Wednesday 19 June 2013

Bill to open Wisconsin and its parks for hunting moves to Senate hearing

trails

Upon his election, Gov. Scott Walker declared “Wisconsin is open for business.”

A bill set for a public hearing Wednesday morning would add a variation, “Wisconsin is open for hunting.”

An amendment to the “Sportsman Heritage Bill” headed to the Senate early next year would open all 48 state parks to hunting and trapping, unless the Department of Natural Resources Board voted to close a park or portions of it. It reverses the current management practice: state parks are closed to hunting unless the DNR board acts to open them for such activities.

Close to Milwaukee, the Lapham Peak recreation area, part of the Southern Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest, would stay closed to hunting due to deed restrictions on roughly 400 acres of land within the DNR property.

Other land in the Kettle Moraine State Forest has been and would remain open to hunting.

Given that the DNR currently allows hunting in all but nine state parks, the legislation imposes a subtle shift, but one that has drawn opposition from recreational users – namely hikers, bikers and skiers.

(The nine state parks now closed to hunting are Amnicon Falls, Aztalan, Big Foot Beach, Governor Nelson, Lake Kegonsa, Lakeshore, Merrick, Pattison and Roche-A-Cri and several of those are opened to the sport during the gun deer season.)

Michael McFadzen, a silent sports enthusiast and member of the Governor’s Wisconsin Trails Council, wrote that the shift would drive people away from their non-lethal pursuits on the trails across the state.

“I am unequivocally opposed to this law as it will displace traditional park and trail users,” McFadzen wrote to DNR officials.

“There are approximately five million acres in Wisconsin that are open to hunting,” he said. “It doesn't make sense to open more lands in the face of decreasing hunter numbers. State Park and Trails are used by a majority of Wisconsin residents as a way getting into nature. Many families will avoid this healthy recreation during prime autumn park/trail usage when hunters are on these properties.”

The biggest conflicts would occur in the fall, from the time small-game hunting opens in September through November and December and the popular and profitable deer hunting season. While park use declines during those months, it remains significant, with upwards of 744,000 visits in November and December, based on DNR figures.

The shift in the regulation of hunting in state parks is one element of Assembly Bill 311, created to reverse the downward trend of hunting licenses sold and hunters in the state. The number of licensed deer hunters dropped from 935,000 to 800,372 from 2005 to 2009, according to DNR figures cited by the Wausau Daily Herald.

A University of Wisconsin-Madison study released in February and quoted by the Daily Herald showed that the number of hunters in Wisconsin could drop 27% from 2009 to 2030.

State Rep. Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna), one of the bill’s sponsors, said the intent was to provide more opportunities for use of the state-owed lands.

“The idea here I that if it’s taxpayer-owned land, the presumption should be they are open, unless there is a good reason for them to be closed,” he said. “I’m of the mind that if there’s a good reason it’s closed off now, it should remain so.

“First and foremost, public safety has to be addressed.”

The public hearing on the bill (Senate Bill 226) is scheduled to start at 11 a.m. before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment. The Assembly approved its version of the bill in October, on an 84-12 vote.

It also has been approved by the Joint Finance Committee and would be taken up by the full senate when it returns to session in January.

For more details and reporting on the bill, click here for a piece written by Patrick Durkin, in the December issue of Silent Sports Magazine.

Durkin makes the point that reducing the deer herd in state parks serves an important role in protecting native vegetation: “Recent research by University of Wisconsin botanists documented that state parks without deer hunting typically suffered some of the area's worst growth and regeneration of native vegetation.

“Further, when parks aren't open to deer hunting, they become de facto refuges, allowing deer herds to overpopulate and inflict extensive damage to nearby private crops, trees, shrubbery and other property. And in areas with chronic wasting disease, the DNR promotes hunting in state parks to prevent them from becoming CWD repositories. “

43 Comments for "Bill to open Wisconsin and its parks for hunting moves to Senate hearing"

  1. Those parks will be hunted for a few years until the number of deer are reduced. Remember that with no hunting pressure the parks probably have an abundance of deer. I hunt in Bayfield County and while the area has been closed to vehicle traffic it is widely used for off road bicycles with new trails being built in just the last couple of years alone. I did see a guy riding a bike with two german shepard size dogs during gun season... while he didnt look like a deer to me, there are those who may have seen him as something else. People will have to be careful. And even then ammo from any gun cannot be controled one its fired.

    Yazootu Dec 07, 2011 1:56 PM

  2. In fairness, I run through the parks that are open for hunting during deer hunting season and I have never had a problem (I do wear orange). The concern is it only takes one mistake by someone I can't control and I pay the price for someone else's mistake if I get shot.

    I do think parks should be open for hunting, but hunters also should be held accountable. If you shoot someone by mistake while hunting, you get 30 years (no excuses).

    North Dec 07, 2011 1:58 PM

  3. The author is correctt in assuming this Bill will have a colateral effect on shaired-use. However, the hunting season is quite short, comprising only 25% of yearly land use. Visions of hunters roaming through waysides during your Summer vacation could not be farther from the truth. Compromise is somewhat lacking in any political decision-making these days (sneer), but this is a no-brainer. Let's hope both sides can exhibit safe compliance with shared-use land rules, and respect different users' definition of enjoyment of public land.

    brfairbanks Dec 07, 2011 11:58 PM

  4. After posting yesterday, I went to investigate this further on the DNR website and didn't realize how much hunting is already allowed in state parks. I have been to a few of these parks and during different hunting seasons and never had a problem. My original point was that we already have plenty of public hunting land and we also have state parks for recreational use. I didn't think that the two had to be shared use because each was available for it's purpose. Although, with the hunting available in so many state parks already, I would assume that can be shared use. I just hope that everyone can act responsible and respectful towards each other and we can use our state parks for many different activities.

    RY19 Dec 08, 2011 9:16 AM

  5. Funny observation that you have "owl" in your screen name but you don't hunt or allow hunting on any of your properties. So you approve of hunting, just not when it's done by humans.

    As for stiffer penalties, there already stiff penalties for tresspassing. I hunt, fish but also run, hike, bike and camp in the great outdoors. What happens when a hunter discharges his weapon, hits his target on their own property only to have it wander a short distance into your property. It would be unethical to leave it lay there. Do you have your name and phone number on your heavily posted land? Can this hunter contact you to ask permission to gather his prey? Or are you unavailable on one of your other heavily posted properties? It's the one hypothetical that happens more times than not. And there is no control over it and it's the one that the anti-hunters are ignorant on.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 8:34 PM

  6. What an embarrasing post for you.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 8:40 PM

  7. Well said.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 8:45 PM

  8. RY19, Robert R and brfairbanks are thinking about this in the right way. State land belongs to who? The taxpayers...or to be more accurate, anyone who pays a fee to use the land. Why is it that some people think that one group of users should not have access to the land when others should? Hunting is just as much of a sport as hiking, camping, running, biking, etc. The DNR has done a good job of making sure the parks are safe for all. I don't see a big change coming with the passing of this bill.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 9:05 PM

  9. I am in the fortunate few that do both on these trails. I run, I x-c ski, I mountain bike and yes, I hunt. The majority of anti-hunters that I've come in contact with, and with my non-hunting activities, is quite a few, do have a hunter/gun and even hunter/bow phobia. It's truly unfortunate that we can't share the woods.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 9:21 PM

  10. And Runner Girl, I know plenty of non-hunters that use the park without purchasing a pass. Please don't be that person that generalizes.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 9:24 PM

  11. The runners are out there but even though I'm a hunter, I was on the trails on Thankgiving Day and the weekend after. I saw more than a few runners wearing white (arm warmers and even a hat). Even though that is not recommended, there were no issues. Most runners that I saw had on blaze orange or at least non-brown colors. We can coexist.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 9:30 PM

  12. Repeat after me, "I, Anonymous am an anti-hunter. I won't be happy until we don't allow hunting in any public area." There, don't you feel better to get that out?

    The chances of you finding a struggling or dead animal due to a hunter on public land while you are bird watching or hiking is next to nothing. That that is not going to change when this bill is passes.

    ybone Dec 08, 2011 9:42 PM

  13. I do think it's a fair point to remember that just because it's a State Park doesn't mean that it's naturally a good place to hunt. There's certainly a distinction to be held between State Forest, Public Hunting Grounds, and Park Land. The Capitol is State Land too, doesn't mean it's necessarily good hunting land. Aztalan is set up for historical purposes at least as much as for recreational purposes. As I said, since only 9 parks seem to be closed to non-deer hunting already, there likely was a good reason in the first place. I'm not expecting much to particularly change.

    Robert R Dec 10, 2011 7:26 AM

Post a Comment

Limit of 2000 characters,  characters remaining

Preview

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Page Tools

Latest Posts

Archives