Management Zone who do not hunt, as well as 2 groups of hunters, one of whom own land in the zone and one group of hunters who do not. The following are the key findings from each of these three groups.

Non-Landowner Hunters

1. The non-landowner hunters appeared to be less anti-DNR than the hunting landowners. They did not, however, consider the Wisconsin DNR to be a credible source of information concerning CWD. At the same time, however, this group complained that the DNR does not share any information about CWD.


2. The non-landowner hunters also do not believe that CWD is a significant problem. Their focus throughout the discussion was on the DNR’s policies regarding the management of CWD, rather than the disease, and what impact the disease might have on them as hunters or on the deer herds in Wisconsin


3. The non-landowner hunters also appear to be completely unaware of what is transpiring in other states affected by CWD.


4. Like the landowner hunters, non-landowner hunters believe that the DNR from other states are a credible source of information about CWD, more-so than the Wisconsin DNR. When it comes to information, such as the health risks of CWD, they would trust other state agencies such as the State Department of Health.


5. This group was unaware of the conservation congress.


6. There was a feeling in this group by a few that CWD is a natural disease that ebbs and flows among the population.


7. The CWD alliance was unknown among this group of hunters.


8. The non-landowner hunters seem less well informed about CWD. They talked about CWD being a prion disease, but questioned whether CWD could spread to humans. They also were not as well versed on the various approaches taken by the Wisconsin DNR to address CWD. example, of the carcass movement restrictions – and when it was mentioned they thought it would prohibit them from moving any deer carcass (even those hunted outside of the CWD Zone).


9. The non-landowner hunters seemed more willing to accept information about CWD, although probably not directly from the Wisconsin DNR.


10. The biggest negative impact of the DNR policies regarding CWD appears to be the major alterations in the “traditional” hunting season. Hunters bemoan the loss of the traditional nine-day deer hunting season, and indicated that the various extended deer hunting seasons have negatively impacted their bow hunting for deer, as well as hunting seasons for other game.


11. As with the other hunter group, these hunters seemed to be unwilling to take additional animals during any of the hunting seasons, as they believe the deer herd has already been over hunted and the number of animals they see while hunting has diminished significantly.


12. When asked about financial incentives, donating deer meat to food pantries, or other incentives, all of the hunters said they were unwilling to hunt more animals from a herd they believe is already well below published DNR numbers. Five of the participants had donated to food pantries in the past. The Earn-a-Buck approach led to food pantry donation. Hunters seemed more likely to give deer to extended families or friends than to food pantry.


13. The hunter’s ethic of “only taking what you can eat” came through strongly in this group.


14. Some members of this group expressed a desire to be included in the solution. Take us into account, be open to hunters again, share more information with us (testing, final numbers, percent of CWD infected deer, etc.)


Landowner Hunters

1. None of the landowner hunters consider the Wisconsin DNR to be a credible source of information concerning CWD. In fact, a few of the group participants were very anti-DNR. It appeared that many of the landowner/hunters were unwilling to recognize any source as credible if it did not agree with their own opinions.


2. None of the hunter landowners believe that CWD is a significant problem. Their focus throughout the discussion was on the DNR’s policies regarding the management of CWD, rather than the disease itself and what impact it might have on them as hunters, or on the deer herds in Wisconsin.


3. The hunters appear to be completely unaware of what is transpiring in other states affected by CWD.

4. The hunters do seem to believe that the DNR from other states are more credible, in terms of information about CWD, then the Wisconsin DNR.


5. The CWD alliance was virtually unknown among this group of hunters. The one individual in the group who was aware of the CWD alliance appeared to believe that the alliance has its own agenda—to ruin game farms and eliminate baiting and feeding of deer, using CWD to foster that agenda. This person also happened to be a member of CALFARR.

6. Hunters seem relatively well informed about CWD. They talked about CWD being a prion disease, the fact that it does not appear to spread between species, etc., and were well-versed on the various approaches taken by the Wisconsin DNR to address CWD. They cited the Wisconsin DNR as one of the major sources of their information about CWD. This despite the fact that they also indicated they distrust the DNR.

7. The landowner hunters were more concerned that the policies of the Wisconsin DNR were hurting their land values more than the actual disease itself.

8. The biggest negative impact of the DNR policies regarding CWD appears to be the major alterations in the “traditional” hunting season. Hunters bemoan the loss of the traditional nine-day deer hunting season, and indicated that the various extended deer hunting seasons have negatively impacted their bow hunting for deer, as well as hunting seasons for other game.

9. Hunters seemed to be unwilling to take additional animals during any of the hunting seasons, as they believe the deer herd has already been over hunted and the number of animals they see while hunting has diminished significantly.

10. When asked about financial incentives, donating deer meat to food pantries, or other incentives, all of the hunters said they were unwilling to hunt more animals from a herd they believe is already well below published DNR numbers.

Landowners – Non-Hunters

1. The landowner non-hunters are mostly supportive of the DNR and its efforts. They believe the DNR is doing the best they can under impossible circumstances to address a problem that is not completely understood even among the “experts”.

2. The landowner non-hunters are not sure of the extent of the CWD problem. However, they are not certain that it is much of an issue because they believe the deer population is as robust as ever – if not more so. It seemed strange that all of these groups came from people living in the same geographic area as the hunter groups.

3. The landowner non-hunters also appear to be completely unaware of what is transpiring in other states affected by CWD.

4. The only source of information about CWD for this group has been the Wisconsin DNR, or the occasional newspaper or other media news story about the disease. They do not want the Wisconsin DNR to hold town meetings to disseminate more information, however, because they believe such meetings would just become shouting matches with angry hunters yelling at the DNR.

5. The CWD alliance was unknown among this group as well.

6. This group knew the least about CWD, and what information they did remember came from information provided by the Wisconsin DNR (mailings and visits to their property). They also were not as well versed on the various approaches taken by the Wisconsin DNR to address CWD. Only two of the group members reported being approached to allow sharpshooters on their land, for example.

7. This group wanted more information, from the Wisconsin DNR, and would welcome the opportunity to sign up for email directing them to a site with information about CWD. Then emails could also be sent to them when new information was posted to the site – so they could keep abreast of changes and new knowledge about CWD, and CWD in Wisconsin.

8. Landowner non-hunters were willing to allow additional animals to be harvested from their land. However, several said they would not do so if it caused problems with their hunting neighbors. Others said that they would permit those individuals who already hunt on their lands to take additional animals. However, they would not require or encourage the harvesting of more deer if their hunters were against it. In other words, deer management on these properties is handled by the hunters not the landowners.

9. This group did note that their outdoor activities were being interfered with due to their lack of knowledge around gun seasons. They did not feel safe being in the woods.

10. Landowner non-hunters did not seem to be motivated by any sort of monetary incentive to allow more deer to be harvested from their land.


www.drdeer.com/wisconsinreports/wisconsin%20report/Focus%20Group%20Research%20Summary_082311.pdf

[Ron]

Look for the final report to be released to the public tomorrow. Its about 140 pages long. There are about a half dozen pages that make up the summary and recommendations.