Deer Czar Recommendations?

[Ostermann]

Retch - What is your position on the DNR or affiliation? Just wondering......

[kellory]

You would end up with syndicates and tyranny. Just like from Obama's speeches" from those according to their abilities, too those according to their needs." It leaves no protection for the weaker side, just the power of numbers. Deals would be struck, clubs formed, and power blocks running the show by decree. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clubs would buy acres to increase power, any scrub tract that would qualify. Individuals would lose control of hunting on their own lands, as the rules would be set by the deepest pockets. Deep pockets are destroying hunting for the little guys now on farms as companies buy up leases and force out any other hunting as perks for visitors, or company rewards. Why should a farmer allow hunting for the asking, or small fee, or work, when they can get several thousand dollars for the same rights from one source, and they may not even show up? It is money in the bank, and all they need do for it is reserve the right to hunt from anyone else? No. Deep Pockets have too much control of hunting now. It sounds good on the surface, but look beyond the surface to the likely, and the unlikely, then view the possible. Never settle for the possible, that is where loopholes, exclusions, exemptions, and mandates come from. Don't open that door.

OK braveheart, you can calm down now. What the hell was that? Too funny.

Sorry retch, I was speaking to Bullwinkle. i will stop by the troll-bridge and ring the bell if I need you, honest! I was referring to the problem with allowing the buying if any kind of vote with property. One of our founding fathers put it this way when referring to the problem of who to let vote. The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. . James Madison described the problem this way:

"The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property...." They knew that a balance must be maintained in rights and in protections, for both large land owners and unlanded persons. It does not matter what the election is about. If you can buy votes with money(aka: buying acres& acres = votes) you can buy elections. Deep Pockets rule, little guys screwed. No recourse, game over. This country is founded on the concept of one man, one vote.

[retch sweeny]

Retch - What is your position on the DNR or affiliation? Just wondering......

I have no position with the DNR. I am in no way affiliated with the DNR any more than you or any other WI hunter. I work in design engineering and have for more than a couple decades.

[retch sweeny]

Sorry retch, I was speaking to Bullwinkle. i will stop by the troll-bridge and ring the bell if I need you, honest! I was referring to the problem with allowing the buying if any kind of vote with property. One of our founding fathers put it this way when referring to the problem of who to let vote. The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. . James Madison described the problem this way:

"The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property...." They knew that a balance must be maintained in rights and in protections, for both large land owners and unlanded persons. It does not matter what the election is about. If you can buy votes with money(aka: buying acres& acres = votes) you can buy elections. Deep Pockets rule, little guys screwed. No recourse, game over. This country is founded on the concept of one man, one vote.

Kellory, you have been duped. You are getting all ginned up by B.S. and false claims not at all based in fact. You’re going on and on about something that is not real. Bullwinkle stated: “All this is a guess” You are preaching about some bogus and made up stuff Bullwinkle pulled out of his arse. Simmer down. There is no need to go all 1776 on us. Its just silly. I hope to feed Bullwinkle a bit more rope to hang himself before I post some information of interest to his B.S. “Guessing” He listed 5 very specific items as what Dr. Kroll’s recommendations will be when I know otherwise. Why do you think he wont tell us who his source is?

[Ostermann]

I have to agree with Kellory, those holding the most votes would control what the county would do and dictate what you and I can shoot. I'm about freedom of choice and not so much how many points. Big bucks are nice but not the reason I hunt. Sure it is nice to get one with a nice rack but I'm out to harvest ANY legal deer I can. Legal to me means whatever type of deer valid by the license/tag. The DNR gives me 10 tags for does and I fill all 10 tags, I would expect the deer herd to be smaller next year.

Also, deer are free ranging. Just because you pass on a buck that isn't up to your standards doesn't mean it's "your" deer. I think some of the population estimates are way off as well.

[retch sweeny]

Since the whole deer trustee thing began I had involvement in this in one way or another. I met and spoke with the good Dr. last fall. There were two more opportunities to meet with and speak with him but my schedule always seemed to be in conflict. During this process I have been keeping abreast of this process and sharing many emails with Dr. Kroll as well as phone calls and texts. When Bullwinkle posted the list of recommendations that he asserts Dr. would be making, I copied that list and sent to Dr. Kroll. He immediately contacted me to tell it was pure B.S. He followed up to let me know that this sort of bogus internet blather really upset him and does a disservice to him and his team.

Today, we spoke again by phone and Dr. Kroll asked that I relay this to anybody that read Bullwinkle’s supposed leaked info from “Somebody close to all this”. None of what was posted by Bullwinkle is legitimate. Its either completely made up B.S. Bullwinkle is trying to pass off as actual info or somebody is knowingly feeding Bullwinkle B.S. and he fell for it or it may be 3rd or 4th hand B.S. with no basis in fact. (Why do you think he would not reveal his source?)

Today, Dr. Kroll has a t-con with people in Madison to discuss his team’s work. They are not making recommendations at this point. He wanted that point stressed. At this point, there are no recommendations. He is, per his agreement only delivering his preliminary findings and observations. He did say that he and his team mates all have ideas but nothing formal or in writing or in any way communicated from his team. His exact words were, “there are only 5 people that are party to this work and he trusts each of them with his life and knows none of them have crafted a set of recommendations, let alone distributed them.”

He also stressed that no recommendations will come out until after the 6 public meetings and the team has time to digest what comes from those meetings. He was not at all pleased that someone would try to scam people by pretending to know what his team will recommend when even his team has not formulated a set of recommendations. Clearly, by posting this false B.S., its led Kellory to think it was legitimate (still don’t understand why he would care though) and run on at length about something based on falsehoods so who knows how many other people read Bullwinkle’s post and accepted that B.S. as something of substance?? Even Ostermann is reacting to Kellory’s reaction to Bullwinkle’s B.S.

Perhaps Bullwinkle will either admit this was all just a big lie or explain where he got the bogus information since his credibility and good name hinges on it. I accept that not everybody cares about their reputation, honor and credibility so we may not get his explanation and instead will get excuses or secrecy.

[bullwinkle]

I have never said this is anything short of inside talk on what guys close to this are saying. The way you are acting tells me this hit some sort of nerve. Your blovating on calling the good old Czar maybe more bs than my posts? You don't seem like the most poised individual. Let's just see how this plays out. The nice thing is time will tell

I am hoping it is true.

[retch sweeny]

What????? This back peddling is unbecoming Bullwinkle. You said:

“I heard some scoop from some close to the Deer Czar.”

Then you talked about what the deer trustee’s recommendations “are going to be”

You then posted

“He is very critical to the DNR processes and their understanding the size of the deer herd.”

And

“He said there are too many bolt on rules and in collection it is a mess and needs a complete overhaul.”

And

” He is not impressed with some of the DNR staff”

Knowing this was pure B.S. from the get go, I asked you;

“Can you name your source?? It would lend credibility to the claims.”

Knowing you were caught in a lie you said:

“No, we will find out in a month. No reason to go down that path.”

I further enquired by asking:

“So you are sticking to your story that you have gotten leaked information about the recommendations that Dr. Kroll is coming out with. Is that correct?”

At this point you realized that you could not B.S your way out of this and somebody else knew the score so you started the back peddling by saying:

“All this is a guess from some people that are close to this.”

You went from claiming HE Meaning Dr. Kroll said these things and somebody close told you what HE said, to retracting and stating it was all just a "guess" but still wont admit your just making this all up and there is no source “Close to all this”. Its all just a big lie.

Now that I have exposed you, you have the balls to pile a lie on a lie by saying:

“ I have never said this is anything short of inside talk on what guys close to this are saying.”

You insult the intelligence of every person who reads this and do serious harm to your credibility by claiming you didn’t say what is still here, posted by you. You cant un-ring a bell my friend. Your words are all there to read. You say:

“ The way you are acting tells me this hit some sort of nerve.”

Actually, when it comes to liars, I give them no quarter and make sure to call them out at every opportunity. That is the nerve you hit. You tried to pass off bogus statements from Dr. Kroll (you repeatedly used the word [b[He[/b] and resumed to tell us what He said. I understand this is just the internet but still B.S., lies, and making false claims and attributing them to another person is frowned upon and should be exposed. You said:

“Your blovating on calling the good old Czar maybe more bs than my posts?”

Dr. Kroll has practically been begging for WI hunters to contact him and talk to him about WI deer management. He has provided contact information. I fail to understand your reluctance to believe that myself and others have been in contact with him since the beginning. I wont share publically his email or cell number but here is his SAFU office number, ask for him to return your call. (936) 468-3301. Let him know, you’re the guy on Deer and deer hunting that is claiming to know what his recommendations will be for WI. If you PM me your email address, I will be more than happy to pass along your info to him and you can ask him yourself. Also, you can talk to him face to face at one of the meetings he is holding. The point is, I am providing you ways to verify what I'm saying. I wouldnt dream of posting here that some made-up source is where I'm getting my information like you are doing.

I can tell you that I am not at all surprised you don’t value your credibility, honor or good name and that all have become trashed and since you are operating in this anonymous forum where there is no accountability for being a liar, you are free to continue doing yourself a disservice. That’s the nature of the web, any jackwagon can show up and tell lies and make things up. That’s what makes these formats so useless for info of substance. Anybody can post “This comes from someone close to this” . That’s the first clue to put the B.S. boots on. Just a note for the future. When you get caught in a lie and hit bottom, quit digging. It only makes you look worse. Again, epic fail on your part.

[Ostermann]

The recommendations I would look at are:
-Population estimates
-Public land habitat management
-Predator (bear, coyote, wolf) control in the north

I am not in favor of antler restriction. Call me old-fashioned but I hunt for the meat, not antlers. I own land near public land and deer sightings can be few and opportunities limited. If someone offers my Dad and I (sons when they are old enough) a chance to hunt and shoot some does, I am open for that. I will respect a landowners wishes if they allow me to hunt.

[bullwinkle]

Retch, take a deep breath

If it is really true you talked to the Czar, what do you think he would say. Oh, ya that guy on the forum is right on. Come on man - he played you like a fiddle

Be patient, this will all sort itself out and we will find out