I certainly am not fighting the online voting because it "is different or new". Also, much like fruit, if there are blemishes on the surface, chances are there are deeper issues involved and I firmly believe that to be true for the online voting. I really don't have a #1 concern and will not address it in that manner.

The Conservation Congress and Spring Hearings have been a marvelous way for the public of Wisconsin to help conserve and use its natural resources since the 1930's. Part of the essence and dynamic of the Spring Hearings rests in the discussion about the multitude of topics presented by the questions and resolutions. Sometimes, due to the discussions, perspectives and votes are changed. The Spring Hearings are a grand conservation tradition here in Wisconsin, the only state that has such a legislatively-recognized institution of public input. With online voting, all of that will disappear.

We must accept the fact that there are a ton of "citizens" out there that would like nothing better than to end trapping, and most hunting, nationally much less here in Wisconsin. For whatever reason, they, at least those here in Wisconsin, have not realized nor capitalized on the opportunity to do just that in the venue of the Spring Hearings.

It is claimed that we need to go to online voting is that the program/mechanisms for counting the ballots is defunct after this year. This apparently has been a revelation in the last year. I am old and crotchety enough to not entirely take that on face value. I have been chasing this issue around since the convention last year, where I was very vocal about this issue, and am getting very mixed messages from some higher up in the Congress chain than I am.

There have been discussions that votes from out-of-state could most likely be "filtered out" through use of whatever technological voodoo that can be employed. I shudder to think what will happen if we tell groups or individuals that they have the opportunity and right to vote, but their vote will not be counted. The flip side of that ugly coin is that if one group of a certain persuasion can be filtered out, so can folks who have hunting and trapping licenses.

I have also heard that folks are hoping to use the Go Wild system and numbers to delineate who can or cannot vote. At this point, the operators of the Go Wild system have said they will not cooperate with that notion.

My fear is that the online voting will be pushed forward, purportedly as a matter of necessity, but in reality due to creating a more convenient and accessible way for uninformed or misinformed folks to click a few buttons, and direct the uses and conservation of Wisconsin resources into the future. I don't, and will not ever agree that a couple hours investment of time in the beginning of April is too much to ask of those who are concerned about our resources and uses of them here in Wisconsin.

Moosetrot

Moosetrot x2

Why can’t the questions be discussed online in there own forum? Much like we often do here. Voting rights reserved to license holders. Membership has its privileges.
Unfortunately the meetings are often information overload. I skip many questions because I do not participate in the activity. I don’t fish so why should I be privy to changing fishing rules?

MarshRat, I have to be honest. The fact that you said you are in favor of online voting, and then followed it up by saying you are on a committee to discuss online voting... Yikes. I normally REALLY like your posts, but I'm really disturbed by your bizaare view of online voting.

AJE, you might want to read my posts again. I was asked to be on the committee to explore online voting which I had to turn it down. Also did you miss the part of me playing the devil?

Frankly getting less than 10k voting is killing the Conservation Congress way faster than any online voting could IMO.

Moosetrot, you wouldn't have any apple juice, if you only made it out of perfect apples. But let's explore some blemishes to see if we can still make juice?

What has to happen for the department to make a rule change? Simple majority vote?

I have to admit I was somewhat put off by his "thanks for playing along" comment, and chose to not show all the cards that I have concerning this issue. Instead I chose to voice my concerns in an effort and manner to let other folks know what is going on in the Congress.

While I have had a good time for many years while doing a lot of volunteer work for my County and the State, I never consider a matter of this importance as a game of some kind. I think this matter is a tipping point for the future of the Congress and have already dug my feet in quite deeply to resist the Congress being forced to enact something to satisfy those who either choose to not spend a couple hours a year in attendance, or will work their keyboards to a smoke to end our Wisconsin outdoor legacy.

Moosetrot

I was a little surprised by his comment.

I guess it was unclear to me that you turned down that role on the committee. Sorry.
It sounded a bit cocky how you said, "Can't come soon enough." Everyone is entitled to their opinion though.

With only 7k attendees, a discussion on possible improvements isn't a bad idea.

WIMarshRat-

Does it not make you a little skeptical that the Ad Hoc Online Voting Committee that you were asked to be part of has met several times but there are no published minutes of those meetings?

Moosetrot

I wonder who these people are that want online voting? I wonder if their only reasoning is that it may boost the number of votes cast, at least in the short term.

Moosetrot, no disrespect intended. Just trying to have a conversation were we can be critical of ideas. It is what ensure we are making the right decision. I truly do not know which way is right but I will learn far more by playing the devil and trying to defend positions that I may not agree with.

That is one reason I am nervous. I like to think on things and be critical of them before I can get on board.

We have to increase participation. Legislators already have claimed that so few vote that they refuse to listen. See Baiting law that was changed. You can guarantee they are putting pressure on the department to get participation increased.

1 concern I have with online voting is that I think it would be hard to get volunteers to serve on the Congress.

Also: I can only speak for the meeting I attend, but I am impressed with all the discussion we had. It was a busy meeting, with a lot of discussion. Some of the comments from concerned citizens swayed how I voted on certain questions.

Also, I like how a CDAC update is given.

Also, I like how DNR staff are present to answer questions.

Does anyone know if attendance used to be more than 7k?

Sometimes discussions on here get way too long and spin in circles that do nothing but waste time and energy. I have already spent a lot of time on this issue on top of more than a third of my life in involvement on a variety of Congress initiatives and issues. I am very sure there will be more information on this topic at the Convention, if we are actually allowed to discuss it this year.

Moosetrot

And by the time question 32 was read 90% of the Fond du Lac County crowd had left.

That is an issue. Agreed nimzy.

...and had probably voted.

Moosetrot

The CDAC meeting draws very lousy attendance in my county. 2 meetings ago I was literally the only member of the public in attendance. Maybe Wisconsinites don't care anymore, I don't know. It'd be interesting to know if WDNR gets many responses to the online CDAC survey.

In Dane county we had close to 500 persons attend the meeting. About 240 actually voted for the congress members. 200 and some just came to fill out the questioner. They were probably not from Dane county.

Online participation would end up In all kinds of voter fraud. The antis would be all over this In heart beat.