Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Natural Resources Board

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    I may get chastised by Mike for starting a thread that doesn't appear to be related directly to open carry. I think it is related. One of the remaining tasks concerning Wisconsin open carry is the recinding or modification of the vehicle transport statute. The vehicle transport statute is in principle a DNR inspired law. In order to get it changed we will need DNR support. The appointment of the DNR Secretary by the NRB has the possibility that theSecretary may be more sportsmen friendly and actually have some wildlife management and firearm experience. Presently the DNR Secretary is appointed by the govenor and becomes one of his minions. Essentially it gives the anti-gun Govenor dominion over DNR policy.























    August 6, 2009 Contact: George Meyer---608-516-5545


    Need Your Help:SenatePublic Hearing Scheduled on SB 113,
    Natural Resources Board Appointment ofDNR Secretary

    DearConservationist:

    Sportsmen and women did a great job last week at the Assembly Natural
    ResourcesCommittee hearing on the DNR Secretary Appointment Bill.
    Thank you!

    One hundred and seventy three people representing over forty conservation and
    environmental groups testified or registered in favor of AB 138 which would
    restore the appointment authority of the DNR Secretary to the NRB. Only
    nineteen registered against, largely business interests.

    Senator Jim Holperin, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee was so
    impressed at the strong public turnout in favor of the bill that heimmediately
    scheduled a public hearing in his Committee for August 13th for SB 113, the Senate
    counterpart to AB 138.

    We will need a strong attendance at this last hearing on this bill during this legislative
    session. A strong turnout is necessary since we know the Governor is working hard
    to get people and groups out to register against the bill.

    On the same morning, at 10 am, in the Governor's Conference Room at the State Capitol,
    the Hunting Mentor Bill and the Green Fur Bill will be signed into law. You can attend
    those important events at the same time!

    Once more, please come to Madison and either testify or register in favor of the
    bill. Make sure to register your groupin favor ofthe bill.


    Public Hearing on SB 113---Thursday,August 13th at
    9:00am in Room411 South, State Capitol


    Please makesure thatyour voiceisheard at this public hearing!If you personallycannot
    makeit,please arrangefora memberofanorganization that youbelongto be thereto
    either speak or register in favor ofSB 113.

    It is important that everyarea of the state be represented so that committee members
    from throughout the state know that this is important to thevoters in their
    legislativedistricts.

    If you have any questions, please contact me by email: georgemeyer@tds.net or phone--
    608-516-5545.

    See you on August 13th!

    George Meyer
    Executive Director
    Wisconsin Wildlife Federation








  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I agree this is an important issue. Thanks for passing this on Lammie.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Lammie, there are alot of sportsman who read this site. You will see an increase after the Green Bay press coverage. Thanks for posting this.

    The WI-DNR has alot of mistakes which need correcting. Including the committee for finding a replacement for earn a buck. Earn a buck is a crock to begin with but the DNR is asking people to come up with a replacement. Why replace a policy which has been decimating the deer population for the last four years?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    Earn a buck is a crock to begin with but the DNR is asking people to come up with a replacement. Why replace a policy which has been decimating the deer population for the last four years?
    Because, as you say, Earn-a-buck is a crock AND ineffective, only "decimating the deer population", as you say, when it needs to be more nearly halved.

    Three thousand is our estimated deer population on thirty square miles of five Islands and it is annually decimated by about three hundred registered kills. We need to reduce our population by about a thousand, that is a third and much more than a mere decimation.

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    smithman wrote:
    Earn a buck is a crock to begin with but the DNR is asking people to come up with a replacement. Why replace a policy which has been decimating the deer population for the last four years?
    Because, as you say, Earn-a-buck is a crock AND ineffective, only "decimating the deer population", as you say, when it needs to be more nearly halved.

    Three thousand is our estimated deer population on thirty square miles of five Islands and it is annually decimated by about three hundred registered kills. We need to reduce our population by about a thousand, that is a third and much more than a mere decimation.
    I agree. We could kill over two times the deer, and never have any deer shortage. 3000 on you island alone? I bet we could knock that down to 1000, and not have any problems.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    This proposal is a very bad idea for hunters and those interested in exercising their right to self-defense. Making the choice of the DNR secretary the excusive decision of an unelected committee would create even less accountability than we have now. Although it is true that the DNR leans left under the leadership of Democrat governors, voters get a chance to change governors every four years. Board members on the other hand are appointed for six year terms and thus carryover into the next administration. Furthermore, even the most leftist Democrat governors are somewhat afraid of completely alienating the hunter vote by going too extreme in their more publicized DNR secretary appointments.

    All of this would change for the worse if the DNR were put under the direction of an unelected board. Burying the DNR under even more layers of bureaucratic committees will only make it less accountable to the Wisconsin citizens who are affected by it. It is no coincidence that this proposal to allow the board to appoint the DNR secretary is supported primarily by those politicians who oppose our gun rights. This proposal should be opposed by anyone in favor in maintaining governmental accountability, and certainly anyone interested in being able to open carry in our state parks and forests.


  7. #7
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    MrBubba wrote:
    This proposal is a very bad idea for hunters and those interested in exercising their right to self-defense. Making the choice of the DNR secretary the excusive decision of an unelected committee would create even less accountability than we have now. Although it is true that the DNR leans left under the leadership of Democrat governors, voters get a chance to change governors every four years. Board members on the other hand are appointed for six year terms and thus carryover into the next administration. Furthermore, even the most leftist Democrat governors are somewhat afraid of completely alienating the hunter vote by going too extreme in their more publicized DNR secretary appointments.

    All of this would change for the worse if the DNR were put under the direction of an unelected board. Burying the DNR under even more layers of bureaucratic committees will only make it less accountable to the Wisconsin citizens who are affected by it. It is no coincidence that this proposal to allow the board to appoint the DNR secretary is supported primarily by those politicians who oppose our gun rights. This proposal should be opposed by anyone in favor in maintaining governmental accountability, and certainly anyone interested in being able to open carry in our state parks and forests.
    WoW, and that was your first post. Good post. You are gona fit right inon this site. I agree with your post, and have to say "welcome" to the site. Now post more!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Doug, you are certainly correct in that there are many local differences in deer population. Likely there are far greater numbers of deer on Washington Island than other parts of the state. That is OK, simply issue more tags to people in areas where the deer are overpopulated.

    In the majority of the rest of the state, however, the deer numbers have been dropping greatly in the last two years when measured by deer-car kills and deer-hunting kills. You can find a larger number of hunters this last season who didn't even see a deer while hunting in the central/upper part of the state.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I think that the concern in the rest of the state is not so much population pressure as Chronic Wasting Disease Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy. The CWD population must be wiped out to eliminate both the 'infected' individuals and the genes causing susceptibility.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin Natural Resources Board
    The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (NR Board) sets policy for the Department of Natural Resources and exercises authority and responsibility in accordance with governing statutory provisions.

    Chapter 15 of the Wisconsin Statutes delineates the formal duties of the seven-member board. Board Members are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. Three members each must be selected from the northern and southern portions of the state and one member serves at large. Terms expire on May 1.

    The Board meets on the fourth Wednesday of each month except for July and November. Board meetings are held at the DNR Building in Madison from November through April and at locations throughout the state from May through October. Board meeting dates and locations are listed in the Natural Resources Board Calendar.

    Meeting agendas are posted two weeks prior to each meeting.

    Briefs of action, a summary of motions made and votes taken at each Board meeting, are usually posted within a week after the Board meeting.

    Meeting minutes are posted following Board approval.

    The Board accepts citizen participation and public appearances at its meetings in accordance with published guidelines




    As a long time member of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress I know that public participation at the meetings is highly regarded by the NRB.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Allis, WI, ,
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    My opinions is that the DNR needs to be split up into at least two independent boards/departments. One, the Department of Fish and Wildlife; two, the Air and Water Resources Board. This way the tree huggers and other leftist organizations are not the same ones that are making decisions about my hunting and fishing rights/opportunities. The DNR has way too much power and it shows in the enforcement of laws and the abuse of power exercised by the game wardons of this state. They are never challenged in court and thus freely violate our constitutional rights.

    Itoo agree that the earn-a-buck program was/is a farse. WI has the second largest, if not the largest some years, deer harvest in all of the USA. Our herd is very robust, and even given some harse winter conditions, can replace a full third annually. It has been said by state DNR that the herd was closer to 600,000 to 750,000 just 20 years ago. Today, it is estimated to be what, 1.2-1.5 million. The problem that I see is the number of hunters dropped to an all time low during the outbreak of CWD. The number of people hunting has increased some in recent years, but the numbers are still far fewer than just 20 years ago.

    Personally, I think that the regulation book (a source of comedic relief outside this state) needs to be cut in half.It appears shorter this year than in years prior though. Thusly, the number of laws governing gun possession, hunting, and transporting game needs to be cut by two as well.
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but the fool's heart to the left."

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    The Natural Resources Board is made up of seven members. Three must be from North of Stevens Point and three from South of Steven's Point. The Chairperson casts tye breaker vote if needed.

    Members are selected to serve six year staggered terms. That way the whole board can not be dissolved or radically changed by a governor. The governor would have to serve a multi-election tenure in order to change the total board. Probably the only governor that could have accomplished it wasT. Thompson during his 14 years as governor.

    It is harder for a Governor to control seven wills and minds than one.

    We all remember the increases of hunting and fishing fees Governor Doyle forced on us under the subterfuge that he wasn't going against his election pledge of no increased taxies. His reasoning was thateven though hunting and fishing is a constitutional right under Article Isection 26, those rights are subject to "reasonable regulation" and the increase in fees in order to balance the DNR budget is "reasonable". Do we want a person with that type of logic and insensitivity to the Wisconsin constitution controlling the department head of a department as powerful as the DNR?

    If we are to have any success in changing the DNR gun rules, especiallyvehicle carry, wewill need aDNR secretary sensitive to the voice of the public not one sensitive to the marching orders of an anti-gun governor. Especially when the governor appointment is usually a "gift" for political favors with no requirement for natural resources credentials.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    This will piss a few people off, but I think baiting/feeding needs to be outlawed
    and severe fines imposed when they are caught.

    The 1 year the DNR grew some nads and outlawed baiting and feeding, about 1/2 the people stopped the practice, I had to pick and choose the deer I wanted to drag out of the woods they were so thick instead of living their life in and around peoples homes where they cannot be shot.

    I passed on a heavy 10Pt that year becuase I was not going to drag his ass for a mile with no snow on the ground.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    The Natural Resources Board is made up of seven members … Members are selected to serve six year staggered terms. That way the whole board can not be dissolved or radically changed by a governor … It is harder for a Governor to control seven wills and minds than one.
    This is EXACTLY why we DON’T want to have the board select the DNR secretary! If this proposal goes through, Governor Doyle’s board picks will select the DNR secretary for the next four years even if a pro-gun Republican governor is elected!


    We all remember the increases of hunting and fishing fees Governor Doyle forced on us under the subterfuge that he wasn't going against his election pledge of no increased taxies … Do we want a person with that type of logic and insensitivity to the Wisconsin constitution controlling the department head of a department as powerful as the DNR?
    Again, voters get a chance to change governors every four years. Board members as you said are appointed for six year terms and thus carryover into the next administration. This proposal would prevent us from fixing or improving the damage Doyle has inflicted regardless of who replaces him.


    If we are to have any success in changing the DNR gun rules, especially vehicle carry, we will need a DNR secretary sensitive to the voice of the public not one sensitive to the marching orders of an anti-gun governor.
    This is why we should OPPOSE this proposal! Making the choice of the DNR secretary the excusive decision of an unelected committee would create even LESS accountability than we have now. This proposal would put the choice of DNR secretary under the control of seven unelected, unaccountable radicals appointed by an anti-gun governor!!! That’s far worse than what we have now!


    Especially when the governor appointment is usually a "gift" for political favors with no requirement for natural resources credentials.

    EXACTLY!!! There is no reason to think that the nominations to the less-visible board are any better and there is good reason to believe that they will be even LESS accountable to the voters given their six year terms.

    As a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, why would you want to put even less accountability into the selection of the DNR secretary? If anything, I would think someone in your position would favor the exact opposite of this proposal and instead support making the DNR secretary an independently elected position by the voters of Wisconsin. Instead, this proposal would put the decision in that hands of some unelected and unaccountable board and thus take the selection of the DNR secretary even farther from the citizens of Wisconsin.

    Again, this proposal to allow the DNR board to appoint the DNR secretary is supported primarily by those politicians who oppose our gun rights. Scott Walker is out fundraising Doyle. We finally have a good chance of fixing the problems in the DNR when a gun-friendly DNR secretary is hopefully appointed in 2011. There is no good reason to mess this up right now with this backward proposal.


  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Most of the DNR excesses that we are living withbecame lawwhen the DNR was under a board. George Meyer was right in the middle of the creation of a lot of them when he was with them as chief warden and head of the DNR.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    OK, Mrbubba. We now know your opinion of the Natural Resources Board. Now what is your opinion of the vehicle transport statute 167.31(2)(b) that requires all firearms to be unloaded and encased in a specifically designed carrying case before transporting the firearm in or on any vehicle?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    OK, Mrbubba. We now know your opinion of the Natural Resources Board. Now what is your opinion of the vehicle transport statute 167.31(2)(b) that requires all firearms to be unloaded and encased in a specifically designed carrying case before transporting the firearm in or on any vehicle?
    Excellent question, Lammie! Scott Walker has made it very clear that that not only does he want to roll back the budgetary excesses of this current Democratic administration, but also dismantle many of the needless regulatory mistakes that have developed over the years under both parties. Given that Walker is currently out fundraising Governor Doyle (almost unheard of against a sitting governor), there is an excellent chance we will have a Republican administration voted in just over a year from now. Once that happens, I am quite confident that Scott Walker’s DNR Secretary will follow through on those promises posthaste!

    Once additional point, Lammie. If you and the Wisconsin Conservation Congress ever decide to push for having the DNR secretary be even more accountable and be elected by the popular vote of the people, you will have my complete support!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •