I just read in the latest issue of Wisconsin Outdoor News that 70% of the individuals who submitted input online for the Spring Hearing questionnaire DID NOT have a DNR customer ID number. There were 7,310 individuals who submitted the questionnaire online, so about 5,100 of the 10,700 total participants have never (or at least not in the last 30 years or so) bought a hunting/fishing/trapping license, registered a snowmobile/ATV/boat or taken an outdoor safety certification course.

So almost 50% of the folks voting on these questions had never participated in the outdoor sports they were voting on. Granted, some likely did not vote on questions they didn't know anything about, and there were some environmental questions they may have only been voting on, but based on the total number of votes cast for each question, that wasnt usually the case.

This statistic is important because it's the inaugural year for online voting. Next year, if those 5,100 voters vote again, they'll have numbers and that statistic next year could be very different if there isn't a significant number of new voters.

The article also mentioned that 3% of the voters were nonresidents. No disrespect to nonresidents, but why in the heck do they get a vote in how we manage our natural resources? I don't get a say in how Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois manage their resources, nor do I feel entitled to tell them how to do their thing. If I dont like their rules, I'll vote with my wallet and choose to go elsewhere.

I had expected this when I first learned online voting would be used, but I didnt imagine 50% of the voters would be first-time DNR customers with no history of contributing to the management of our resources in the way of spending money that goes back to the state for management via Pittman/Robertson funds. I highly doubt that many non-consumptive users and non-DNR customers would've showed up to the meetings and voiced their opinion.

Looks like this could be the beginning of the end for a productive Conservation Congress.

Thanks for posting that. Scary indeed.

"Looks like this could be the beginning of the end for a productive Conservation Congress."

Agreed

Not surprised at all! Don't stand in the way of progress!

SMH

Chris

Bad news. I doubt the genie can be put back in the bottle.

Gee, where have I heard that before? I have been saying that every chance I can, even in front of the Congress as a whole, since the online thing was mentioned.

Moosetrot

Honest questions

should someone who doesn't have a DNR number be able to vote on outdoor matters? If not why not?

If someone who owns property (acreage) and doesn't have a DNR number be able to vote? if not why not?

My parents (no dnr number) own small bit of land, they are effected by these decisions. Why shouldn't they have a say?


While most of the non-dnr customers were probably what most would call an "anti" I feel they should have a say. Its too bad most of the time their opinions are formed in ignorance.

I'm pretty even keeled but this is one thing that sincerely sends shivers down my back.


There needs to be a stakeholder control in this. If you do not actively and financially partake your voice should reflect it. Go ahead and out in your 2 cents but the DNR should discount those 2 cents accordingly.

How does this effect such people? (Honest question just so to better respond)

I'm not saying people without a DNR number shouldn't be able to vote, as it's incredibly easy to get one, and almost just as easy to buy a license of some sort for $5 to call yourself a licensed whatever, that having the number shouldn't be an indication of eligibility.

I created the post to raise awareness of the fact in case anyone still believed online voting was a good idea. I sincerely hope your parents were able to have their voices heard, as that was the intent of online voting, but like many online polls and questionnaires, it's easily exploited.

The article mentioned there wasnt much of a noticeable difference in the way the online voters voted in comparison to the in-person voters voted. That surprised me, but I verified it was relatively true based on the results compared side by side.

Luckily (you could say I guess) the Conservation Congress county delegates can still pick and choose what to pass on to the DNR (pay for positives was passed with a 60% approval rate and got axed by delegates) and delegates are still elected by in-person attendees only. All the more reason to attend and volunteer for open delegate positions. I seriously considered throwing my hat in the ring for an open seat this year, but chickened out. If I'm still living in Brown county next spring, I will.

One thing that will be interesting to watch or review is how many of the online participants will be new or first timers with no DNR ID number each year. That would give all some idea of the turn over if you will and also the number who vote each year over time. In the past as I have attended dozens of these hearings I never heard anyone ask for a show of hands who were first timers or who did not have a DNR number. The legislative process has taken away much of the administrative rule impact or process as it comes to rule and law making and it seems that access is also taking away the power of the smaller group of persons who showed up and made the choices. We all like democracy when it works our way but we don't like it when it works for others. The way this is going now can and probably will put a lot more pressure and scrutiny on the committees and leadership, especially if and when decisions are made that go counter to popular vote. Time will tell how this works out.

Bryce

Lot of things slipping away. Those of us who grew up watching our fathers step up and volunteer are now our fathers' age and there doesn't appear to be much interest in the generations following us to give of their time. TLGUY and a few other younger fellas are now the exception and I applaud his convictions. As Bryce says, time will tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvlQFhm6X9Q

HEY Muskrat, run into any railroad dicks on the rails, fishing?

I haven't. And apparently the fellas who park along the highway down here to access back sloughs across the tracks haven't had an issue either. Maybe they're targeting the big river crossing places. Not surprising, I've attempted several times to get a response from the new administration on their pledge to "fix" the problem, and haven't heard boo. Sure gets old. That and the bunch on here who have no stake in the game but appear to be eager to point out it's a matter of trespassing and not an issue of excluding sportsmen and women from thousands of acres of public lands and waters.

At least you still have to show up to the hearings to vote for the delegates.

Its only a matter of time before the public input is removed all together strictly due to lack of participation. If they only received 10000 questionnaires they are using input from only .2 percent of WI residents for a resource that belongs to all residents anti or not. While the online voting may be a tool that gains a bit more input as it may appeal to more people in today's technological driven/no time for anything society the entire process is not working. If we as the sportsman who give our input want to see better sportsman participation and influance it is time to come up with a new process. But change is hard for people, most would probably watch the current system die and the input disappear rather than try something new to get more input.

I dont understand the non resident votes. Unless it was not explained correctly there should be no input from non WI residents. The WI legislature represents WI residents so non residents should not be considered the same in terms of our general survey, if non residents want to express an opinion they can send a letter/email/call whatever they decide but we shouldn't survey them

The legislation enabling the Congress states that "citizens" are allowed to vote on issues. Back in the feral cat days they were bussing people in from out of state and I challenged it, but the legal department of the WDNR said "citizens" includes people from out of state. Still sticks in my craw.

Moosetrot

Almost all wildlife management decisions effect them, Deer, coons, coyotes, foxes.

They have all sorts of wildlife on their property, they feed birds and just about everything else that eats bird food and other animals that visit the feeders looking for a meal.

The have gardens, not just vegetable gardens but the flower gardens around the house are regularly visited by all manner of wildlife.

Deer is probably the best example. Lots of deer = lots of problems.

Obviously not all of the subjects on the survey effect them but some do.

Shouldn't they have a say?

I could argue that landowners (acreage) should have a bigger say than someone who owns no land but goes hunting.
The landowners are the ones providing habitat for the wildlife and they are the ones paying the price when there are problems.
Most landowners get nothing from the state financially.

I own 1/3 of an acre in town, that makes me a landowner. If I dont buy any hunting/fishing/trapping licenses or anything that contributes to Pittman/Robertson funds, how much money do I contribute to wildlife management compared to someone who rents and recreates on public land but spends hundreds on licenses and gear?

Its gotta be all or none. 6,500 online voters weighed in on deer tagging requirements, thousands of which hadn't bought a deer license in 20+ years. That's right, thousands of voters weighing in on that with no prior (or likely future) deer hunting experience. Those same thousands of inexperienced people are voting on trapping questions. But because they're doing so online, they dont get to hear the background from people like us in attendance at the meetings.

But at least their gardens will be protected.

If you look I put (acreage) after I mentioned land ownership. So in my senario your 1/3 acre in town doesn't apply.

If you own 40 acres out of town your land is providing habitat for all the wildlife that use it. Maybe you could argue that you don't contribute financially to wildlife management if you own land. Does some of the money you pay in property taxes go to the DNR?

I know I myself contribute alot more than someone who rents hunting land and spends hundreds on licenses and gear. Financially so far this year I spent over $3000 for land management which all benefits wildlife. Besides that I spend at least 10-20hrs a week working on the land improving it in ways that benefit wildlife. I do have a DNR customer number but if I didn't I think I should have at least as much a voice as anyone who has a DNR customer number if not more.

I get your point about hearing discussions that take place at the meetings. And its very valid.

So whats the solution? go back to comments only at the meetings. I would have no problem with that. Gotta take the effort and attend. If you can't do that then its not that important to you.