A once good outlet for deer hunting info has turned into a politically partisan web site. In recent months, D&DH editor (Dan Schmidt) seems to have gone out of his way to show his bias (and by extension the bias of D&DH since his is the defacto face and voice of D&DH, at least online) seems to have gone out of his way to poison WI hunters to the Wisconsin deer trustee even going so far as to advance and promote what was commonly known as liberal propaganda in the form of an opinion piece that D&DH hoped to pass off as legitimate news. This D&DH bias and desire to attack Dr. Kroll and the other 2 PhD’s on the Deer Trustee team seems to stem from a protectionist standpoint. If one were to look at Dan Schmidt’s book Whitetail wisdom you would see the language he used to describe his mentors and what he deemed as the best whitetail minds in North America. He list among them retired WDNR (and father of SAK) Keith McCaffery. Dr. Kroll has made no bones about his lack of faith in SAK (for some very good reasons) and I think Dr. Kroll represents a threat to the foundation Schmidt has built his set of values upon and Schmidt is lashing out with his tedious stories attacking Kroll and his team and his using the D&DH web site as a sort of bash fest for anything Kroll. I think Schmidt jumped the shark when promoted the liberal propaganda and BS about Kroll advocating privatizing public lands or making public lands a pay-for-play scenario. Anybody who was sincere and possessed even the most modest level of understanding of the governance of public lands in WI would have read this claims about Dr. Kroll and dismissed them as baseless prattle unless there was an agenda to do harm to Kroll and by extension, Governor Scott Walker. I find it unfortunate that Dan Schmidt and D&DH either fell for this or knowingly advanced this BS for a political agenda. Dan Schmidt has used his position with D&DH to advance no less than 6 stories trying to poison the hunting public to the Deer trustee. Schmidt and D&DH are not alone in his constant lamenting about Kroll. Pat Durkin seems to delight in souring hunters to the Deer trustee. I don’t think this is a coincidence as the preface to Dan Schmidt’s book states the following: To Pat Durkin: my mentor for more than 6 years. You not only taught me how to do it, you taught me how to do it right. Both Durkin and Schmidt cant seem to speak any ill of Keith McCaffery and seem to be threatened by Dr. Kroll and his recommendations almost out of fear that Kroll will do some good and improve the situation in WI. I think a large part of this is their dislike of the current governor and his political party and especially in light of the recall and their desire to serve as propagandists prior to the recall election with hopes of steering hunters away from Scott Walker by advancing stories meant to harm both Kroll and Walker when the stories lacked credibility. Why then would Schmidt and others not do a little digging to find out the claims were baseless rather than simply advancing these stories? Schmidt even included on the D&DH pages a call from Democrat legislators which was clearly a partisan ploy driven solely by the recall. It’s a shame a once proud and good deer hunting outlet like D&DH has allowed itself to become a tool of bias and partisan politics to the point that its less than tolerable to mainstream hunters. I think Schmidt does D&DH a disservice and alienates a large portion of its base by essentially becoming a political hack willing to sell out.
Dan Schmidt isn't doing anything different then you are here with the exception he has a much bigger audience. When the final report comes out lets hear your un-biased opinion please without the bashing.
How am I using D&DH (or any company I represent) to advance known BS? Dan does not like the Republican Governor and the new DNR so he uses D&DH to throw a tantrum. He advanced stuff he knews was BS hoping it would harm Walker's chance. He went all in and was exposed as a political partisan when he should be the editor of a non-partisan deer hunting magazine and web site. He used his position and web site to spread propoganda in hopes of effecting an election. How have I done what he is doing????? After all, you just said that Schmidt isn't doing anything different then you are here. Surely even you are bright enough to see thee two dont compare (aside from the size of the readership)
You are attempting to use this forum in the same manner my friend. I suck at verbal gymnastics so I know better then to get into this with you. :-) I would like to ask though if you were doing this report what would you have in it? Recommendations? (I respect your opinion)
Yes, I think that would be for the best. Not many are properly armed and prepared to enter the arena of ideas.
See Gary here in Wisconsin everyone *****es but they never offer suggestions or recommendations. I suggest doing away with these zones and break it down to counties and deal with it on that level. This way you have the locals involved and not some yahoo from across the state or from another state giving us suggestions on the issues in my area. There is my little suggestion may it be wrong or right but I do have one.
Michigan is the same way, and I have suggested the same thing. The issue is zone 2 is above population goals, but areas with no deer and private land areas have all the deer. So zone 2 is in good shape in the DNR's eyes. Mean while hunters in area 452 are having issues finding deer, 452 really was good hunting years ago. It should be by county.
Young fella, you seem to have a knack for inserting a general lack of substance into just about anything you comment on. Your limited horizons scream "look at me" and yet when we do we see little if anything but prattle. Following me from thread to thread is cute and all but I'm spoken for already.
I'm far removed from the situation, but I recently read the D&DH.com article. It's my understanding that the good Dr. was contracted (to the tune of around $150K) to build a staff, do the required research and submit a report based on scientific findings, including suggestions on how to improve Wisconsin's deer management. What I read stated that he hired 2 other guys, "borrowed" someone else's report (from well over a decade ago) and padded it with opinion. IF this is true, I'd be pissed (if I were a Wisc. hunter).
Thanks for reminding me. Here were hear from Dr. Kroll himself telling folks that guys like Dan Schmid and D&DH were duped and fell of BS and were advancing propoganda (and they knew they were doing it hoping to effect the recall). http://www.drdeer.com/ He does a great job of shutting down Schmidt, Deer and Deer hunting and the rest of the political hacks spreading BS.
He did no such thing. He has yet to submit his final report. And no, he and his team of 3 PhD deer biologists are not geting paid $150,000. The team is paid $125,000. Most folks dont understand his charter and what he is tasked with doing and the liberal media likes it that way. Feeding folks misinformation helped fuel the BS you bought into. A few hunting orgs came to his aid after D&DH and the other liberal outlets tried to pass off this propoganda prior to the election. The hunting community has been involved and understands what Kroll is tasked with and didnt fall for the political trick.
