Will it happen?

[Dan Salmon]

Think it will happen?

What say you?

http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/featured/will-wisconsin-privatize-public-land

[Jslotter]

In my lifetime, I will probably see it happen. Its already taking form with the mass commercialization of hunting, and antler addicts buying up every acre they can so they can grow world record deer, and keeping everyone but themselves off their 1000 acres they own. I have considered quitting hunting all together for fears of never being able to access private land ever again and maybe even possibly never being able to utilize public land. But at the same time, I should probably get out and enjoy it while I can, before its too late. I have vowed to abandon gun hunting for awhile until I can get on private land again. Otherwise, the public land areas I hunt with bow are pretty decent up until gun season. Anyways, thats my thoughts.

[retch sweeny]

Good Grief! Are you guys really falling for that lefty Lib Walker/hater scam. It looks like D&DH fell for enough to give it space. LOL.


(but then the top dog seems to be an anti Walker guy so I gues it comes as no shock.)

[Dan Salmon]

How better to try and get a large block of votes than to just out right lie to people.

[retch sweeny]

In light of the story in the Lodi paper and the other outlets (including D&DH) that quoted the story and then put additional spin (liberal spin with the intent to harm Walker before the recall) Dr. Kroll has put out a message to those that would use such dishonorable tactics. Here is his message to those interested in the truth and from the man himself.

“WHERE I STAND!

DR. JAMES C. KROLL, WISCONSIN WHITE-TAILED DEER TRUSTEE

I always have made it my policy not to become involved in political issues; politics often is a dirty game and I have no taste for the rules. My propensity, however, to come to the aid of the underdog has, on occasion put me in a position demanding participation. The white-tailed deer is my life, second only to my family and my God! I owe a great deal to whitetails; and my 40 years of work with these wonderful animals and the great men and women who hunt them has been a blessing. My father taught me three rules of life—know your convictions, stand strongly on them and always speak your mind and the truth. These simple rules got him through the 74 years of his life and they have served me well over the last 65 years. He was my hero, coming home from the Pacific theater all shot up and with very little interest in hunting anything. I had to learn to hunt on my own and thankfully under the kind eyes of two mentors, my Uncle Spencer (“Butch”) and a high school biology teacher, Mr. Victor Rippy. My family on both sides were small farmers, often harvesting game for the table rather than sport. I tell you this to make clear my feelings about animals and about people of the land.

Recently, I have heard about things being said in blogs, presumably to aid successfully removing Governor Walker. Since I am not politically motivated, did not vote for Governor Walker, will not be able to in the up-coming election, and am neither a Democrat or Republican, I am concerned and saddened by things being said about me and my positions and values related to white-tailed deer. Although there is no way to combat anonymous postings on Internet blogs about me, I can speak in a straightforward manner what my positions are and will continue to be. Wisconsin is a marvelous place with some of the most beautiful places I ever have experienced. I have enjoyed my time with the hunters and landowners of this fine state. It was the highest honor of my career to be asked to be the “Deer Czar,” and I have said that many times. I take this responsibility seriously and view it as an opportunity to end my career by giving something back to the animal and the recreational pursuit that has shaped my life.

My career has been full of experiences, involving a diversity of people, places and activities. I made the decision early on NOT to be a typical college professor; instead of the ivory tower existence of publish or perish, I opted for working with people in almost every state and province from Mexico to Canada. It has been my joy to hunt whitetails in every habitat and with every legal weapon. I have hunted on public land and on private land. My passion has been to hunt Crown land in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the climate is brutal, the hunting is very difficult and the deer are the most challenging. At the same time, I have worked with both small and large landowners to make their lands better for deer, rather than converting the properties to pastures or shopping malls. As a consequence, it has been amusing and frankly frustrating to read or hear someone pronounce me as favoring one group or interest over another.

Although my deepest feelings are my own, I think this is the time to firmly and completely express what my values and philosophies are. First and foremost, every decision I make regarding deer is based on the answers to three basic questions: 1. Is this good for deer? 2. Is this good for the recreational activity of deer hunting? 3. Does this save undeveloped land and the rural lifestyle? If the answer is no to any, I turn and walk away. Since I grew up in rural central Texas, I fully understand what being poor is! Hunting was more than recreation, it was a way of life. I am committed to the idea, in order for hunting/fishing to prevail, we have to develop ways to provide outdoor opportunities to all citizens. Public lands should be more than just space where hunters can spend time, they should be managed for quality experiences, especially by young boys and girls who may have grown up like me. Public lands often are the places where Native American hunters have to seek the plants and animals to which they have every right, by law and by what is right. But providing public hunting and recreational opportunities are a challenge in today’s world, and will have to involve partnerships between agencies, landowners and hunters. That is why I asked Drs. David Guynn and Gary Alt to assist in this great venture; a capstone for our careers. They represent not only the breadth of experiences needed to assure we truly do develop a 21st Century model for deer management and hunting, beginning in Wisconsin, but also the integrity and moral character so common to sportsmen and women—a model in which there is a place for everyone wanting to enjoy our passion and lifestyle. There is no place in this model for pitting hunters against each other or hunters against landowners! There only is a place for a brotherhood and sisterhood of outdoors people who truly love the land and our deer.

Our report and recommendations will stand on the side of the public, offering a bottom-up approach to wildlife management; one in which individual hunters and landowners have a say in how resources are managed. Our recommendations will be delivered in June to the Governor’s office and will focus on this high ideal; one I never will back away from. My Dad would not be happy if I did.

One of the most egregious postings was on a self-proclaimed “liberal” blog. Until now, I never have read either a liberal or a conservative blog; no time for that nonsense. However, I was sent this posting and upset by the lies presented in it! Is this what has led to the contentious times we live in today? The “author” of the blog distorts the truth beyond belief. The blogger rails on about me hating public lands, hating public land hunters, and most egregiously being disdainful of hunters! Not only is this not true and the facts not even close to correct, they even get my age wrong (not 55, rather 65). Even more disturbing was the undertone of the writer demeaning hunters. I cannot undo this slander, but I can be clear. If you read my words above carefully, you should understand where I stand. I STAND WITH THE SPORTSMEN/WOMEN OF WISCONSIN, I STAND WITH THE RURAL LIFESTYLE, I STAND WITH HUNTING/FISHING RECREATION, AND I STAND WITH THE WHITE-TAILED DEER!

Now, I hope that is clear.”

[grizzlayleslay]

I recently fell for the rampant bias in the article.

I'm not a fan of the Governor, but I don't like being fed misinformation either. So I decided it would be appropriate to do some homework above and beyond what's being spread around, including Dr. Kroll's response.

The "bastion of communism" quote did indeed come from Dr. Kroll, in an article from Texas Monthly called "Which Side of the Fence are you on?", published in 2002. Here is the snippet of that article relevant to the Dr.:

"GAME MANAGEMENT," SAYS JAMES Kroll, driving to his high-fenced, two-hundred-acre spread near Nacogdoches, "is the last bastion of communism." Kroll, also known as Dr. Deer, is the director of the Forestry Resources Institute of Texas at Stephen F. Austin State University, and the "management" he is referring to is the sort practiced by the State of Texas. The 55-year-old Kroll is the leading light in the field of private deer management as a means to add value to the land. His belief is so absolute that some detractors refer to him as Dr. Dough, implying that his eye is on the bottom line more than on the natural world.

Kroll, who has been the foremost proponent of deer ranching in Texas for more than thirty years, doesn't mind the controversy and certainly doesn't fade in the heat. People who call for more public lands are "cocktail conservationists," he says, who are really pining for socialism. He calls national parks "wildlife ghettos" and flatly accuses the government of gross mismanagement. He argues that his relatively tiny acreage, marked by eight-foot fences and posted signs warning off would-be poachers, is a better model for keeping what's natural natural while making money off the land.
A trip to South Africa six years ago convinced Kroll that he was on the right track. There he encountered areas of primitive, lush wildlife-rich habitats called game ranches. They were privately owned, privately managed, and enclosed by high fences. He noticed how most of the land outside those fences had been grazed to the nub, used up. "Game ranches there derive their income from these animals—viewing them, hunting them, selling their meat," he says. "There are no losers." At his own ranch Kroll has set up a smaller version of the same thing. His land is indeed lush, verdant, with pine groves, an abundance of undergrowth, wild orchids, New Jersey tea, jack-in-the-pulpits, and other native plants. He has also set up a full-scale breeding research center and is one of twenty Texas deer breeders using artificial insemination to improve his herd. "We balance sex and age ratio," he says. "We manage habitat. We control the population and manage for hunting. I want to leave the deer herd better than it was before we came."

When the subject of chronic wasting disease on high-fenced elk ranches in Colorado is raised, he casts a wary eye. "You know where that started? On a state-run research farm." He believes that private landowners would never let that happen. Like Johnston, he argues that the landowner who relies on his land for a living has plenty of motivation to keep diseases at bay.

Lately the power has been shifting in Kroll's direction. Last year deer-ranching interests persuaded Parks and Wildlife to alter rules and allow landowners to choose their own biologists in creating wildlife-management plans for their land, rather than have one from Parks and Wildlife. That has given landowners more freedom, says Kroll, but he wants even more. "You still have to let the state on your land to get a wildlife-management permit," he says.

Dr. Kroll said this in response to Texas' handling of deer management. To say that he feels the exact same way about Wisconsin would be a manipulation of the quote in question, BUT it would be foolish to completely dismiss his words when considering that he is now in a position of political power with the state of Wisconsin.

I'm glad that he responded to the article. I found that most of his words weren't related specifically to the issue being brought about, but he did address it in the last 2 paragraphs:

Our report and recommendations will stand on the side of the public, offering a bottom-up approach to wildlife management; one in which individual hunters and landowners have a say in how resources are managed. Our recommendations will be delivered in June to the Governor’s office and will focus on this high ideal; one I never will back away from. My Dad would not be happy if I did.

One of the most egregious postings was on a self-proclaimed “liberal” blog. Until now, I never have read either a liberal or a conservative blog; no time for that nonsense. However, I was sent this posting and upset by the lies presented in it! Is this what has led to the contentious times we live in today? The “author” of the blog distorts the truth beyond belief. The blogger rails on about me hating public lands, hating public land hunters, and most egregiously being disdainful of hunters! Not only is this not true and the facts not even close to correct, they even get my age wrong (not 55, rather 65). Even more disturbing was the undertone of the writer demeaning hunters. I cannot undo this slander, but I can be clear. If you read my words above carefully, you should understand where I stand. I STAND WITH THE SPORTSMEN/WOMEN OF WISCONSIN, I STAND WITH THE RURAL LIFESTYLE, I STAND WITH HUNTING/FISHING RECREATION, AND I STAND WITH THE WHITE-TAILED DEER!

Now, I hope that is clear.

There are two things I've learned from his response, and as a hunter it leaves me very concerned for what happens next month when he brings his recommendations to the Governor's desk (regardless who's sitting in the chair):

1) Offering a "bottom-up approach" means that he's looking at individuals and landowners first. This likely means that he's looking at a solution without the DNR taking any level of priority. Or possibly involvement. Worst case scenario is that his approach negates the DNR entirely with regards to deer management. Best case scenario is that the DNR and landowners & the public work more closely together on the hunting that we all love so dearly.

2) The blogger in question did not distort Dr. Kroll's stance on public land hunting and public land management (simply everything around those words), these are actual words he said in an article for Texas Monthly, regarding Texas' management of public hunting and deer population management. Dr. Kroll has been on record for the last 10 years saying that public hunting and deer population management (in Texas) is one of the last bastions of communism. He said this with regards to how Texas does things. While the blog in question was very biased, the words cited were not false.

I understand his position better, but I still worry for how things are going to play out. It very much sounds to me like he isn't a fan of the Wisconsin DNR's management of the deer population.

I doubt this will play a significant role in voting results in the recall election. I am optimistic that he has an approach that will benefit ALL citizens of the Wisconsin, and not dismantle the DNR in an attempt to throw away a broken system that simply needs to be fixed. I am optimistic that he will not seek to omit the DNR out of deer management completely and privatize the entire process to the private sector when it does not need to be done. I am optimistic that he will not ban hunting on public lands but find a way to improve it for hunters. I am optimistic that he's not going to attempt to change hunting in Wisconsin into that of a private industry commodity, where hunting turns into a business instead of a fun tradition that I've done with my father for the last 20 years (as my Dad did with his own Dad).

If he does in fact attempt any extremely radical changes to how deer hunting is handled in Wisconsin, in the short term it will be vehemently supported. I believe that any radical changes would negatively affect hunting in Wisconsin, but it would take years to do so. And by then we'll all be too apathetic to care about changing it.

[bullwinkle]

I am for increased land owner say to harvest does, elimination of registering does to make it easier but a continuation of public hunting access. I do believe public land needs to be controlled more - I know one party by us who trophy manage their own property and drive public land to fill doe tags and small buck tags. This is just selfish and wrong - the current rules allow this to be attractive

I am also against the DNR paying big dollars buying small tracts of land in the central part of the state. The State has more money than the most of us and where I am at a few "bullies" take control of these small parcels. Essentially us tax payers are funding their fun

[Jslotter]

Those are good points Bullwinkle. I am dedicated this next season to public land for bowhunting. It is now legal to use trail cameras on public land. That is a big concern for myself and I guess anybody else out where I hunt. I don't know if Im wrong to think this, but I have a feeling there are going to be some crazy a-holes out there getting all alpha male over certain spots and certain deer. Im packing a tire iron just in case.

[Ostermann]

From my perspective, you have a quilt-work of landowners and land on the private side with different ideas for management of the deer herd. I think everyone has the right to determine what they want to shoot to a degree. There are plenty of doe tags available in many DMUs. I am not in favor of a private/public land tag use. Deer are free ranging animals in Wisconsin unlike what I have read/seen from TV in Texas. How many Wisconsin farmers do you know have over 1000 acres that's fenced in? How many, in say 1000 acres, are landowners? 40, 50, 75? I am more for management of the public land habitat rather than the number of deer to shoot.

[wack]

I don't see how Wisconsin could sell off it's public hunting land since most of it was paid for through donations and non profit organizations.