Home › Forums › Campfire Forum › Wisconsin deer politics
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
Bad news for WS hunters. This is what happens when we vote people into office without examining their records and stance on wildlife issues. Here is your TRUE anti-hunter.
http://wcmcoop.com/members/walker-to-deer-hunters-pay-up-or-get-lost/
-
HOLY CRAP!!! How in the hell did people like that get the vote! I hope the good people of Wisconsin make their feelings known about these lack-witted proposals before its too late. I mean where does a person get off calling the freedom to hunt on public land “the last bastion of communism”! Yeeesh!!!
-
Now I have heard it all –to echo Wildschwein – public lands a form of Communism! wow –
The older I get the less I like any politician [ irregardless of party] I am afraid I end up voting for the ” lesser evil” any more.
I feel for wisconsinites, and the rest of us better stay on guard!
Scout
-
Why are people surprised when they voted him that he would act like this. While they argue it is a form of communism they are just really hiding their point of view in that they want their form of totalitarianism, which is bow to the corporate paymaster and enjoy the crumbs he throws at you.
-
There’s nothing like a little hysterical op/ed piece dressed up as journalism to get people thinking the sky is falling. Can someone point me to anything in that blog remotely resembling a proposal, piece of legislation, or even a quote from Walker himself? There’s still a legislative process in place when it comes to changes to hunting regulations (there’s a Constitution for that). Kroll’s position is advisory, not dictatorial; he doesn’t make the rules with the stroke of his pen.
Without voicing an opinion one way of the other (I generally avoid online political discussions like the plague), suffice it to say that Walker’s stance against teachers’ unions has made him Public Enemy Number One with his political rivals in Wisconsin for some time now (this author is a very public leader of the nearly-defunct “Recall Walker” movement). So until she learns how to use facts instead of her overactive imagination to support an argument, I’ll chalk this up as nothing more than the partisan paranoia it really is
-
Pheew, glad to hear things may not/will not turn out as that article suggests. I’ll admit my knowledge of my Southern neighbors isn’t what it should be, but even I knew of the strong Deer hunting tradition in Wisconsin. And the thought of those ideals and traditions bowing beneath the almighty dollar was enough to make me gag.
But it does seem worrying that Mr. Kroll has even been given an advisory position, considering his views on the current wildlife management programs and public access.
-
My oh my. Sounds like we need some facts. Can someone with boots on the ground in Wisconsin provide some input? Don
-
J.Wesbrock wrote: …(this author is a very public leader of the nearly-defunct “Recall Walker” movement)…
Last I heard, the recall was successful and Walker will be back on the Ballot this year. If he loses he will be only the second Governor in US history to be recalled. I wouldn’t call that defunct. I’d call that successful.
-
Steve,
The recall election isn’t until June 5th. From my understanding, the DNC has given up and pulled financial support from the effort. Only if Walker loses on June 5th, will he then have been recalled. Since I don’t live in WI, I don’t take a position on the recall election (although being a NR landowner, I do involve myself in hunting regulation matters). Our neighbors to the south of our WI property are diehard, active Democrats and aren’t close to optimistic about the recall effort. But one thing is for sure, it seems about one in ten cars I see on the highway with WI plates has a bumper sticker saying either “I stand with Walker” or “Recall Walker.” It’s probably the number one political issue in WI right now.
So like I said earlier, that blog post (I wouldn’t dare call it an article) Dave posted is about one thing and one thing only: the Recall Walker movement.
-
I really know nothing about WI politics. But I do know that if there is any truth to this, it certainly wouldn’t be an isolated incident. And I do know that between recent huge cuts in the budgets of most state and federal land/game/fish management agencies, and seemingly continuous attempts at privatizing many public resources of late, I wouldn’t dismiss any of it lightly.
The price of our public lands legacy is eternal vigilance.
-
Rather than get bogged down in state politics, I’d suggest taking a step back and looking at the big picture. As I believe I’ve pointed out here before, I’ve been fielding an ever increasing amount of hate mail labeling many of the principles we depend upon “socialism,” often with specific regard to something we’ve run in the magazine. Targets include public land, public hunting, and the North American Model. Many of these read as if they came out of the same copying machine. The fact is that many powerful interests see big $$$ to be made from the privatization of public resources, and they are using current anti-government sentiment to advance their cause. I would suggest that we all remain vigilant against these attempts by a few to profit from the destruction of hundreds of years of American tradition. Don
-
Don,
I couldn’t agree more. Ironically enough, this was reported just last week — excellent news for hunters in Wisconsin.
MADISON — The Department of Natural Resources says its agreement to buy 100 square miles of forest in northern Wisconsin would be the state’s largest land conservation purchase.
The DNR has a tentative agreement to spend about $17 million on land in four counties owned by Lyme Timber Co. of Hanover, N.H. The purchase protects the property from future development. The approximate 67,000 acres are located primarily in Douglas and Washburn counties, with smaller parcels in Bayfield and Burnett counties.
The Journal Sentinel says the land transaction would be done in two phases. First, the Natural Resources Board next week will review the purchase of nearly 45,000 easement acres for $11 million. The second phase involves the rest of the land for $6 million with a proposed purchase in 2014.
http://host.madison.com/article_b0b50a66-a014-11e1-83f4-001a4bcf887a.html
-
From the proverbial horse’s mouth.
WHERE I STAND! DR. JAMES C. KROLL, WISCONSIN WHITE-TAILED DEER TRUSTEE
I always have made it my policy not to become involved in political issues; politics often is a dirty game and I have no taste for the rules. My propensity, however, to come to the aid of the underdog has, on occasion put me in a position demanding participation. The white-tailed deer is my life, second only to my family and my God! I owe a great deal to whitetails; and my 40 years of work with these wonderful animals and the great men and women who hunt them, and invest money and sweat in preserving them has been a blessing. My father taught me three rules of life—know your convictions, stand strongly on them and always speak your mind and the truth. These simple rules got him through the 74 years of his life and they have served me well over the last 65 years. He was my hero, coming home from the Pacific theater all shot up and with very little interest in hunting anything. I had to learn to hunt on my own and thankfully under the kind eyes of two mentors, my Uncle Spencer (“Butch”) and a high school biology teacher, Mr. Victor Rippy. My family on both sides were small farmers, often harvesting game for the table rather than sport. I tell you this to make clear my feelings about animals and about people of the land.
Recently, I have heard about things being said in blogs, presumably to aid in successfully removing Governor Walker. Since I am not politically motivated, did not vote for Governor Walker, will not be able to in the up-coming election, and am neither a Democrat nor Republican, I am concerned and saddened by things being said about me and my positions and values related to white-tailed deer. Although there is no way to combat anonymous postings on Internet blogs about me, I can speak in a straightforward manner about my positions and will continue to do so. Wisconsin is a marvelous place with some of the most beautiful places and friendly people I ever have experienced. I have enjoyed my time with the hunters and landowners of this fine state. It was the highest honor of my career to be asked to be the “Deer Trustee,” and I have said so many times. I take this responsibility seriously and view it as an opportunity to end my career by giving something back to the animal and the recreational pursuit that has shaped my life.
My career has been full of experiences, involving a diversity of people, places and activities. I made the decision early on NOT to be a typical college professor; instead of the ivory tower existence of publish or perish, I opted for working with people in almost every state and province from Mexico to Canada. It has been my joy to hunt whitetails in every habitat and with every legal weapon. I have hunted on public land and on private land. My passion has been to hunt public Crown land in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the climate is brutal, the hunting is very difficult and the deer are the most challenging. At the same time, I have worked with both small and large landowners to make their lands better for deer, rather than converting their properties to pastures or shopping malls. As a consequence, it has been amusing and frankly frustrating to read or hear someone pronounce me as favoring one group or interest over another; and especially disconcerting to be portrayed as being motivated by material rewards.
Although my deepest feelings are my own, I think this is the time to firmly and completely express what my values and philosophies are. First and foremost, every decision I make regarding deer is based on the answers to three basic questions: 1. Is this good for deer? 2. Is this good for the recreational activity of deer hunting? and 3. Does this save undeveloped land and the rural lifestyle? If the answer is no to any, I turn and walk away. Since I grew up in rural central Texas, I fully understand what being poor is! Hunting was more than recreation, it was a way of life. I am committed to the idea, in order for hunting/fishing to prevail, we have to develop ways to provide outdoor opportunities for all citizens. Public lands should be more than just space where hunters can spend time, they should be managed for quality experiences, especially by young boys and girls who may have grown up like me. Public lands often are the places where Native American hunters have to seek the plants and animals to which they have every right, by law and by what is fair. But providing public hunting and recreational opportunities is a challenge in today’s world, and will have to involve partnerships between agencies, landowners and hunters. That is why I asked Drs. David Guynn and Gary Alt to assist in this great venture; a capstone for our careers. They represent not only the breadth of experiences needed to assure we truly do develop a 21st Century model for deer management and hunting, beginning in Wisconsin, but also the integrity and moral character so common to sportsmen and women—a model in which there is a place for everyone wanting to enjoy our passion and lifestyle. There is no place in this model for pitting hunters against each other or hunters against landowners! There only is a place for a brotherhood and sisterhood of outdoors people who truly love the land and our deer.
Our report and recommendations will stand on the side of the public (hunters, landowners, and other stakeholders), offering a bottom-up approach to wildlife management; one in which individual hunters and landowners have a say in how resources are managed. Our recommendations will be delivered in June to the Governor’s office and will focus on this high ideal; one I never will back away from. My Dad would not be happy if I did.
One of the most egregious postings was on a self-proclaimed “liberal” blog. Until now, I never have read either a liberal or a conservative blog; no time for that nonsense. However, I was sent this posting and upset by the lies presented in it! Is this what has led to the contentious times we live in today? The “author” of the blog distorts the truth beyond belief. As a child, we played the game “gossip,” in which we got in a circle, whispered something in a friend’s ear, then repeated the message on around the circle. By the time the message got back to its source, it did not resemble the original. The blog report is a distorted misrepresentation of a distorted misrepresentation of a conversation more than ten years ago! In other words, it is a poor game of “adult” gossip. The blogger rails on about me hating public lands, hating public land hunters, and most egregiously being disdainful of hunters! All this is “based” on an article published at least 10 years ago by a liberal-leaning state magazine on the controversies between our state agency and private landowners wanting to manage deer. I spent about a day showing the reporter what was involved in deer management and during the tour discussed many issues.
The discussions were just between the two of us and many things were discussed. That was 10 years ago and obviously I cannot remember everything discussed, but I certainly can remember the material related to these accusations. When the article came out I was shocked by the things he attributed to me as saying. Among these were that I had a “200 acre spread,” was one of a handful of “deer breeders” who artificially inseminated deer, national parks were just “wildlife ghettos,” and some individuals in organizations are “cocktail conservationists.” Now, let’s examine the real content of the conversations I had on that day, and the opinions I hold to this day.
First of all my “200 acre spread” serves as our scientific research area, and is not some high dollar hunting ranch. In fact, my school teacher wife and I paid for the land over about 30 years, had some pretty tough times doing so, and have never made a profit on anything. It supports our research and extension work, has trained several graduate students, and hundreds of hunters and landowners come there each year to learn about the latest discoveries in deer and wildlife habitat management. The cost usually is their lunch. As to being a “deer breeder,” a significant part of our research focuses on antler genetics and we have published significant findings on the subject. The only deer that get sold from the facility are to fund our research. As to the part about national parks being wildlife ghettos, I discussed at length how the future of wildlife is not bright, with human population growth and fragmentation of land. I lamented international interests in protecting nature tend to think just setting aside some land as a park is going to solve the problem. It is not! The future of wildlife is to involve all interests, including private landowners in solutions to saving wild and undeveloped land. National parks and wilderness areas often are given over to agencies that lack the funds, expertise and interest in actively managing the land entrusted to them. My comment about “cocktail conservationists” was aimed at well-meaning, wealthy individuals who support establishing a park, kicking the native peoples off their land (or converting their lifestyle to agriculture in an arid land) and then go home thinking they have accomplished something great. In reality, these poor people, now divorced from their lands no longer have a reason to protect the wildlife on it. The much publicized poachers of the world are just poor people willing to risk their lives to feed their families.
The real solution to saving the undeveloped land, our rural and hunting lifestyle and the animals living there is to figure out ways to give all people (landowners, hunters, citizens) a proprietary interest in keeping wild places wild. That does not mean just landowners, it means people living on and around the land who do not own land, but depend on nature for a living; people such as Native Americans. The good example I used was what I saw in Africa, where in some countries people are given interest in the land and its wildlife and derive benefits from these lands. This does not have to mean hunting income, it can includes nature tourism, and other non-consumptive activities. I used the CAMPFIRE Program (Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources) in Zimbabwe as one such program. It is about keeping wildlife and rural communities in a state of coexistence. It began in 1982, when a rancher (Clive Stockil) came up with the idea that if indigenous people were allowed to use the benefits of wildlife, it would incentivize them to protect the land and game. Residents receive a percentage of meat and revenue from game, and wildlife prospered! The program grew to include non-consumptive recreational interviews. Yet, none of this got into the article! After all, it was a piece about mean old private landowners in Texas; and Wisconsin is NOT Texas.
The blog reports of what I said about “communism” is a distortion of my real feelings, as well. We discussed how the top-down approach to game management was the wrong approach (sound familiar in regard to Wisconsin?), and if you give people the incentives and support to manage game animals on private and public lands, as well as a say in how these resources are managed, it is a “win-win” for everyone. The unhappiness with the way whitetails have been managed in Wisconsin came the false idea government always knows best, especially when they have a computer program! The people (hunters, landowners and recreationists) on the land know what is happening there and desperately want to share what they know.
These are my heartfelt feelings about the future of wildlife and hunting; and, I do not apologize or retreat from any of them. Not only has this anonymous blog “toxic effluent” been misleading, it was troubling they could not even get my age straight: 65 rather than 55. I have been around and fought many battles for underdogs, so I can handle the criticism; even if it is distorted, but the one thing that upset me the most was the undertone of the writer demeaning hunters (red neck killers), which is strange since the goal obviously was to steal voters from the deer hunting community.
I cannot undo this slander, but I can be clear. If you read my words above carefully, you should understand where I stand. I STAND WITH THE SPORTSMEN/WOMEN OF WISCONSIN, I STAND WITH THE RURAL LIFESTYLE, I STAND WITH NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS, I STAND WITH HUNTING/FISHING RECREATION, AND I STAND WITH THE WHITE-TAILED DEER! Now, I hope that is clear.
-
I read it twice. All that being said, he didn’t say he supported public land or that he would object if Walker sold all the public land. Which seems to be the crutch of the issue.
And while he objected to being called a game farmer, he did say he raised deer and sold them (but only to support his research into big antlers). this runs contrary to what I understand as good stewardship, Aldo Leopold style.
I guess if I sell cocaine on the street (but only to support my research into making better drugs), that would be ok?
-
Steve Graf wrote: I read it twice. All that being said, he didn’t say he supported public land or that he would object if Walker sold all the public land. Which seems to be the crutch of the issue.
Did you also happen to read the previous piece where the state is in the process of buying 100 square miles of additional public land?
-
I did. I doubt Mr. Kroll had anything to do with that purchase, as it was probably on the books for a while. It was probably agreed to before Walker was elected. And it isn’t scheduled to be complete for 2 years. Plenty of time to back out…
I don’t really see the two things as related to each other in terms of Mr. Petersen’s initial article which seemed to imply that policy going forward would be to reduce public land. I couldn’t find anything in Mr. Kroll’s post that would contradict what was written in the original article.
But alas, I am not from Wisconsin and know little about it. Although I’ve hunted there a few times…
-
Steve,
I suppose this all comes down to whether folks choose to believe an accusation with no facts to support it and plenty to refute it. If that’s the case, no amount of rational discussion is likely to change their minds. The blog post (not an article) that Dave posted was devoid of any supporting facts and posted on a partisan web site whose sole function is to recall Scott Walker. Regardless, some chose to take it as gospel (there have been a few such “the sky is falling” discussions on other hunting sites). For the record, Scott Walker took office almost a year and a half ago. If he was intent on reducing public land, this deal would have died long ago. It didn’t; it’s going forward.
The internet is a wonderful tool for the sharing of information. Unfortunately, it’s also a breeding ground for the spreading of misinformation, as the blog post in question clearly demonstrates.
-
It will be interesting to see how it all turns out…
-
I found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I live in WI and frequently read this writer’s column. In general I find him very level headed.
Paul Smith | Outdoors Editor
Cries from left groundless on deer hunt review
May 26, 2012
EMAIL PRINT (53) COMMENTS
Deer hunting in Wisconsin occupies a special place.
Virtually all of us know about the nearly 700,000 deer hunters, their crucial role in managing the state’s deer herd and the $1 billion economic impact of deer hunting to Wisconsin.
And as many will tell you, deer hunting transcends ecology, culture and economy – it’s religion.
When you add politics to the equation, it tends to spin into a new orbit, ever further from science and reason.
That has happened in recent months.
When Gov. Scott Walker decided to hire an independent panel to review the state’s deer management program, he engaged in political calculus.
On the heels of several years of declining deer kills, there might be enough anti-DNR sentiment and dissatisfied hunters to make political hay out of deer management, he and his advisors concluded.
When Gov. Walker appointed James Kroll, a university professor from Texas who has cultivated the persona of “Dr. Deer” on television hunting shows but who is also called “Dr. Dough” for his many and varied commercial activities, the political risk increased.
As the recall election date nears, the anti-Walker forces have seized on a decade-old magazine article in which Kroll was quoted as saying “game management is the last bastion of communism.”
In recent days, bloggers have posted articles stating Gov. Walker intends to “privatize” deer hunting in Wisconsin.
I have been asked by a dozen readers over the last week why the public “isn’t being told the truth about the scheme” by Gov. Walker and Kroll to “charge people to hunt on public land.” Several have implied this newspaper is providing “cover” to such plans.
There is a point at which rumors become news.
To be clear, neither Gov. Walker, the governor’s spokesman nor Kroll has ever said he intends to “privatize” deer hunting in Wisconsin.
And it’s not the direction Kroll and his fellow reviewers – Gary Alt and David Guynn – appear to be going.
A primary recommendation will likely be for the state to embrace the Deer Management Assistance Program used in more than a dozen states to help landowners and hunters manage their properties.
I have interviewed Kroll four times since October and attended four stakeholder and public input meetings this year as part of the review of Wisconsin’s deer management system.
While he is a controversial figure among wildlife professionals for his extensive work in high fence deer management and captive deer breeding, at no point has Kroll advocated for privatizing deer hunting in Wisconsin.
He has stated several times “Wisconsin isn’t Texas.”
In a phone interview on Friday, Kroll maintained his comments in the 2002 Texas Monthly article were “distorted by a liberal publication.”
“I’m neither a Democrat or a Republican,” Kroll said. “The last thing I want is to make it harder for hunters to participate in the great sport of deer hunting in Wisconsin on public land.”
It should be acknowledged that Wisconsin has been undergoing a decades-long trend toward more private landowners with smaller parcels. The amount of land leased for hunting, and the price per acre commanded for good hunting land, has also increased.
Such changes make Wisconsin more like Europe, where the “haves” are more likely to hunt than the “have nots.”
None of which, however, is the result of the current deer review.
It must also be stated that while wildlife is a public resource, the DNR needs private landowners to cooperate with state biologists to help manage the deer herd.
There is ample room to criticize the white-tailed deer review process initiated by Gov. Walker. The reviewers held public input sessions after they issued their preliminary report, for example.
And it’s wise to be watchful for changes to the North American Model of Wildlife Management. But the statements flying around about deer privatization in Wisconsin are politically-motivated hyperbole.
The deer review should be judged by its results. A final report is due to be released in late June.
The Public Trust Doctrine underpins the success of fish and wildlife programs across America and deserves protection. Here’s hoping Wisconsinites of all political stripes continue their vigilance for the doctrine even after the election.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.