Issue date: 11/19/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

For whatever reason, I've felt that a column about the Department of Natural Resources and hunting wouldn't fly in such a liberal campus setting.

But hey, this is Wisconsin, isn't it? Not to mention it's a mere two days before the state's gun-deer season opens, and I'm starting to twitch.

As the 2009 deer season fast approaches, many hunters are again talking about the major backlash the DNR faced after greatly overestimating deer populations last season. Drastic over-hunting through unnecessarily extended seasons and the infamous Earn-A-Buck program in past years led to a 20 percent decline in the overall kill.

At first, the DNR offered a series of excuses, including the theory that hunters just don't get out and move deer around like they used to. However, the DNR finally admitted that it may have overestimated.

This year, the DNR announced that its estimate of the number of black bears living in the state ­- and the number of bear tags issued - was about half of the actual population.

Despite asking more from hunters in the past few years, with increased license costs and more restrictive laws in some places, the DNR has failed miserably to properly manage two of its most lucrative and beloved big game species.

So how does this happen?

An experience I had with a DNR biologist last year may explain a few things.

While covering the annual deer herd meeting in Eau Claire for another publication, I was set up in the back of the room, sitting quietly recording the angry comments of the full room of hunters who showed up.

The man next to me asked the biologist - who was beyond flustered at this point - how, exactly, population estimates were so far off.

The biologist struggled for an answer and eventually stammered something like, "Well, it's not always correct because some of our population models have been used since 1992."

When I introduced myself as a reporter after the meeting and asked her about the comment, she simply said, "Oh ... you weren't supposed to hear that."

In the next few months I tried to get a hold of anyone at the DNR to confirm her comment. Somehow, wardens were out of the office at all hours of the day, and not a single one of my messages was returned.

However, I understand why I was ignored. The biologist's comments make perfect sense in explaining the DNR's poor wildlife management. If the DNR is in fact using population models from 1992, that would explain the huge problems with its estimates.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools