 |
|
CWD Advisory Board Letter |
[2] The proposed extended winter shooting period is likely to be counterproductive
and should be dropped. Reasons: Extended winter shooting causes more problems than it solves. First, extended winter shooting is despised by a vast majority of landowners who see it as disruptive and draining. Second, many people feel it serves primarily as a mask or cover for the DNR's unpopular winter sharpshooting activity. If the sharpshooting excuse was eliminated, the winter shooting period would not survive a realistic cost/benefit analysis. Third, winter shooting is damaging to the image of hunters and the DNR because it encourages an extended period of "thrill killing" by a few rogue individuals who are all too willing to help the DNR kill every last deer. Fourth, extended winter shooting creates recreational land use conflicts. Winter sports enthusiasts are unable to enjoy their traditional winter activities such as cross country skiing and snowmobiling with full peace of mind about their safety because the shooting continues from December through March. And fifth, extended winter shooting is hypocritical because it effectively circumvents the DNR's own baiting ban by creating multiple and repeated opportunities to kill deer that are attracted to stored food sources on many farms [Also see Item 4]. [3] Limit plan to 5 years. In light of the many CWD unknowns, 10 years is an eternity. With this in mind, SAG members recommended a 5 year plan built around a few limited but achievable goals. After 5 years a rigorous review of successes and failures would provide a sound foundation for a subsequent 5 year plan. SAG members had several reasons for making this recommendation. First, a great deal of uncertainty currently characterizes CWD research and management. Second, most citizens live in the here-and-now and allocate their attention, time and energy accordingly. Thus, there is real danger that the measures proposed in this 10 year plan will sneak in under the radar of intense legislative and public scrutiny. Years down the road this plan will likely be taken "off the shelf" and used as permission to blindside people with extreme deer killing tactics. At that time Wisconsin citizens will be fully justified in feeling that they have fallen victim to an end run of the normal democratic process. You need only look at what happened after the discovery of CWD in Michigan in September 2008 to see the consequence of futuristic off-the-shelf planning. For these reasons, we feel it is premature, unnecessary and counter to the spirit of democracy to extend the plan to 10 years at this time. [4] Baiting/feeding hypocrisy is shameful. The plan calls for a statewide baiting and feeding ban on the grounds that those practices artificially concentrate deer, which is claimed to increase the chance of direct contact between animals by way of saliva, scent gland secretions, urine, and feces. We do know that blood, saliva, and urine taken from animals infected with CWD have all be used under laboratory conditions to transmit the disease. The speculation is that they also can transmit the disease in the wild through natural deer interactions. True or not, the fact is that research has never established that a wild deer has caught CWD from baiting or feeding. Indeed, in Wisconsin CWD has been found in the south where the practice was never common, but not in the north where baiting by hunters and feeding by homeowners have been widely practiced for decades. For the record, SAG endorsed a state wide ban on feeding (non-hunting), not on baiting. The supplemental feeding issue is problematic. Without fires (past) and logging (present) in the north, and farming in the south, deer habitat would be in a much different state. The whole landscape scene is altered and artificial as a result of human activity. Yet, in many ways, the DNR seems to be trying to manage deer as if people do not live in the state. So what is meant by supplemental feeding? Does it include winter logging in or around deer yards? Does it include pastures and farm fields where non-native crop residue is exposed to winter foraging by deer? Does it include farmer's hay bales and silage tubes? Does it include spreading manure laced with ground corn on dairy farms? Is the widely-sanctioned bird feeder the problem? Or is it willful dumping of deer food on the ground that is the core issue? As for hungry deer, the question of inadvertent versus intentional behavior does not come up. The DNR says it wants to cut the statewide deer herd in half, but that number of animals would still require supplemental winter food made possible by logging and farming. Clearly, the issue involves human values and goes way beyond what CWD policy should be obligated to solve. read more... |