Breeding Behavior of Male and Female White-tailed Deer Relative to Age Class

Here is a great read from the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Although the breeding system of white-tailed deer is commonly described as a dominance-based hierarchy, recent studies have documented the breeding success of all age classes of bucks in white-tailed deer. It has been suggested that the breeding success of young bucks is the result of exclusively mating with young does, while older bucks concentrate their efforts on mature does, presumably because these does are more experienced and more likely to recruit one or more fawns. Additionally, older does may not tolerate mating attempts of younger bucks, preferring to mate with dominant bucks. The occurrence of multiple paternity in many white-tailed deer populations indicates that female choice may play an important role in determining the distribution of buck breeding success.

We are sampling litters of fawns and assigning paternity using a panel of genetic markers. Our preliminary results indicate that yearling bucks successfully mate with does of all ages. The mean age of female mates was 5.1, 4.8, and 5.0 for 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5+ year-old bucks, respectively. Additionally, we documented 2 incidents of multiple paternity involving yearling bucks.

The breeding success of young bucks may be restricted to the peak of the breeding season when the most does are in estrous and mature bucks cannot monopolize access to all does. The lack of an association between buck age and doe age is more evidence that overall male-to-male competition may not play an important role in gaining access to does. This ongoing research should provide further insights into breeding behavior and success of while-tailed deer.

Cooperative funding was provided by King Ranch, Inc., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, and the Quality Deer Management Association.

Source: http://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/Deer_Research/publications_and_Presentations/Current_Research_Abstracts/Breeding_Behavior_of_Male_and_Female_White.pdf

Jason A. Sumners, Randy W. DeYoung, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Stephen Demarais, Mickey W. Hellickson, Kenneth L. Gee, and Robert A. Gonzales

Felons Can Still Buy Wisconsin Hunting Licenses?

Here is an article posted by the Wausau Daily Herald that talks about how felons that are banned from possessing firearms still have the ability to buy hunting licenses.  Seems a little off to me, glad there are changes being made.

Felons might see hunting changes

Those banned from possessing firearms by Wisconsin law also could be banned from buying firearm hunting licenses.

Currently, those prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons, still can buy the licenses.

Rep. Jeff Smith, D-Eau Claire, is working on a bill that would make the change and create other types of licenses for those people. Deadline for co-sponsorship is 5 p.m. Friday, and Smith hopes to introduce the bill in the coming weeks.

During the 2009 nine-day gun deer season, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wardens arrested 29 felons in possession of firearms in the field.

"This is about safe gun hunting for everyone and making sure that people follow the law," Smith said.

He said current law sends a mixed message. The bill also creates archery for bear hunting, archery for turkey hunting and air gun or archery for small game licenses for those who can't buy a firearm license.

Combined licenses still will be available, and nothing changes for those who can hunt with firearms, Smith said.

Tom Van Haren, a conservation warden with the Bureau of Law Enforcement in Madison with the DNR, said there isn't a current prohibition because all licenses issued, with the exception of one, carry the option of using a bow and arrow.

"There's no reason for them to have that license, really," he said. "We support what this bill is attempting to accomplish."

Van Haren said a violation could net a penalty of more than $1,000 to more than $2,000, including court costs. Violators also would have all hunting privileges revoked for five years.

Portage County Sheriff John Charewicz said he doesn't recall the department finding someone illegally hunting with a firearm. He said the department does receive reports of convicted felons hunting with firearms, but reports are often unfounded or anonymous.

It is a problem because there are no checks to prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearm licensees, Charewicz said.

Source: Wausau Daily Herald
Article Link: http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20100126/WDH0101/1260636/1981/WDHsports/Felons-might-see-hunting-changes

Getting to Know the Whitetail Deer: When are Whitetail Fawns Typically Born?

Typically in November, female whitetail deer will go into heat. During the “rut” phase or breading season, male “buck” whitetail deer will go through the mating process. Gestation periods for female whitetail deer lasts 200 days, which results in fawn births to happen during late May to early June. Female whitetail that don’t become impregnated during the early phases of the November “rut” period will go into heat again in December or a month later. This results in another potential wave of fawn births to be in later June early July.

Flip-flopping Doyle on Major DNR Issue

Here is an interesting article from the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune about how Governer James Doyle quickly changed his position as soon as he removed himself from the re-election running.  Some would say that this isnt a surprise.

MADISON -- Question: When can an elected official ignore his constituency at no risk to his political career?

Answer: When he no longer is a candidate.

Thus, Gov. James Doyle -- a lame duck in political parlance -- has vetoed Assembly Bill 138, which removes authority to appoint the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources from the governor's office and returns it to the Natural Resources Board.

Doyle announced this past summer that he would not seek re-election, then proceeded to veto the bill, irritating supporters of the legislation who have fought for years to take DNR leadership and decision-making out of the political arena.

"This is a bill that has been sought by hunters, anglers, trappers and others interested in the outdoors for the last 14 years," wrote George Meyer, head of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, an umbrella group encompassing more than 120 outdoor-related citizen organizations throughout the state.

Even more frustrating to the bill's proponents is that Doyle switched sides on the issue, even using his early support for restoring Natural Resources' Board control to his political advantage.

"Remind the governor that he fought to change to a governor's appointed secretary in 1995 when he was attorney general," Meyer urged his constituency in an e-mail.

"Also remind him that when he ran for governor in 2002 and 2006, he ran for office indicating he wanted the Natural Resources Board to appoint the DNR secretary."

Meyer pointed out that 85 percent to 90 percent of those voting at the state's annual fish and game spring hearings favored Natural Resources Board control of the secretary position.

"The governor has repeatedly appeared before the Conservation Congress and many other groups indicating that he would sign the bill," Meyer added.

So why has Doyle backtracked?

Apparently the view from the governor's chair does not provide the same perspective as a seat outside that arc of power.

Doyle has said the DNR is better off under gubernatorial control and that returning the secretary a Natural Resources Board position "harms a strong environmental agenda."

Proponents of the bill contend that when DNR's key administrator serves at the discretion of the governor, that official is subject to being swayed by initiatives likely to keep the governor in office.

It's no secret that DNR personnel feel less secure commenting on fish and wildlife issues than they did in the past. Agency personnel worry about offending key legislators, causing the governor to lose political capital.

Prior to gubernatorial control, it was common for the DNR secretary to take the lead role in addressing legislative initiatives affecting the agency or the hunting and fishing public. Rarely is the secretary heard these days.

Before the position became a gubernatorial appointee, the DNR secretary typically had a strong background in the natural resource field.

Since becoming governor, Doyle has appointed two DNR secretaries with little training in natural resources. His first selection was from the publishing industry and the current choice was an administrator in the criminal justice system.

Now we have a huge brouhaha over the DNR's deer management policies, which resulted in a 2009 gun deer season buck kill that is the lowest in nearly 30 years.

Deer hunters are upset. Should some of their ire be directed at the governor? After all ... he's been in charge of the agency for the past eight years.

Author: By Jim Lee • Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers • January 17, 2010
Source: http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20100117/WRT0204/1170447/1835/WRT02

New Hunting Gear for 2010

Below are some releases from various companies on upcoming hunting gear for 2010


Gore Develops New GORE™ OPTIFADE™ Concealment Pattern for Hunting Whitetail Deer

W. L. Gore & Associates announced that it has developed a new GORE™ OPTIFADE™ Concealment pattern specifically designed for tree stand hunting in wooded environments. Like the Big Game/Open Country pattern, the new Big Game/Forest pattern is based on how deer see, both spatially and colorimetrically. A new line of Sitka gear featuring the new pattern will be available at retail by summer of 2010.

Gore launched GORE OPTIFADE Concealment at retail in the summer of 2009. Developed by a group of experts, including an animal vision scientist and a leader in military concealment, the pattern was the first to consider how a hunter appears in the eyes of his prey.


GORE OPTIFADE Concealment incorporates a micro and a macro pattern. The unique micro-pattern considers the way a deer or other ungulate perceives color, the ratio of positive to negative space and other visual elements to create an effect that allows the hunter to blend with the animal's perception of the environment. The macro-pattern breaks up the symmetry of the human body so that if a hunter is detected, the animal will not be able to identify the hunter as a predator.

"GORE OPTIFADE Concealment is a game-changing technology in the sport of hunting," said David Dillon, hunting category leader at Gore. "Since the very successful launch of the Big Game/Open Country pattern, we have put our considerable scientific expertise toward developing gear and a concealment pattern that addresses conditions unique to tree stand hunting in a wooded environment."

Rest of Article: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/news/optifade-whitetail-deer.html
 
 
New Benelli Shotgun on Jan 19, 2010?
Sleek. Beautiful. Italian. She's the lightest auto-loading shotgun in the world. And she's coming January 19, 2010. On that day, the launch of Benelli's newest shotgun will be revealed at the SHOT Show and simultaneously unveiled on the Benelli USA website.
Evoking grace and beauty, the female form has inspired artisans since the dawn of time, and does so no less today. With Benelli's newest offering, Italian designers have blended art and function in a way that every sportsman will appreciate.
"At just under 5 pounds, this is lightest shotgun on the market, chambered in a gauge that many skilled hunters and sportsmen will find not only a delight to handle, but wonderful to shoot." said Stephen McKelvain, Benelli USA's VP of Marketing & Communications. "Benelli combined striking gun art with reliable function, the hallmark of all our products."

Source: http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Hunting_Gear_and_Products/Benelli-to-Reveal-New-Shotgun--Jan-19-2010-12070902.html


New Primal Twin Track Cam Bow for 2010

Memphis, Mich., Quest BowhuntingTM, a division of G5 Outdoors, Introduces the new 2010 Primal Twin Track Cam bow. The new bow features the superior construction and quality G5 has built its reputation on, combined with an all new custom decorating process that is exclusive to the Quest Line of bows.
“We are very excited about the new DuraFuseTM process.” Stated CEO and Founder Lou Grace. “The new finishing process not only is tougher than most, it really makes the new line stand out”

The new bow also incorporates the new G5 Patent Pending DurafuseTM decorating process. This process delivers sharp, crisp camo detail and a finish that is more durable than traditionally dipped or painted bows.
In addition to improved durability the DurafuseTM process allows for different designs and looks that have never been seen in the bow industry. One new design is the GfadeTM - a fusion of camo limbs, pockets, and top of riser with a black center riser section. GfadeTM provides the ultimate in versatility for bowhunters. With the camo top and bottom the bow is concealed for tree stand hunting to stalking situations in the field. The black riser mid section makes it perfect for the blind. In the stand, crossing a ridge, or sitting in the blind you never will be out of place with the GfadeTM. The Primal bow is also available in full AP camo or all black.
...Rest of article: http://www.huntonly.com/hunting_news/new_2010_primal_twin_track_cam.html

Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin Panel Review

External Panel Review of

“A Plan for Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin:

The Next Five Years”

December 8, 2009

Executive Summary

Despite the five-year goals of ―minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected‖ (WDNR2009:16), the Plan could easily interpreted as a CWD monitoring plan, with the additional objective of limiting the spread of the disease to portions of Wisconsin where it does not already occur. This is similar to how several other states are addressing CWD in free-roaming cervids. If this fairly represents what the WDNR and the citizens of the Wisconsin wish to accomplish, then the Plan should be altered to ensure that this is clear. Doing so would require replacing the two overarching goals listed above and removing all text that implies that reducing deer density in the MZ to the ―business-as-usual‖ level chosen by the CWD Stakeholder Advisory Group [SAG (2008)]—and similar to densities present when CWD became established in Wisconsin—would result in biologically meaningful reductions in CWD prevalence or limit the spread of the disease. Once the overarching goals are clarified, text addressing issues such as hunter access to CWD testing, dealing with food pantries, bans on feeding/baiting, CWD surveillance both inside and outside the known endemic areas, proper disposal of carcasses and butcher waste, cervid farms, social surveys, communication strategies, interactions with tribes, CWD research, and potential risks to humans and livestock should be modified as needed to support the new goals. All of these issues fit primarily under the monitoring umbrella. Conversely, the Plan still would require more specifies regarding intensive reductions in deer density associated with CWD clusters along the edges of the known CWD distribution. Similarly, the Plan would need to include verbiage outlining how the WDNR might work with the Illinois DNR to ensure these agencies are not working at cross purposes with each other along the border.

Alternatively, this may not accurately describe what the WDNR and the citizens of the Wisconsin wish to accomplish concerning CWD or, perhaps more likely, there may be a lack of consensus among stakeholders regarding how to proceed. If this is the case, the WDNR may want to consider completing a probabilistic survey of relevant Wisconsin citizens, and perhaps conducting some citizen focus groups, before committing to a course of action. After all, there is no reason to assume that the majority opinion provided by the 17-member SAG (2008) necessarily represents the opinions of the majority of hunters, other wildlife enthusiasts, landowners, or other Wisconsin publics. Should the WDNR make an informed decision to actively and intensively manage CWD within the endemic region, the Plan should include deer density objectives likely to reduce the risk of disease transmission and management actions sufficient to reach these population objectives. Realistically, it is probable that active, intensive CWD management of this type is incompatible with anything resembling traditional recreational hunting and techniques many 21st century Americans may find unpalatable must be considered. Similarly, statutory changes may be required in order to ensure agency employee have access to private lands (as is allowed for law enforcement agents). If various groups of hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, other publics in Wisconsin, and/or the WDNR are unwilling or unable to consider using such techniques, then the Plan goals and objectives should be modified to more accurately reflect agency/public intentions—that is, a monitoring program with plans for intensive reductions in deer density associated with CWD clusters along the edges of the known CWD distribution.

External Panel Review Members
Panel Chair
Dale L. Garner, Ph.D.
Chief – Wildlife Bureau,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
dale.garner@dnr.iowa.gov

Sharon Dunwoody
Evjue-Bascom Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication,
University of Wisconsin – Madison
dunwoody@wisc.edu

Damien Joly, Ph.D.
Associate Director,
Wildlife Health Monitoring and Epidemiology,
Wildlife Conservation Society
djoly@wcs.org

Daniel O’Brien, DVM, Ph.D.
Wildlife Disease Laboratory,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
OBRIEN@michigan.gov

Markus J. Peterson, DVM, Ph.D.
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
mjpeterson@nature.tamu.edu

Margo J. Pybus, Ph.D.
Provincial Wildlife Disease Specialist,
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division
Margo.Pybus@gov.ab.ca

Specific Review - Charge

Review and comment on the following issues:


1. The Plan has a management goal of “minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected”. Are the actions outlined in the Plan, including sharpshooting as proposed, appropriate and sufficient to achieve the Plan goal and stated objectives? For actions deemed inadequate, how could they be more effective?


2. CWD is likely to be present on the landscape for a considerable time period. Given that this is an adaptive plan that seeks to respond to changes in scientific knowledge and data, is five years an appropriate timeframe for this management plan and why?


3. Public support is important to the success of any CWD management plan. Are the communication strategies outlined in the plan adequate to achieve that support? If not, what methods, messages and target audiences need to be the priority to maximize that support?


Plan Review

Following the 2002 discovery of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in white-tailed deer in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) developed a management plan (Plan) to guide its CWD management activities. The stated goal at that time was to minimize the ecological and socioeconomic effects of CWD, and the goal-specific objectives included: 1) defining the geographic distribution and prevalence of infection, 2) investigating the possible origin of the disease in the state, 3) minimizing the potential spread of CWD to new areas, 4) eradicating the disease in the affected area, 5) enhancing scientific information about the disease, 6) using the best available scientific information to guide management, and 7) providing the public with timely, complete, and accurate information (WDNR 2009:6).

The current draft plan explicitly accepts the presence of a CWD endemic area(s) in south-central and southeastern Wisconsin, and shifts emphasis to prevention of new foci, and spread from existing areas. This is a significant departure from the previous objective (i.e., 4) of eradicating the disease in the affected area. "The new 5-year goal for managing CWD" as outlined in the Plan is "minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected" (WDNR 2009:4, 16). "Minimizing the [spatial] area affected by the disease" by definition, implies that area will become no bigger than it is currently. That, in turn, effectively means that this management goal is to prevent further geographic spread of CWD. The Plan essentially states this as an anticipated result (WDNR 2009:22).

For many people, "minimizing the area affected by the disease" implies that, to be successful, CWD management would reduce the spatial area where CWD occurs in Wisconsin such that it asymptotically approaches zero acres over time. This certainly would be a substantive disease management success. Unfortunately, one also could argue that this goal would be successfully achieved if CWD occurred on one less acre than previously. Worse yet, it also is logical to argue that "the area affected by CWD" was successfully "minimized" even if the spatial area where the disease occurs in Wisconsin doubled; after all, it might have tripled without disease management! This goal is a logical tautology as stated; any CWD management outcome related to the spatial extent of the CWD endemic area could be declared a success.

Similarly, "reducing the number of deer infected" is far too vague an objective to be useful as the basis for sound environmental policy formation or for underpinning extensive and expensive wildlife disease management. After all, "reducing the number of deer infected" includes every possible outcome between one less CWD infected deer than currently present, and zero CWD infected deer in Wisconsin. For example, if the number of deer in the CWD Management Zone (MZ) was reduced without regard to CWD, the number of CWD infected deer would decrease along with non-infected deer, but the prevalence of the disease would be unchanged. Although this action may be beneficial for a variety of others reasons, it is not disease management.

If minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected is to be truly realized then there is insufficient focus in the Plan on broad scale management of the deer population in areas outside the MZ.

As difficult as it may be to accept, at this point there is little reason for optimism that the ultimate course of CWD in the current endemic areas can be significantly altered. Indeed, the Plan (WDNR 2009:15) states that "eliminating CWD from Wisconsin is unlikely". There is clearly theoretical justification for management efforts aimed at the MZ itself, in order to mitigate (to the extent possible) the reservoir of disease in that area and so the reservoir for potential geographic spread to areas outside the MZ. However, analyses of both mule deer in Colorado (Connor and Miller, 2004) and white-tailed deer in Wisconsin (Heisey et al. 2010) suggest that once CWD is established in an area, deer density reductions will not appreciably affect growth rates of the disease. In other words, in the MZ itself, the die has already been cast, and whether herd reductions come as a result of harvest or CWD-associated mortality, they are likely to eventually come one way or another.

While many still question the nature of density-dependent disease transmission of CWD, it is clear that removal of infected individuals reduces risk of transmission to susceptible contacts through direct or indirect routes; fewer infected deer results in fewer prions on the landscape, and consequently less risk for disease transmission. As such, in areas where CWD is already established, there are two significant sources of exposure for uninfected deer: 1) infected deer, and 2) the contaminated environment. It is conceivable that as the environment becomes more and more contaminated by infected deer, it will progressively become the primary source of CWD exposure for any deer present there, however sparsely (or densely) they are distributed. In such a scenario, one would not expect density reductions to appreciably alter the growth rates of disease, because most of the exposure is coming not from other deer, but from the environment. However, in previously uninfected areas, the opposite is likely to be true. Where CWD is not established already, the environment is likely to be comparatively uncontaminated, and therefore not a significant source of exposure for deer. In those areas, the only source of exposure for uninfected deer will then be infected deer. In that situation, increasing density will increase contacts between deer, which will increase CWD transmission, and the growth rate (and subsequent establishment) of the disease. The upshot is that, somewhat counter intuitively, it is likely to be more important to decrease deer densities outside the MZ than it is inside of it.

Examination of the WDNR map "comparison of 2009 over-winter deer population estimates to population goals" shows that virtually the entire southern half of the state (south of a line drawn roughly from Green Bay through Eau Claire and on to the Minnesota border) is at least 20% above deer population goals1. More than half of that area is outside the MZ, and so would be considered an area where CWD is not yet established. Therefore, deer density reductions in that area would be expected to help slow or prevent the geographic spread of CWD to the north. There is an adequate epidemiological basis for implementing measures to facilitate such density reductions. Given that such reductions are most likely to be accomplished through increases in antlerless harvest, and that earn-a-buck regulations were far and away more effective than expanded harvest opportunities at increasing antlerless harvest (Van Deelen et al. in review), there may be adequate justification for expanding earn-a-buck to the entire southern half of the state as defined above.

1 By and large, those population goals are established not with disease control in mind, but rather social carrying capacity, which in Wisconsin is traditionally high, even among groups who suffer the brunt of deer damage (e.g., farmers). Consequently, the extent to which current deer populations exceed densities desirable for prevention of CWD spread is likely to be even greater than the map suggests.

It is openly recognized that such an expansion will likely be unpopular with hunters, and the anticipated lower deer numbers which hopefully will result will likely be unpopular with the public in general. However, the public in areas outside the MZ cannot be allowed to persist in the mistaken belief that CWD is not their problem, and that management of deer outside the MZ can carry on as usual, as though CWD did not exist and was not a very real threat to the entire state’s natural resources, culture and economy. This misconception creates the perfect circumstances for CWD to spread and become an even more onerous problem than it already is, which is difficult to imagine. Moreover, it leads to resentment on the part of hunters in the MZ, who see themselves as being forced to accept management actions to which the rest of the state is not subjected. Over time, that resentment tends to undermine public compliance with other disease management regulations (such as feeding and baiting restrictions, restrictions on carcass movement, restrictions on animal movement by wildlife rehabilitators, etc.) which are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce without public cooperation.

Specific Review - Charge

1[a]. The Plan has a management goal of “minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected”. Are the actions outlined in the Plan, including sharpshooting as proposed, appropriate and sufficient to achieve the Plan goal and stated objectives?

There are a number of management and monitoring actions outlined in the Plan that seem well conceived and appropriate. For example, continued intensive surveillance in the MZ, continued cooperative working relationships with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection with regards to the captive cervid industry, banning feeding and baiting, proper disposal of deer parts and carcasses, conducting a third round of surveillance outside the MZ, and employing social surveys to better understand public opinion relevant to CWD management and to gauge the effectiveness of WDNR outreach efforts certainly are laudatory actions.

Many of these efforts, however, are only indirectly related to whether actions outlined in the Plan are sufficient to achieve some measurable degree of "minimizing the area affected by the disease and reducing the number of deer infected". For example, although CWD surveillance is needed to measure the success of Plan goals, it does not by itself contribute to reducing the "area affected by the disease" or the "number of deer infected." Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume that actions outlined in the Plan will result in biologically relevant decreases in the area affected by CWD or the number of deer infected (compared to current values). Further, it is unlikely that these actions will result in even the new, less rigorous, population goals for the Deer Management Units (DMUs) where CWD occurs.

The reasons for these conclusions relate to Objective 3 of the Plan ("Control Distribution and Intensity of CWD"), which states, in part, that: Removing as many deer as possible each year, from infected areas provides the best opportunity for controlling the disease by 1) removing infectious individuals from the population, 2) eventually reducing the number of susceptible animals below the threshold needed for the disease to thrive or persist, and 3) limiting the accumulation of infectious CWD prions in the environment (WDNR 2009:19-20). Based on available knowledge, this statement certainly seems reasonable and appropriate. The Plan (WDNR 2009:22) eventually states that the way the WDNR will determine whether this objective has been realized is that, by 2014:

1) The number of infected deer in the MZ has declined.

2) The geographic distribution of the disease is not significantly larger than the current known distribution.

3) Deer populations in the MZ have been reduced by 40% from the 2008 post hunt population estimate.

Obviously, if the number of deer in the MZ decreases by 40% (or any lesser amount), then the number of CWD infected deer in the region also will decline (i.e., outcome 3 entails outcome 2). However, it is unclear exactly how the WDNR will calculate whether statistically significant changes in the area of CWD endemic region of Wisconsin occurred. Finally, the actions outlined in the Plan will almost certainly fail to result in deer densities similar to those observed in the early 1980s.

There are two primary reasons why planned actions will not meet the deer density objectives listed in the Plan or alter the risk of CWD transmission in areas of Wisconsin where the disease already is well established. First, the "2008 season structure" will not remove "as many deer as possible" in the MZ. Instead, the population goal for DMUs where CWD occurs as recommended by the SAG (2008) and adopted in the draft Plan (WDNR 2009) (78,458 deer) is essentially identical to the average goal in place from 1986 through 1998 for these same DMUs ( x = 78,441 deer) (Figure 1: WDNR unpublished data). 2

2 Data for these population goals include all of DMUs 54B, 73B, and 77C to enable continuity with previous data [the 2001 and SAG (i.e., 2008) goals listed in the draft CWD Management Plan (WDNR 2009:30,35) include only the portions if these three DMUs within the MZ].

Whereas "a business as usual" herd goal will undoubtedly be welcomed by many Wisconsin deer hunters, it is difficult to understand how substantially decreasing the harvest objective will result in substantially increasing the number of deer harvested. Specifically, while actions in place since 2002 may have ended the exponential increase in deer numbers in the DMUs where CWD occurs (Figure 1), there is no reason to

Figure 1. White-tailed deer population goals and estimated post-hunt deer abundance in Wisconsin Deer Management Units affected by chronic wasting disease,
1986–2008 (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data).3









assume that tweaking these same actions, as proposed in the Plan, will lead to substantially fewer deer in this region and thence achieve even the new less rigorous population goals.

A second much more serious issue that there is no epidemiological reason to assume that even if the new deer density goal for the MZ is reached (i.e., x = 18.6 deer/mile2) that a biologically significant decrease in CWD preference or contraction in the area of where CWD occurs in Wisconsin would result. Although the epidemiology of CWD in free-ranging cervids is poorly understood, we do know that: direct CWD transmission among deer via saliva and other body fluids occurs (Mathiason et al. 2006), and cervids also contract the disease via rather persistent environmental contamination, at least when they occur at relatively high densities (Miller et al. 2004; 2006). Conner et al. (2007), however, found that efforts to manipulate mule deer (O. hemionus) density did not produce any measureable changes in CWD prevalence, although they maintained that lack of data and time limited statistical power of their analysis. The point is that, it is unclear to what non-zero value (if any) deer density must fall before CWD transmission rates decline within areas where the disease is already well established. Regardless, CWD persists in white-tailed deer populations elsewhere in the United States where deer densities are far below the objective listed in the draft Plan (e.g., western Nebraska,

3 Data for population goals and post-hunt abundance include all of DMUs 54B, 73B, and 77C to enable continuity with previous data [the 2001 and SAG (i.e., 2008) goals listed in the draft CWD Management
Plan (WDNR 2009:30, 35) include only the portions of these three DMUs within the MZ].

eastern Wyoming), so there is no reason to assume that ~ 19/mile2 is below or even near the CWD transmission threshold. Similarly, current epidemiological data suggest CWD became established in two separate locations in Wisconsin >20 years ago (WDNR 2009:12-13), so as Figure 1 illustrates, post-hunt deer abundance at the new population goal would be quite similar to that observed when the disease became established in the state. For all these reasons, it is highly unlikely that the changes in deer density proposed by the plan, assuming they can even be achieved under the actions outlined in the Plan, will measurably alter CWD transmission in areas where the disease already occurs.

Heisey et al. (2010), using Wisconsin data, confirmed that CWD prevalence may not be directly related to risk of CWD transmission within an area where numerous deer already are infected, at least at the range of deer densities documented in the MZ. They did find, however, that CWD prevalence would be expected to greatly influence how easily the disease spreads to areas where it does not already occur. This research supports the Plan’s objective to substantively reduce deer density by ―conduct[ing] focused sharpshooting on public and private lands where permission can be obtained in areas of disease clusters along the edges of the known CWD distribution‖ (WDNR 2009:21).

Evidence from jurisdictions that apply some form of narrow targeted response in the vicinity of known CWD cases, situations of high deer density, and/or local populations protected from hunting pressure clearly shows that targeted removals are the best tool currently available for reducing the risk of transmission. This result is fully consistent with mounting evidence that transmission of CWD occurs locally in relatively small home ranges, occurs extensively within matrilineal groups, and builds slowly from point sources. All of these factors speak in favor of focused removals as a key tool in finding and removing infected individuals and thus affecting transmission rates.

The question is how much removal is necessary to have a measurable impact on the dynamics of CWD (either in stamping-out new foci or reducing spread from and in affected areas)? Simply put, no-one knows; however, from a theoretical perspective there is reason to believe that geographic- (i.e., areas of higher prevalence) and demographic- (i.e., sex/age classes with higher prevalence) targeted culling (e.g., sharpshooting) is likely to lead to reduced transmission of CWD. Furthermore, while the jury is still out on the nature of density-dependence in CWD transmission, it is a logical assumption that reducing deer densities will lead to reduced opportunities for disease transmission. Therefore, if the deer density surrounding disease clusters along the edges of the known CWD distribution is reduced sufficiently, this objective has the potential to measurably reduce the rate that CWD expands into areas where it did not occur previously and is a worthwhile objective. It seems certain that agency sharpshooters would be required to effectively and consistently address this objective.

The Plan proposes to consult with local citizens and the Conservation Congress to develop a sharpshooting plan‖ (WDNR 2009:19) which will "then be presented to the Natural Resources Board (NRB) for approval, prior to deploying sharpshooters." If the NRB process requires a public comment period as well, implementation time will be further delayed. Even though the Plan is firmly based on a consultative approach, which can be good, the Plan does not contain sufficient assurance that the tool of focused removals will be applied in all appropriate situations. The nucleus of the consultation should be that sharpshooting is essential to achieving the program goal and the local discussions around sharpshooting should be how to conduct activities, not whether to conduct them.

1[b]. For actions deemed inadequate, how could they be more effective?

If decreasing deer density across the MZ remains an aspect of the final CWD Management Plan, the WDNR should abandon the ~19 deer/mile2 objective and consider alternatives such as setting a given percentage decrease in post-hunt deer numbers annually (i.e., steady annual decline) for each DMU within the MZ. As Figure 1 illustrates, there may have been a slight annual decline in post-hunt deer abundance in the MZ during most years since 2002 (one cannot be certain whether these values are significantly different statistically because confidence intervals for these estimates were not provided by the WDNR). Regardless, this apparent decline could be used to inform initial values for the desired goal for each DMU where CWD occurs. Management actions and future herd goals then could be altered adaptively based on data collected over subsequent years.

The Plan should include the distance surrounding each CWD cluster ―along the edges of the known CWD distribution‖ where intensive deer density reductions will take place (WDNR 2009:21). It also should include the target deer density for these zones, the number of years deer density will be held at target levels, and exactly how the WDNR will determine whether these objectives are met. Further, the NRB may want to consider seeking statutory authority that would expedite access to private properties if necessary to enable intensive reduction of deer density at, or surrounding, CWD clusters along the edges of the known CWD distribution.

While the previous paragraph dealt with epidemiological boundaries, political boundaries also are important to CWD management. As Figure 4 (WDNR 2009:12) in the Plan illustrates, the political boundary between Wisconsin and Illinois has nothing to do with epidemiological boundaries. The success of CWD management in southeastern Wisconsin hinges on CWD management success in northern Illinois, and vice versa, as stated in the Plan (WDNR 2009:13). For this reason, it seems logical that the Plan should include a mechanism for collaborating with the Illinois DNR toward achieving compatible CWD management objectives and actions relevant to their shared boarder.

2. CWD is likely to be present on the landscape for a considerable time period. Given that this is an adaptive plan that seeks to respond to changes in scientific knowledge and data, is five years an appropriate timeframe for this management plan and why?

The most fundamental factor driving how a disease is managed must inevitably be the biology and epidemiology of the disease itself. There is both scientific consensus and abundant empirical evidence from both controlled experiments and the field that CWD, as the name suggests, is a chronic disease, with a protracted course. Due to the chronic nature and slow progression of CWD, environmental contamination related to the disease, and the fact that deer density and harvest estimates are made annually, five years is far too short a timeframe for effective adaptive management targeting CWD in free-roaming white-tailed deer. Although education, communication, and public relations campaigns, and possibly even scientific breakthroughs, may occur more quickly, it is likely that a minimum of 3–5 years using a given management approach will be required before the WDNR could evaluate the success of the approach and consider alternatives if needed. It is unreasonable to adopt an adaptive resource management plan that is likely to include time for only one corrective, and no time to see the corrective’s results.

The Plan (WDNR 2009:7) assumes that "success of CWD management techniques cannot be measured over a few years." It goes on to state (WDNR 2009:16) that "Ultimately, assessment of the effectiveness of control actions for CWD must be based primarily on documentation of changes in the prevalence and geographic distribution of the disease. Because CWD is a slowly progressive disease, significant changes in distribution and prevalence in free-ranging deer populations will likely occur over a protracted time scale." The minimum incubation period is 18 months, and no upper limit on incubation has yet been established. Consequently, a five year management plan will encompass a maximum of three transmission cycles, possibly fewer. Moreover, the Plan provides for (WDNR 2009:21) review and possible alteration of control strategies after next year (a maximum of one transmission cycle). While it is recognized that WDNR wants to accommodate the public’s input on the Plan, it will be nearly impossible epidemiologically to demonstrate either the success or failure of prescribed CWD management actions in that short time frame. Therefore, those attempting to manage CWD in free-roaming cervid populations probably need to begin thinking in terms of decades rather than years; 20 or even 30 years is a more reasonable timeframe for adaptively managing CWD in free-roaming deer. It would be reasonable, however, to use shorter timeframes for CWD-related education, communication, or public relations campaigns. Similarly, if the WDNR chooses a 20-year timeframe, it may be reasonable to require a major reevaluation after 10 years.

3[a]. Public support is important to the success of any CWD management plan. Are the communication strategies outlined in the plan adequate to achieve that support?

Under Objective 4, "Increase Public Recognition and Understanding of CWD Risks", the draft Plan (WDNR 2009:24) provides the following action to reach this objective: Use survey data to better understand public opinions about CWD management and to develop, test, and refine messages and delivery mechanisms that enhance public support for CWD management. Use research to identify barriers to harvesting more deer and allowing access to land for deer removal and to develop a communication strategy to reduce those barriers.

The WDNR anticipates that it will have developed, tested, refined, and implemented ―communication strategies to increase support among hunters, the general public, and decision makers for the state’s approach to CWD management‖ by 2014 (WDNR 2009:24), the same year all other plan goals are to have been achieved. A CWD communication strategy, no matter how excellent, is of little value if it comes on line the same date disease management is to have been completed. As the Plan states (WDNR 2009:23), "substantial changes in public attitudes toward CWD and its management will take time, perhaps best measured by generations", which further supports the contention that 5 years is far too short a timeframe for an adaptive management plan for CWD in free-roaming deer.

Regardless of the time issue, the Plan (WDNR 2009:24) still falls short in addressing exactly what sort of "survey data" will be used to "develop, test, and refine messages and delivery mechanisms that enhance public support for CWD management," and specifically how these messages and delivery mechanisms will be tested and refined. The anticipated results of the Plan (WDNR 2009:24) appears to imply that communication success will be measured by long-term targets such as "a steady (annual) decline" in deer numbers, increasing "percentage of landowners granting access to their land for deer removal," and "hunter effort" increasing as deer abundance decreases. These long-term goals are not useful for modifying and perfecting communication strategies. Instead, data regarding changes in hunters’ or landowners’ behaviors that would eventually lead to these long-term goals are needed. Although this section of the Plan (WDNR 2009:22-24) mentions results from Petchenik’s (2006) survey, additional survey efforts undoubtedly will be required. The study population Petchenik (2006:9) addressed "consisted of 8,000 individuals owning a minimum of five acres in the southwest DEZ." The DEZ was in the southwestern portion of Wisconsin (Petchenik 2006:50) and did not include the remainder of the southwestern endemic area or the CWD endemic zone now recognized in the southeastern portion of the state (WDNR 2009:12). Petchenik (2006:9) mailed the survey to a random sample of 1,000 of the 8,000 landowners that met study criteria in the DEZ between 1 October and 12 November 2004, so data obtained addressed the 2003 hunting season and landowner attitudes in late 2004. As noted above, this survey did not include landowners in the southeastern CWD endemic area, those who hunted in the DEZ but did not own land there, landowners and hunters elsewhere in the state, and other citizens of Wisconsin. Moreover, with a disease such as CWD, one would assume that the opinions of landowners within the DEZ may well have changed since 2004.

The text associated with Objective 4 (WDNR 2009:22-24) seems to imply that the WDNR perceives communication to be primarily a one-way street leading from WDNR employees to various Wisconsin publics. For example, the first anticipated result in this section of the Plan is that "communication strategies to increase support among hunters, the general public, and decision makers for the state’s approach to CWD management have been developed and are being implemented" by 2014 (WDNR 2009:24). The Plan does not state how the "state’s approach to CWD management" will be altered by direct public input, but this undoubtedly will occur. Employees of the WDNR could learn much more from the public than simply their opinions regarding a set of survey questions if given the opportunity.

That WDNR should continue to work to understand public perceptions of CWD and its management, and maximize public support for agency actions is not in dispute. However, it is also important to recognize that consensus support for agency policies on CWD (or virtually any other issue) may never be attained. No matter what outreach and education efforts are undertaken and no matter how diligently they are pursued, there will always be a segment of the population that has simply "made up its mind" already and is not receptive to any message which conflicts with its established viewpoint. However, that fact, coupled with the reality that natural resource agencies manage wildlife in trust for the public, may mean that at some point the agency may simply not have the backing necessary to accomplish its management objectives.

Regardless, it is heartening to see that a "do nothing" approach is simply not acceptable in Wisconsin. Yes, we may all learn to live with CWD but we do not have to live with its uncontrolled growth in geographic and numerical distribution. The current toolbox available to limit spread and prevalence of CWD is quite limited, but can and should be applied aggressively until better tools are available. Such a program is fully consistent with wise stewardship of a significant natural resource (free-ranging deer) and protection of a keystone economic, social, and cultural resource.

Finally, WDNR employees, NRB members, and others involved with reformulating WDNR’s CWD management policy undoubtedly are keenly interested in making the best decisions possible for the resource and their constituencies. Similarly, those who initially drafted the CWD Management Plan assumed that management actions outlined therein would lead to significant changes in the CWD situation in Wisconsin. The question that needs to be addressed is to what degree these "significant" changes refer to statistically, biologically, versus socially significant differences. As Morrison et al. (2008:27-28) argued, not all socially important issues matter biologically (and vice versa), and not all statistically significant differences are relevant biologically or socially. As the CWD Management Plan is reconsidered, those involved in reexamining goals and actions should explicitly determine to what degree they are addressing statistically, biologically, and socially significant changes related to CWD in Wisconsin.

3[b]. If not, what methods, messages and target audiences need to be the priority to maximize that support?

More up-to-date social survey data addressing a wider array of stakeholders than those surveyed by Petchenik (2006) is needed to inform effective public outreach programs associated with CWD management in Wisconsin. One could argue that recreational hunting and effective CWD management are incompatible goals. For this reason, if no other, the WDNR needs to know whether there is support not only among different groups of hunters and landowners, but also among the public at large for management approaches that could dramatically reduce deer density. For example, eradication of foot and mouth disease in black-tailed deer (O. h. columbianus) in the Stanislaus National Forest of California during the 1920s demonstrated that massive decreases in the density of deer inhabiting much more formidable terrain than that in southern Wisconsin are indeed physically possible (Keane 1926). The problem is that techniques required for such reductions, such as a year-round open season with no bag limit, pursuit with dogs, nighttime sharpshooting, sharpshooting over bait during winter, snaring, trapping, and helicopter gunning are not particularly palatable for many 21st century Americans. Those responsible for CWD management in Wisconsin may learn via a new survey that the public will not support any approach that would have any reasonable chance of reducing deer densities across the entire MZ sufficiently to impede CWD transmission. Administrators need access to such information prior to implementing massive and expensive disease management plans (Heberlein 2004).

The Plan should include specifics regarding which Wisconsin publics will be targeted by surveys, how communication strategies will be developed, tested, and refined, and how various delivery mechanism will evaluated. Although long-term goals such as "a steady (annual) decline" in deer numbers, increasing "percentage of landowners granting access to their land for deer removal", and "hunter effort" increasing as deer abundance decreases are fine, more short-term data on relevant changes in targeted behaviors are needed. Additionally, strategies for learning from the public should be explicitly addressed in the Plan. For example, scoping meetings and the strategic use of focus groups could be quite helpful. The WDNR needs to learn more from hunters and other groups than just their opinions regarding a list of survey options.

On a fundamental level, the public will ultimately decide, for better or worse, what eventually will be done with CWD in Wisconsin. If the public is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary in the present to prevent the disease from spreading and the outbreak from growing, then their children will have to deal with the consequences. The WDNR must accept the possibility that no matter what they do or how well they do it, the public may decide that having abundant deer in the short term is more important to them than having healthy abundant deer for the sustainable use of future generations. If that happens, it will not be WDNR who have failed as stewards of the resource, but the people of Wisconsin.

Literature Cited

Conner, M. M. and M. W. Miller. 2004. Movement patterns and spatial epidemiology of a prion disease in mule deer population units. Ecological Applications 14:1870-1881.
Conner, M. M., M. W. Miller, M. R. Ebinger, and K. P. Burnham. 2007. A meta-BACI approach for evaluating management intervention on chronic wasting disease in mule deer.

Ecological Applications 17:140-153.

CWD Stakeholder Advisory Group. 2008. Summary and recommendations to Secretary Matt Frank, WI DNR and the WI Natural Resources Board, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Heberlein, T. A. 2004. "Fire in the Sistine Chapel": how Wisconsin responded to chronic wasting disease. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:165-179.

Heisey, D. M., E. E. Osnas, P. C. Cross, D. O. Joly, J. A. Langenberg, and M. W. Miller. 2010.
Linking process to pattern: estimating spatio-temporal dynamics of a wildlife epidemic from cross-sectional data. Ecological Monographs 80:In Press.

Keane, C. 1926. The epizootic of foot and mouth disease in California. Special Publication No. 65, California Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, California, USA.

Mathiason, C. K., et al. 2006. Infectious prions in the saliva and blood of deer with chronic wasting disease. Science 314:133-136.

Miller, M. W., N. T. Hobbs, and S. J. Tavener. 2006. Dynamics of prion disease transmission in mule deer. Ecological Applications 16:2208-2214.

Miller, M. W., E. S. Williams, N. T. Hobbs, and L. L. Wolfe. 2004. Environmental sources of prion transmission in mule deer. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10:1003-1006.

Morrison, M. L., W. M. Block, M. D. Strickland, B. A. Collier, and M. J. Peterson 2008. Wildlife study design. Springer, New York, New York, USA.

Petchenik, J. 2006. Landowner response to chronic wasting disease and its management in Wisconsin’s southwest disease eradication zone. PUB-SS-1022 2006, Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. State of Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. 2006. An evaluation: chronic wasting disease -Department of Natural Resources. Report 06-13, Legislative Audit Bureau, State of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Vandeelen, T. R., B. Dhuey, C. Jacques, R. E. Rolley, and K. Warnke. 2008. Effects of special antlerless-only seasons on Wisconsin’s deer harvests. Journal of Wildlife Management: In Review.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2009. A plan for managing chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin: the next five years [Draft: July 2009]. WM-482-2008, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/WHEALTH/issues/cwd/doc/External_Review.pdf

Hunters register 195,647 deer in November hunt

MADISON – A survey of Wisconsin deer registration stations conducted by the state Department of Natural Resources has yielded a preliminary tally of 195,647 for the just-ended, nine-day November gun deer hunt. This includes a buck tally of 86,251 and an antlerless tally of 109,396.
This number is preliminary and is expected change before a final report is published in late winter. It does not include harvest information from the archery, October antlerless gun deer hunt, muzzleloader, December antlerless deer gun hunt or late archery seasons. The preliminary harvest count in 2008 was 276,895.
“Deer populations are variable throughout the state,” said Keith Warnke, DNR’s big game biologist, “and we believe people when they say they did not see deer in their hunting area. We have also received reports from successful camps. As always, local populations make all the difference.
“Wildlife management and especially deer management is a process of continual adjustment. In response to hunter input we adjusted seasons this year to reflect lower populations across the north and central forests and suspended EAB in many areas.”
DNR wildlife officials anticipated the total harvest would be down due to changes in season structure that significantly reduced the antlerless deer harvest, lower fawn production and tough weather conditions for deer and hunters alike. In some northeastern units it was not possible to shoot an antlerless deer and in other northern region units the small supply of bonus antlerless deer tags did not meet demand. Careful adjustment of antlerless tag numbers is an important tool in managing deer numbers.

“There are still days to hunt in 2009 in herd control units where deer are above goal and in CWD units. The muzzleloader hunt is underway and the December antlerless hunt is around the corner.”
In February, DNR biologists will compare unit-level harvest numbers against overwinter population estimates and will adjust the recommended season structure for 2010 to address any significant trends.
“A pillar of Wisconsin deer management is the accurate harvest figures provided by hunters,” said DNR wildlife biologist Jeff Pritzl. “Periods of stable deer populations have always been relatively short-lived in Wisconsin. Mandatory deer registration allows us to respond quickly to changing population levels. We have annually adapted our harvest strategies, and will continue to do so in consideration of what the 2009 harvest tells us about the deer population.”
“This year, in response to hunter input, we moved 29 units from earn-a-buck to herd control status and 38 units from herd control to regular unit status. The total number of regular units grew from 21 in 2008 to 59 this year.” said Warnke. “The result was inevitably less antlerless opportunity and lower antlerless harvest numbers.”
A table of county by county (pdf; 39kb) harvest broken down by DNR region, with a comparison to the 2008 preliminary harvest is available on the DNR Web site.
Young hunters prove themselves safe and responsible

“What is really exciting, is the 9,907 mentored hunting licenses purchased by 10- and 11-year olds,” said Diane Brookbank, chief of DNR’s licensing and customer service unit. “These are the future hunters and conservationists that will step into the woods in place of the hunting ‘retirees’ as our population ages.”

Wardens reported no firearm incidents among these young hunters.

Hunt fourth safest in history

DNR hunter education administrator and conservation warden Tim Lawhern said there were seven hunting incidents during the nine-day gun hunt. A possible eighth incident remains under investigation.
"Our hearts go out to the families whose loved ones suffered injury during the hunting season,” said Lawhern. “Our goal is to eliminate all injury and loss of life while hunting. Every incident is investigated to learn what happened so we can work to prevent such incidents in the future.”

Self-inflicted gunshot injuries accounted for 57 percent (4 of 7) of this season’s incidents. Deer drives contributed to 25 percent of all incidents. Both categories and all firearm related incidents can be attributed to failure to observe one of the basic rules of firearm safety according to Lawhern.

Still, noted Lawhern, hunting remains a safe sport and has gotten safer over time as more and more hunters are graduates of hunter safety education courses. This is especially true in Wisconsin where the incident rate for hunters is well below the national average. The incident rate for 2009 in Wisconsin was 1.11 incidents per 100,000 hunters – the national average is 3 per 100,000.

“This was the fourth safest season ever and the fourth time in history that we’ve had a gun deer season with less than 10 incidents,” said Lawhern, “Nonetheless, our goal is zero incidents.”

More than 638,000 gun deer licenses sold

DNR’s automated License Issuance System, known as ALIS, peaked at 200 transactions per minute at 5:30 p.m. on the Friday before gun season. The 638,040 gun licenses sold through the end of the season on Nov 29 represent a near identical number of hunters as in 2008 when 642,419 hunters hit the woods.

•Nearly one in five hunters age 15 and younger is female and women bought 8.6 percent of all gun licenses sold
•All 50 states are represented in license sales with the highest number of nonresident hunters coming from Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan.
•The most licenses were sold in Dane County.
•All ages participate with over 54,000 hunters age 65 and older buying licenses.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/BreakingNews_Lookup.asp?id=1511
News Release Published: December 1, 2009 by the Central Office
Contact(s): Keith Warnke (608) 264-6023

DNR Board Sets December Agenda

December 8 & 9 , 2009 Natural Resources Board Agenda

For meeting at:

Room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2)

101 South Webster Street

Madison, Wisconsin

 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Natural Resources Board will convene at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, in Room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2), Madison, Wisconsin. The Board will act on items 1-3 as listed on the Agenda.

 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Natural Resources Board will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, in Room G09, State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2), Madison, Wisconsin. The Board will act on items 1-7 as listed on the Agenda.

 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that matters concerning natural resource issues or the Department's program responsibilities or operations specified in the Wisconsin Statutes, which arise after publication of this agenda may be added to the agenda and publicly noticed no less than two hours before the scheduled board meeting, if the Board Chair determines that the matter is urgent.

 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Order of Business

1.Organizational Matters
    A.Calling the roll
    B.Approval of agenda for December 8 & 9, 2009

2.Information Items
    A.Air, Waste and Water//Enforcement
    None

    B.Land Management, Recreation, and Fisheries/Wildlife

1. Report and preliminary results of the 2009 firearm deer season (Tom Hauge, Keith Warnke, Randy Stark, and Diane Brookbank, 60 minutes)

3.Action Items
    A.Air, Waste and Water//Enforcement
    None

    B.Land Management, Recreation, and Fisheries/Wildlife

1. Request Adoption of Board Order WM-20-09, related to establishment of the deer hunting season frameworks (Keith Warnke, 60 minutes)

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Order of Business

1.Organizational Matters
    A.Calling the roll
    B.Approval of minutes from October 21, 2009
    C.Approval of minutes from November 13, 2009

2.Ratification of Acts of the Department Secretary
    A.Real Estate Transactions

3.Action Items
    A.Air, Waste and Water//Enforcement

1. Request Authorization for Public Hearing on Board Order WT-15-09, Watershed Management’s Housekeeping Rule Revisions to chs. 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 110, 114, 200, 203, 205, 210, 241, 299, 328, and 341 (Tom Mugan, 10 minutes)

    B.Land Management, Recreation, and Fisheries/Wildlife

1. Request Adoption of Board Order FH-23-09, to revise Ch. NR 25 relating to the total allowable commercial harvest of whitefish in Lake Michigan (William Horns, 15 minutes
2. Request Adoption of Board Order LF-08-09, to revise NR 52 relating to the Public Use of Lands Acquired under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program (Pat Henderson and Doug Haag, 20 minutes)
3. Land Acquisition - Statewide Natural Areas - Oneida & Vilas Counties (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
4. Land Acquisition and Donation - Baraboo Hills Recreation Area - Sauk County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
5. Land Acquisition - White River Fishery Area - Waushara County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
6. Land Acquisition & Project Boundary Modification - Hartman Creek State Park - Portage County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
7. Land Acquisition & Project Boundary Modification - Brunet Island State Park - Chippewa County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes) Deleted
8. Land Acquisition - Wildcat Mountain State Park - Vernon County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
9. Land Donation - Statewide Wildlife Habitat Area - Pierce County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
10. Land Donation - Paul Olson Wildlife Area - Wood County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
11. Land Donation – Statewide Natural Area - Door County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
12. Land Donation - C.D. Besadny Fish & Wildlife Area - Kewaunee County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
13. Land Donation & Project Boundary Modification - Green Bay West Shores Wildlife Area - Oconto County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)
14. Easement Donation - Statewide Natural Areas - Marquette County (Richard Steffes, 5 minutes)

4.Citizen Participation
   A.Citizen Recognition

1. Rebecca Wallace Award

   B.Citizen Participation
   None

 

5.Board Members' Matters
    A.Approval of 2010 Meeting Locations

6.Special Committee Reports
   None

 

7.Department Secretary's Matters
   A.Retirement Resolutions

1. Steven J. Thomas
2. Gregory J. Pittz
3. Ronald W. Becker
4. Linda L. Netzer

    B.Donations

1. The Friends of Kohler-Andrae State Park, Inc. will donate a Kubota Utility Vehicle at a value of $13,000 to Kohler-Andrae State Park
2. Whitetails Unlimited Inc. will donate $5,615.17 to Upper Chippewa Area Wildlife Management for habitat work

8.Information Items
    A.Air, Waste, and Water/Enforcement

1. Update on Ballast Water Permitting (Russ Rasmussen, 20 minutes)

    B.Land Management, Recreation, and Fisheries/Wildlife
    None

 

Printable version of the December 8 & 9, 2009 Natural Resources Board Agenda (PDF)

 

Natural Resources Board Contact:
Laurie Ross, Natural Resources Board Liaison
Phone: 608.267.7420
Email: Laurie.Ross@wisconsin.gov

 

Public Participation Information
Public Participation at Natural Resources Board Meetings

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource
See website for updates at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2009/December/12-09-NRB-Agenda.htm

16-day deer hunt starting Saturday before Thanksgiving proposed for 2010

MADISON – A 16-day gun deer hunt starting the Saturday before the Thanksgiving holiday will be the basis of a proposed 2010 deer season framework presented to the Natural Resources Board for consideration at its December 8 meeting in Madison.

“The special committee formed by the Natural Resources Board to develop effective alternatives to earn-a-buck discussed dozens of ideas and season structures,” said DNR Secretary Matt Frank. “They ended up recommending a 16-day gun hunt with either an early or a traditional start date. At public hearings we heard sentiment overwhelmingly against an early start date so we are recommending a traditional opening date to the board at this time.

“This was one of the most heavily attended public hearing schedules in recent history. On behalf of the department, I want to thank all the organizations and individuals that participated in the public review process over the past few months. Public involvement in this decision process is invaluable.”

The complete proposal is available on the Natural Resources Board meeting adenda for December page of the DNR Web site. The special committee’s report [PDF] is also available on the Natural Resources Board Web pages.

If approved, the 16-day season would be an alternative to the use of earn-a-buck in areas outside the chronic wasting disease management zone beginning with the 2010 season. The season would open on the Saturday before the Thanksgiving holiday. Numerous Wisconsin hunting and conservation organizations have registered preference for the Saturday before Thanksgiving opener.

Other key features of the proposal include: extending the archery season through all gun seasons and extending archery season until the end of January in herd control units; addition of a four-day October antlerless only statewide muzzleloader hunt; a four-day October antlerless only gun hunt in herd control units; a four-day youth hunt that coincides with the October antlerless hunt; a seven-day statewide December muzzleloader hunt; a four-day December antlerless only gun hunt and a 10-day buck plus quota holiday hunt in farmland and central forest deer management units.

“An understandable reaction to creating additional hunting seasons is a concern that deer herds will be over harvested,” said Keith Warnke, DNR big game ecologist. “The safeguard against this is the existing quota system. Under this system the harvest of female deer is limited by permit to maintain populations at healthy, sustainable levels.”

The proposal calls for a unit by unit review of the effectiveness of any new season structure. In units that are more than 20 percent over goal and the expected harvest under a third year of any new season structure is unlikely to bring the herd to within 20 percent of goal, additional harvest measures will be considered.

More than 1,600 people attended the series of 11 public hearings held across the state in October and November. An additional 6,500 people used the web-based comment form or submitted email or mailed comments. Department social researchers also mailed a randomized survey to 1,000 hunters to gauge opinion. The response rate to the survey was a very respectable 71 percent.

Legislative review of any NRB action should be completed by March 2010 with any changes taking effect in time for deer season setting in April 2010

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Warnke - (608) 264-6023 or Bob Manwell - (608) 264-9248

Hunters register 100,330 deer opening weekend of 2009 season

MADISON – Warm temperatures and heavy fog in many areas greeted hunters on the opening weekend of Wisconsin’s 158th gun deer hunt. Hunters participating in the traditional November 9-day gun deer hunt registered a preliminary tally of 100,330 deer over the first two days of the hunt.

The 2009 preliminary count compares to a similar opening weekend count of 133,828 from 2008. Buck harvest statewide in 2009 was 49,583 (52,477 in 2008) and antlerless harvest was 50,478 (81,351 in 2008)

“We want to remind folks that these preliminary numbers come from a staff call-around to deer registrations stations this morning,” said Tom Hauge DNR’s wildlife management director. “The final opening weekend tally will likely be somewhat larger, when all the registration stubs are entered into the data base over the next couple of months.”

A breakdown of the harvest by DNR Region and county is available in portable document format.

This fall, wildlife staff indicated that they expected lower total harvest numbers - especially antlerless deer harvest numbers - due to several factors including lower deer numbers in many areas of the state, fewer herd control units and no earn-a-buck units outside of the chronic wasting disease management zone.

“There was pretty dense fog until 10-11:00 a.m. opening morning,” reported Kris Belling DNR West Central Region wildlife expert. “The fog coupled with wet conditions, made it hard to hear anything coming and definitely impacted the morning hunt. Hunters I talked to (in West Central Region) enjoyed the mild temperatures and it was comfortable enough for them to stay out hunting, and that seems to have offset the original difficulties due to the fog. Overall, it was just a nice week-end to be out. Lots of interest in getting the deer butchered quickly.”

However, the weather improved later in the day.

“Many folks take this week off leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday and given the slower start to the season, there should continue to be good opportunity out there in many areas. There is still a lot of hunting left,” said Keith Warnke, DNR big game ecologist.

As of early Monday afternoon, 571 “opening weekend” hunting trip reports have been recorded on the department’s new online reporting database. Hunters reported seeing 796 total deer on those trips which translates to an average of 1.39 deer per trip. These numbers will also likely change as trip reports were still coming in at a rapid pace. Hunters wish to report their hunting experiences can do so from the DNR website.

Enthusiasm for hunting remains high

DNR Secretary Matt Frank visited several registration stations along the I-39, Saturday morning.

“At the stations I visited it was really gratifying seeing our next generation of hunters taking their place,” said Frank. “I especially enjoyed the chance to visit with the youngsters who brought in their first deer. Congratulations to all hunters for keeping our heritage strong. I wish them all success and an enjoyable and safe hunting experience during the remainder of the seasons.

The department’s license sales office reported 626,404 hunters hit the woods with a license to participate in the 2009 nine-day gun deer season. The number of gun hunting licenses included a new category this year, 9,592 10- and 11-year-old hunters who for the first time were able to participate as mentored hunters under Wisconsin’s new Mentored Hunting Law.

Deer license and tag sales will continue through the hunting seasons.

The long custom of buying a license on the way to deer camp is also intact. Over 43 percent – nearly half - of all deer hunters purchased a license in the eight days preceding the gun deer opener; 82,463 licenses were sold on Friday. At peak, which occurred at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, the DNR’s online licensing system – known as ALIS – was processing 212 transactions per minute.

Nearly 270,000 licenses were issued in the eight days preceding the season opener.

Of the hunters hitting the woods on Saturday:

• 592,287 (95 percent) were residents and 34,117 were nonresidents;
• More than 79,000 youth hunters under 18 years old participated in this year’s hunt, representing 13 percent of the total number of deer hunters;
• More than 54,000 hunters were age 65 or older, and over 191,000 (31 percent) are under 30-years-old;
• Females represent 8.5 percent of the total hunters, and 20 percent of new 10- and 11-year-old hunters;
• Hunters throughout the U.S. and several foreign countries purchased a Wisconsin gun deer license. The highest number of nonresident hunters came from Minnesota (16,413), Illinois (8,568), Michigan (1,078), and Florida (898);
• The most deer licenses were sold in Dane County (29,024), with Brown, Washington, Marathon and
• Waukesha counties following;
• More than 170,000 antlerless deer tags have been sold this year

Wisconsin Conservation Congress delegates also shared their experiences over the weekend.

Scott McCauley, Conservation Congress delegate from Wood County was hunting in Waupaca County and noted that for his party opening day was off to a promising start.

“Last year we had our best season ever taking nine deer. This year is looking even better with five people taking three deer and the season is just starting,” said McCauley.

Mike Riggle, Conservation Congress delegate from Taylor County called in, “Seven in camp now, including 11-year-old Austin Riggle hunting for his first time as a mentored hunter. Austin didn’t see anything but enjoyed being in camp and will be out again having a good time.”

Injury report

There were no confirmed fatal shooting incidents recorded during the first two days of the hunt but there were five non-fatal firearms-related incidents, reports DNR Hunter Education Administrator Tim Lawhern.

“We are grateful these five incidents were not fatal and wish a speedy recovery to the victims, but the fact remains that all five could have been prevented if strict firearm safety rules had been observed by the shooters and by the victims who wounded themselves.”

Three woundings occurred on Saturday. In Grant County a hunters was struck in the back of the leg by shrapnel when a hunting companion’s gun discharged into the door of a vehicle as he attempted to unload the gun.

In Price County, a hunter suffered a self-inflicted wound in the left hand from a handgun, and in Green County a hunter sustained a gunshot wound to his leg when he slipped crossing a stream on a log and his shotgun discharged

On Sunday a Barron County hunter was wounded in the thigh by a bullet, and in St Croix County a hunter sustained a self-inflicted gunshot would to the right hand from a .30-30 caliber rifle.

Hunter Safety Administrator Tim Lawhern noted that historically about half of Wisconsin’s shooting incidents happen during deer drives, usually because someone wasn’t where they were supposed to be or someone shot at a deer when they did not have a safe backstop or in a direction they should not have been shooting. “It is really important that hunting parties wanting to drive deer have a plan and that they follow that plan to the letter. Knowing where your hunting mates are and where safe shooting lanes are is critical,” he said.

Statistically, about half the hunting incidents happen during opening weekend. “I am hoping we buck that statistic and can avoid further incidents this year,” Lawhern said. “Compared to the ‘good ole’ days,’ hunting is safe and getting safer. In 1915, of the state’s 155,000 hunters then, 24 were killed and 26 were injured. That meant 1 in about 3,100 hunters could expect to be killed or injured. Today it’s 1 in 100,000 or better. Still any shooting incident is one too many. Hunters need to remember the shooting TAB-K safety rules and be careful with deer drives later this week,” he said.

 

Article Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource

Article Site: http://dnr.wi.gov/news/BreakingNews_Lookup.asp?id=1505