EAB Alternatives

[Ron]

Well, the EAB alternative committee is forming and will soon be coming up with a suggestion(s) to replace EAB. A list of suggestions has already been put together with about 60 ideas with the goal being, increased antlerless harvest in areas that are estimated to be well over goal.


Since the DMU goal process will most likely result in (at best) a modest net increase of less than 10,000 deer state wide, I don't think we can count on boosting the goal as a way of eliminating the need for increased antlerless harvest in units that are still estimated to be far above the goal.

The current list of ideas must be the result of brainstorming and even includes monetary incentives such as prizes, bounty's, privileges, etc , so nothing is off the table at this point (except going back to EAB)

If you were on this committee, what would you suggest as a method or way to get hunters to harvest antlerless deer from these areas? One suggestion was antler restrictions as a way to boost antlerless harvest. What else would get hunters to take more antlerless deer in areas of high over population?

[Ron]

May 27, 2009 14:36:27 GMT -6 @cheesehead said:

So tell me please, why do we have to find an alternative? talk about a waste of time and resources!! EAB works.

Because hunters have overwhelmingly opposed EAB. That cannot be denied or ignored. They do so partially because it does not let them shoot a buck without harvesting a doe that in more and more instance they can't get because the population has dropped despite the Dept. telling them that the population is too large and partially because it was warned and now has been proven to make population estimates very unreliable leading to even more problem with it being used when it is not really needed. Lastly, until it's established that EAB does not violate the law, it's best that it not be used. That means the Dept. wants an alternative at the ready. That is hardly a waste of time and resources. [/quote]

May 27, 2009 14:36:27 GMT -6 @cheesehead said:

The complaint is there is not enough deer. So work on raising goals or changing the count method. I really cannot understand why we need to change a method that is working.
There is no alternative to EAB that will be bowhunter friendly so why not put your efforts elsewhere? I hope us bowhunters can get through this with minimal damage!!!

That is also in the works but it appears that raising the goal is not going to happen in any amount that will negate the need for herd reduction in areas estimated to be over goal. As for SAK, it works if given the chance to work but EAB or any other initiative that will cause an unstable season structure or a dramatic change in the male harvest rate will make SAK less than useful. As I stated in my testimony, we can either have EAB or accurate population estimates but it appears we cant have both. One way to let SAK work is to get rid of EAB.

[Ron]

beavercreek wrote:

"The main problem is not having a believeable count on the deer poplulation. They are way off. Last year was bad. This year signs point to it being worse. "


That is one of the main reasons to get rid of EAB. It's effects on getting accurate population estimates make EAB a huge problem. The warning given by the SAK audit team told everybody that EAB will make SAK useless. We need accurate population estimates far more than we need EAB.

[Ron]

Jun 9, 2009 6:59:11 GMT -6 @hntswbow said:

Ron,
I just read your letter to the NRB concerning EAB Alternatives this morning. It is well written and we all appreciate your hard work.
Thanks,

Thanks for reminding me. I meant to post it here as well. Here it is.

To: Members of the Natural Resources Board

DNR Secretary Matt Frank

Rep. Ann Hraychuck and the Assembly committee on Natural Resources

Senator Jim Holperin and the committee on Natural Resources.

From: Ron Kulas, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association legislative liaison

Re: EAB alternative study committee

After reading the plan and scope of the EAB alternative committee, I have concerns that this group is destined to fail because the committee is being assembled to come up with another band-aid while ignoring the internal damage that is causing all the pain. It's clear that EAB is both a symptom and a cause for our pain and that any band-aid we come up with WILL NOT stop the bleeding and the proper diagnosis is once again being ignored. The problem is not EAB or any alternative method to drive down the deer herd. The problem lies with SAK and the proven negative effects on population modeling that EAB or any alternative will cause. This is the core issue with deer management in our state.

On April 15th, 2009, hunters went to Madison to tell lawmakers that they were unhappy with the deer management plan and by extension, they rejected EAB for driving the herd to levels that are not accepted by one half of the deer management team (the hunters). Hunters reject EAB because it brought the herd to levels that they do not agree with. The problem is not the EAB prescription. Hunters are most upset with the over winter population goal that the Dept. is mandated to manage too and the fact that EAB was viewed as a solution to something that hunters do not agree is even a problem. They are also angry with the errors in population estimates, which are partially a result of EAB.

Hunters will also reject anything the EAB alternative committee prescribes since it will be viewed as making matters worse by reducing the herd size to a level that hunters object to. In 10 of the last 14 years (including last year) DNR estimated that the over winter, deer population was over 1 million animals. Hunters do not view an over winter population of 1 million as too high a number and yet the goal they are being mandated to reach is roughly 740,000. That is a goal that hunters disagree with and will not support. As such, any management prescription used to arrive at that number would be rejected.

During the DMU population goal meetings held around the state, the hunting public was asked to attend and provide input on deer population goals. People attended under the assumption that their views would matter. An online survey was also made available to allow the Dept. to capture even more public opinion. Over 7,000 online responses told the DNR what the public thinks about the deer population.

Question 7 asked how respondents feel about having deer on and around the land you own?

Response: Of those that registered an opinion, 86% stated that " Deer have aesthetic value, I enjoy having them around"

Question 8 asked if they actively manage the habitat on your land to intentionally attract deer?

Response: 73% do so

Question 9 asked if they own land for the purpose of deer hunting.

Response: 88% said that it was either the primary or secondary reason they own land in WI.

Question 20 asked them to rate their Wisconsin deer hunting experiences during 2008?

Response: 75% said it was poor or fair. Only 5% listed it as excellent of perfect.

Question 24 asked how the deer population compared to 5 years ago.

Response: 90% of those who registered an opinion said that there were fewer deer.

Question 25 asked their opinion about the need to reduce or increase deer numbers from their current levels?

Response: 80% of those who registered an opinion stated that they want an increase in the population of 10% or more.

Aside from the DMU Survey, this same issue was run thru the Conservation Congress spring hearing process where a modest increase in the over winter population was sought. The question was asked in 19 counties and the statewide result showed 81% of the voters are in favor of an increase in over winter population goals.

An EAB alternative question was also asked at the spring hearing and was rejected by 83% of voters and failed in 71 of 72 counties. At that same hearing, voters were asked about eliminating EAB. 81% voters passed that measure in all 72 counties. Based on the DMU survey and the Conservation Congress spring hearing, A super majority made it clear, EAB or any other herd reduction method will not be accepted by hunters because it runs counter to hunters goals/values. As such, any alternative method to reduce the deer herd will be summarily rejected and opposed. I expect that the Conservation Congress representative on this committee will inform the other committee members of the spring hearing output and be the voice of sportsmen who participated in the spring hearing process where it was made clear that EAB and alternatives are counter to the wishes of the people who look to the congress to carry their message on these sorts of committees.

Thus far, the NRB appears to be ignoring the Conservation Congress and the concerns of the sportsmen and women of WI. Hunters like deer, they manage their lands to attract and hold more deer on lands they own for the purpose of deer hunting. They believe that the land can support more deer than current over winter goals allow for and it’s these same hunters that pay others for crop damage caused by deer. They disagree with plans to further reduce the deer herd and in fact, want the herd to increase. Until this is addressed, the very people paying for and being asked to carry out that management plan will reject any management prescriptions with a goal of reducing the deer herd further.

On April 21, Rep. Hraychuck and Senator Holperin sent a set of recommendations to Secretary Frank to be delivered to the NRB. With the exception of the suspension of EAB, those recommendations have been ignored by the NRB. The formation of an EAB alternative committee does not address the heart of the issue. An alternative to EAB is not needed as much as an alternative or improvements to population modeling or a change in goals/values by one or both parties involved in population control. Until this is corrected, there will forever be an adversarial relationship between NRB/DNR and the hunters who are tasked with carrying out management prescriptions. This will lead hunters to seek out ways to correct what they view as mismanagement. A good example of this is the recent legislative hearings and the formation of new deer hunter groups. This very issue is mentioned in a new report by UW’s Robert Holsman who states:

" In the case of managing the deer herd, a loss of credibility enhances the possibility for deer management to reach a disruptive stage where hunters appeal to the state legislature to take "corrective" action. The formation of new grassroots hunter organizations and the scheduling of legislative hearings about deer management this spring are symptoms of low agency credibility. They also signal that deer management is moving toward a disruptive stage. "

Clearly, we have reached the "disruptive stage" and finding an alternative to EAB will not correct or improve this situation. Any method(s) that lead to a further reduction to the deer herd will result in an increase of hunters and hunter groups seeking legislative action to correct the situation since hunters now view the legislature as the only body that is listening to and addressing their concerns. When the EAB alternative committee was formed, a letter was sent to the list of groups invited to participate in the EAB alternative committee. The letter included this line:

"Without the support of both hunters and landowners, deer management cannot be successful."

While that line states the obvious, at the same time, it ignores it. Hunters will not support this committee if the end result is anything that has negative effects population estimates (i.e. EAB) and seeks to further reduce the deer herd to levels they disagree with. Also, they will NOT support the work of this group because of the make-up of the committee and because certain deer hunting groups have been left out. An alternative to EAB is not a science issue, this is a social issue and a hunter methods issue which means the committee needs to be made up of hunters and hunting groups. For some unknown reason, the current committee's size has been limited and is made up partially of non- hunting interests. While these non-hunting interests are important, if this group is to be of limited size, certain deer hunting groups will be unable to participate. I fail to see the need to limit the committee size and omit groups that are key stakeholders on this issue. It is imperative that additional deer hunting groups are added. In order to get broad hunter support and input, this committee should also include a representative from the following 8 groups:

Wisconsin Hunters United (WHU)
Hunter’s Alliance for Regulatory Communications (HARC)
Wisconsin Traditional Archers (WTA)
Wisconsin Muzzleloaders Assoc.
Wisconsin Deer hunters Inc.
WI SCI chapters,
Andy Pantzlaff (Organizer of the un-named land closure group in Eastern WI) Wisconsin Outfitters Association

These groups, through their members will determine whether or not the work of the EAB alternative committee is to be accepted. These are the groups that will be asked to carry out whatever prescription this committee comes up with. To exclude them makes little sense. I will be representing WBH on this committee with the understanding that the outcome of this committee must be supported and carried out by the 650,000 firearm and 250,000 bowhunters of the state. It is my hope that this group will begin the discussion of the core issues of deer population and management and what can be done to correct them.

Finally, I leave you with this paragraph from the SAK audit report and a reminder that it will not matter what name an EAB alternative is given:

“The SAK model appears to be very sensitive to sudden changes in the male harvest rate. We noted wide changes in SAK estimates compared with simulated known populations as a result of changing male harvest rates. Perhaps most troubling is that the SAK estimates are opposite the true population trend when changes in the male harvest rate are introduced. Given these findings, any change in regulations that alters the male harvest rate (e.g., earn-a-buck) could bias population estimates.”

Ron Kulas
WBH Legislative Liaison
WBH District 10 Director

cc:

Keith Warnke
Conservation Congress
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Wisconsin Hunters United
Hunter’s Alliance for Regulatory Communications
Wisconsin Traditional Archers
Wisconsin Muzzleloaders Assoc.
Wisconsin Deer Hunters Inc.
WI SCI chapters
Wisconsin Outfitters Associaiton
Andy Pantzlaff
Dean Bortz

[Ron]

In an effort to keep WBH members updated at to the EAB alternative committee work, I post this letter I sent to all the members of the EAB alternative committee.

Dear members of the EAB alternative committee,

I’m compelled to share my concerns over what transpired at our final meeting. In our haste to meet a deadline, we left off an important step in the design process. That step is the evaluation stage and is what Bill VanderZouwen tried on more than one occasion to get us to stop and consider. We did not take the time to effectively judge our work against our charter with anything but a gut feeling as we went around the room. The brainstorming exercise we undertook on Saturday was a good one but without a critical evaluation of the outcome, we left our work incomplete. At the end of the day we were asked to pledge support for the work of the group without stopping to consider the product, effectiveness or consequences of what we had just done. That was a mistake for expedience sake and it's something I very much regret.

I mentioned to Bill that we seemed to place more emphasis on a deadline than the product we were charged with developing and I wonder if the NRB will be more impressed with our meeting that deadline or the product? In no way am I casting blame or fault with or committee chair or facilitator since they, more than the rest of us were keepers of the clock to meet the NRB deadline that was placed upon them. They both did an outstanding job of guiding us through this journey with a timeline that was beyond their control.

Even though we did not take the time to do an analysis of the effectiveness of our work, we can be sure the NRB, DNR, Legislature and public will go through this important step while rating our output. It is rare that "we meet our deadline" is one of the selling points of a new product roll-out and I see our work as a new product that we are going to have to sell to the "consumers" I listed above and I have serious concerns about our new product.

I made a timeline of the season structure package in comparison to the current season structure. (see attachment) I did it for both regular and herd control units but it's the herd control units that are the focus of our charge since we are tasked with reducing deer populations in areas that are grossly over goal. I did not factor in the incentives since they stand-alone and can be applied to any season structure package. Next I looked at the key aspect of our charter. We were charged with coming up with an “effective alternative” to EAB. Part of the evaluation process is standing back and looking at what was created and asking if it meets the intended goal and in this case, we had some pretty strong medicine to compare our work to. To do this, I looked at:

1. The total number of days of gun hunting as compared to the current EAB system.

2. The total number of days of Bowhunting as compared to the current EAB system.

3. The total number of days of antlerless only gun hunting as compared to the current EAB system.

4. The total number of days of antlerless only Bowhunting as compared to the current EAB system.

Here is the breakdown.

The current 2009 season structure has 29 days afield of gun hunting in herd control units The committee’s season structure has 35 days afield of gun hunting in herd control units (a net gain of 6 days)

The current 2009 season structure has 105 days afield of Bowhunting in both regular and herd control units

The committee’s season structure also has 105 days afield of Bowhunting in both regular and herd control units (a net gain of zero days)

The current 2009 season structure has 8 days afield of antlerless only gun hunting in herd control units

The committee’s season structure has 9 days afield of antlerless only gun hunting in herd control units (a net gain of one day)

The current 2009 season structure has 8 days of antlerless only Bowhunting in herd control units

The committee’s season structure has 9 days of antlerless only Bowhunting in herd control units (net gain of 1 day). This means:

1. We have added a total of 6 days of either sex gun hunting over what we have now with EAB.

2. We have added a total of 1 day of optional, antlerless only gun hunting over what we have now with EAB.

3. We have added a total of 1 day of optional, antlerless only Bowhunting over what we have now with EAB.

The 6 new days of either sex gun hunting created in our package still allows for the harvest of antlerless deer and we did add 1 day to the Oct. T-zone hunt but since neither the Oct. or Dec. herd control hunts are mandatory, the end result is that we have added a total of 7 days afield of voluntary (optional) antlerless gun deer harvest opportunity and 1 additional day of voluntary (optional) antlerless bow deer harvest that will do little to meet our charge. I can't help but think this falls far short of a season package that is an effective alternative to EAB. At the same time, we now have some unintended consequences to deal with.

We added 7 days of additional gun buck hunting which we all know is neither voluntary nor optional since that is the main hunter incentive in the first place and we did it by moving the gun season closer to the peak rutting activity. With this new package, hunters will almost certainly harvest more bucks (the reason they are out there to begin with) but because many feel the herd is too small and needs to rebound, may very well reject the optional antlerless harvest opportunity all together and this will almost certainly be most noticed on private lands which is what we tried to focus on in the first place. Essentially we have created a buck harvest boom but an antlerless harvest bust. Here is another unintended consequence of our work.

We made the early opener statewide because some thought that was a way to harvest more antlerless deer but after looking deeper, I question if it will actually accomplish our goal. More importantly, because it is a statewide package, we neglected to address the over harvest issues in the North. Much of the North is already at or below goal but because we made the early opener a statewide measure, we will see an increased buck harvest in an area that is sensitive to any measure that would reduce the population further. I think that was a mistake. I understand that most of the Northern units have an antlerless quota and that antlerless tag sales exceed the quota by 3 or 4 times because hunter efficiency is not 100%. If an early opener is thought to harvest more antlerless deer, we will need time to discuss some form of antlerless over-harvest protection in areas that are at or near goal but even this will not address the over-harvest of bucks in those same sensitive areas. I also have strong reservations about the effects on population model accuracy as a result of what will certainly be an increase in the male harvest rate as a result of an opener that covers more of the rutting period. This package will also cause an early end to the breeding season and remove a larger than normal number of breeding bucks that will not be available for the 2nd estrus cycle meaning some antlerless deer in the North may go un-breed, further compounding efforts to allow below goal populations to rebound. It's these unintended consequences that are part of the evaluation process and the risk retirement process that we did not have time for. Our customers however will take the time to do such an evaluation.

A review of the Oct. herd control (formerly T-zone) hunt tells me that since many hunters are of the opinion that the herd is already too small coupled with the fact that there is no longer a need to harvest a doe to pre-qualify for EAB and hunters will now have 16 days of gun hunting in which to take a collateral antlerless deer, that the effectiveness of the Oct. T-zone hunt will prove to be very low and that only a very small number will even bother to participate in such a hunt. While it wasn't our charter, I think each of us would agree that our work has created a package that will almost certainly harvest more bucks but may not at all be effective in reducing antlerless populations in areas needing antlerless reduction while at the same time having negative effects on deer populations North of Hwy 64. I can’t support a product with these negative unintended consequences.

The second part of our charter states that our alternative is to be acceptable to hunters. I think moving the start date away from the traditional opener will not be acceptable to the majority of gun hunters and will be outright rejected by the State’s 2nd largest deer harvesting group, that being the State’s 250,000 Bowhunters. I did this same review for the #2 season package and aside from adding 40 days to the bow season and extending the muzzleloader season, I feel the effectiveness of that package will also fall short of our goal. I urge the committee to step back and evaluate what it is we did and for each of you to ask yourself if we meet our mission, which was to come up with effective deer population control methods to replace EAB that will be accepted by hunters and landowners.

Finally, I don’t think our work is complete without more time spent addressing committee member concerns and without an evaluation, validation, risk assessment as well as the potential for over harvest and other unintended consequences that we have over looked due to the short time we were given. While we have not finished this important part of the process, it certainly was not for lack of effort. We have made a great start and I support the committee’s desire to produce a quality product but see it as a work in progress rather than a finished product. I think it is important that this point be made clear to the NRB.

Ron Kulas

[Ron]

Aug 7, 2009 3:21:01 GMT -6 @serbianshark said:

"and we did it by moving the gun season closer to the peak rutting activity."


Ron, please explain this...where and when did you guys move gun season to?

Please don't say "You guys" I objected to such a move. In fact, that was a split vote of 6-4 (ten voters) Those that voted in favor of this measure voted for a gun opener that is one week earlier than we currently enjoy. This will not be supported by the public and I suspect will be changed by the time a final package comes about in 2010.

That vote ignores one half of our charter which states that EAB alternatives are to be accepted by hunters.

[Ron]

Each member of the EAB alternative committee was given the opportunity to provide a final perspective of our task and goal. Below is the summary I wrote for final report that goes to the NRB today. The full report will view publicly available soon.

Members of this committee were charged with finding effective alternatives to Earn-A-Buck that would be acceptable to hunters and landowners. Finding an effective alternative to EAB cannot be accomplished without a better understanding of what EAB means too many hunters. This is important since it is hunters objections to EAB that led to its demise and the creation of this committee. EAB forces hunters to do something they fiercely object too, the mandated killing of deer they hold in high regard when they do not see the need to "Overkill" local deer populations. it was not the EAB tool that hunter's objected to. The EAB tool just became the logical villain. What deer hunters most object to are what they perceive as the negative effects of EAB. Hunters believe that EAB had adverse effects on the Department’s ability to accurately estimate deer populations. This lead to increased hunter frustration and distrust in agency estimates. The public would be justified in such an assessment because that is the same warning given by the SAK audit of 2006. An additional complaint is that EAB brings the herd to over winter goals that deer hunters do not support. Hunters also felt EAB was over used or was abused by the Dept. Knowing the reasons hunters object to EAB is an important step in the process of developing EAB alternatives which are to be both effective and acceptable. Based on hunters concerns, finding an effective alternative that is done on a voluntary basis is an untenable task.

Committee members understand that game mangers have an obligation to bring the herd to goal. We also understand that hunters (especially those that own land) also have management goals and their goals and values are equally important. Recent surveys have shown that most hunters do not share the same goals or values as game mangers meaning one half of the deer management team is seeking ways to reduce the herd while the other half is actively taking steps to promote and encourage population growth. This long standing disagreement over what is an acceptable number of deer on the landscape makes voluntary herd reduction especially challenging because when hunters see deer populations drop to levels they neither support nor accept, they will stop harvesting deer. At the same time, they are being told that they are in an overpopulation condition. When this standoff reached its peak, hunters stated that they would close their lands to hunting until populations rebound to levels they find acceptable. This situation is further aggravated by hunters concerns with the growing numbers of wolves, bear, coyote and other predators leading them to believe that population goals need to be increased to counter the effects of predators on the deer herd.

To the detriment of this committee's efforts, we were not allowed to address the issues I have laid out thus far. Population models/estimates and their credibility, as well as over winter goals, predation, baiting and CWD were off limits in our deliberations. Our incredibly short time frame and narrow focus did not allow the committee enough time nor breadth to address these key issues which are the real source of frustrations for both hunters and game mangers. We were allowed only discussion of methods and incentives to get hunters to harvest more deer. That is goal I feel we could not reach under the constraints placed on the committee but it was certainly not due to a lack of effort on the part of committee members who were all dedicated to this cause.

In spite of the limits of time and topic during actual meetings, some members took it upon themselves to evaluate and investigate reasons for hunter dissatisfaction in an effort to help them come up with ideas for alternatives. During my own examinations I found that hunter concerns about predation were generally localized to hunters in Northern regions indicating a need for DMU specific recommendations rather than statewide management prescriptions, while population estimates and goals were of statewide concern to hunters which I have already addressed. Lastly was a review of baiting. I felt this topic deserved further consideration to see if there was a correlation between baiting and EAB usage to address the question: "Is baiting causing the need for EAB?" 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, 07 and 08 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 to 28 meaning 39% of the state does not allow baiting. This statistic indicates that baiting is not a statewide issue.

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 and EAB usage, despite suggestions that hunter acceptance of a statewide baiting ban would lead to a reduction or elimination of the EAB management tool.

After evaluating the issues, it appears evident that the root cause of hunter's dissatisfaction lies with them not seeing and harvesting deer simply because there are fewer deer available to see and harvest. This is compounded by the frustrations of being mandated to harvest more deer and being told there are too any deer. Hunters will find little acceptance in measures this committee recommends if those measures further reduce local deer herds to what they view as "unacceptable" levels. Getting hunters to accept voluntary methods to kill more deer to reach a population goal they do not support is what led hunters to seek legislative intervention and the creation of this committee. This also led to land closures as hunters felt that was their only recourse. If this committee recommends management prescriptions that have the same effects as EAB, our efforts will have been in vain which is why I feel this committee was set on an implausible mission from the start. Despite the fact that individual members took it upon themselves to address the root causes for hunter dissatisfaction, limitations prevented them from discussing their finding which left this committee to engage in little more than a brief brainstorming effort lacking in any detailed evaluation or analysis of the recommendations made.

In the end, a primary season package was developed by the committee and agreed upon by the slimmest majority. Unfortunately, doubts arise that hunters will accept such a package, both from herd reduction standpoint and because it suggests moving the date of the gun season opener from the traditional date. That alone may doom this package from a hunter acceptance standpoint. Concerns also arise due to the committee’s stance to support a package aimed at herd reduction on a statewide level rather than a plan that focuses efforts on only those areas needing reduction. If this committee is to suggest alternatives to a management prescription that was used at the DMU level, the suggested alternatives should also be unit specific. With many areas of the State (especially North of Hwy 64) at or below goal, hunters will question the decision to levy such a burden on them but our time frame did not allow any discussion addressing safeguards against over harvest as a result of making recommendations on a statewide. The committee did however formulate incentives that may be useful. Providing opportunity for hunters to harvest deer in areas where their observations indicate high deer numbers should certainly be encouraged. Providing incentives for those harvests would also boost support.

Addressing and working to rectify the considerable differences in the goals and values of hunters and game mangers is where efforts should be focused, if for no other reason than to get the two parties communicating the reasons for the positions that hold and to attempt to bridge the divide that currently exists. If resources are not already being directed to such a cause, they should be or the adversarial relationship between the parties involved will forever exist. Many hunters view the current situation as more of a master and servant relationship rather than a game management team working together towards a common objective. Until this is addressed, I have serious doubts that inserting these new management prescriptions or incentives will be beneficial since they do little to address the impasse that currently exists. This issue has little to do with science and biology and more to do with the human dynamics of game management. This is more about managing hunters than managing deer herds. Until hunters and game managers reach agreement (or at least understanding) on goals and population estimates, management will forever stall and we will see increases in legislative involvement, land closures and hunters opting out all together due to frustration.

Since we were tasked with making recommendations, I will leave readers of our report with this. Take the time to read the report called "Deer managers and deer hunters in Wisconsin: Irreconcilable differences?” by Dr. Robert Holsman, Associate Professor of Wildlife College of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. It was added to the list of reading material for this committee and can be found at:

www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Wildlife/faculty/Holsman/webpage.aspx#research

I'd like to thank many of the members of this committee that were able to put forth an honest effort and separate themselves from personal agendas in order to deliver the message of the organizations they represented and for their efforts and commitment to our task. Thanks also to our chair and facilitator for their hard work and long hours as well as the members of the public who attended meetings and participated in the online survey.

[Ron]

The report is now available to the public.

dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2009/August/08-09-6A.pdf