...with the news coming out of Wisconsin, about farmers getting paid for putting up pro-Walker signs (the real reason there are so many); Koch advertising in Illinois offering free trips for Illinois residents to Wisconsin, to support Walker; the rigging of polls; Walker diverting hundreds of thousands of campaign money to his legal defense fund, as it is now clear that he himself is John Doe (well, we knew that anyway), among a gazillion more issues.

Not to forget the plans to seize Wisconsin's public land, in order to privatize deer hunting and fishing.

OTOH, I heard people are voting early in overwhelming numbers.

If you find the time, what's the score?

"Not to forget the plans to seize Wisconsin's public land, in order to privatize deer hunting and fishing."

Oh, that's a good one. Got a source for that?

We are rabidly against Walker in this household; so I am not defending Walker here. I'd just like to know what your source is for that particular nugget of disinformation.

This seems to be related.

-Ron-

"I just can't see him winning in my mind."

If that's what you're talking about, then, if you're a savvy speculator, someone is waiting for you over at Intrade willing to give you 20 to 1 odds that what's in you mind is wrong.

I'd think, given what little I do know about Wisconsin, that if Walker were going to lose, this Hot Topics site would be filled to the brim with "progressives" running around high-fiving each other to a bloodly pulp.

That's what I'd bet.

Am I wrong?

Hope you get rich. 20 to 1.

Hay

The middle class fights back ... :)

Pay no attention, Esh--this is BIG news allover Wisconsin. Simply impossible to not know about.

Ron--I think the recall ballots should be counted with as much scrutiny as the recall signatures were counted. And keep an eye out for any "lost ballots" popping out of nowhere.

Here's the latest on Republicans "winning" anything:

There's nothing out there so far as I can find that substantiates the claim that Walker, presumably via his "deer czar", wishes to do what MAH stated as fact above:

Posted by maddie_athome (My Page) on Thu, May 31, 12 at 17:09 "Not to forget the plans to seize Wisconsin's public land, in order to privatize deer hunting and fishing."

WHERE I STAND! DR. JAMES C. KROLL, WISCONSIN WHITE-TAILED DEER TRUSTEE
by Lodi WI Info on May 23, 2012

Lodi, WI~

snip
"One of the most egregious postings was on a self-proclaimed "liberal" blog. Until now, I never have read either a liberal or a conservative blog; no time for that nonsense. However, I was sent this posting and upset by the lies presented in it! Is this what has led to the contentious times we live in today? The "author" of the blog distorts the truth beyond belief. As a child, we played the game "gossip," in which we got in a circle, whispered something in a friend�s ear, then repeated the message on around the circle. By the time the message got back to its source, it did not resemble the original. The blog report is a distorted misrepresentation of a distorted misrepresentation of a conversation more than ten years ago! In other words, it is a poor game of "adult" gossip. The blogger rails on about me hating public lands, hating public land hunters, and most egregiously being disdainful of hunters! All this is "based" on an article published at least 10 years ago by a liberal-leaning state magazine on the controversies between our state agency and private landowners wanting to manage deer. I spent about a day showing the reporter what was involved in deer management and during the tour discussed many issues."
snip

Again, I'm on Barrett's side; but don't like to see false rumors presented as fact. That's all.

"Kroll, also known as Dr. Deer, is the director of the Forestry Resources Institute of Texas at Stephen F. Austin State University, and the "management" he is referring to is the sort practiced by the State of Texas. The 55-year-old Kroll is the leading light in the field of private deer management as a means to add value to the land. His belief is so absolute that some detractors refer to him as Dr. Dough, implying that his eye is on the bottom line more than on the natural world"

"It is interesting to note that, in 2001, the State of Texas shifted its deer management strategies toward the same leanings that Kroll has suggested for Wisconsin. In Texas, the change was brought about via heavy lobbying from the high-fence deer ranching industry. This pressure helped convince the Texas Parks and Wildlife to change their regulations and allow private landowners to select the own deer biologists.

"That has given landowners more freedom," Kroll told Texas Monthly. "(However,) You still have to let the state on your land to get a wildlife-management permit."

The key difference here is that 98 percent of Texas is comprised of private land.

Wisconsin, on the other hand, consists of approximately 34.8 million acres of land, and 25.5 percent of the state's 638,000 gun-hunters reported hunting on public land at some point during the season (2010, Duey, Rees).
Public land is located in 71 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, with the most public land located in Bayfield County (464,673 acres). Twenty counties have more than 100,000 acres of public land, while only 12 counties have fewer than 10,000 acres.

What does this all mean? My initial reaction, which is one that I predicted when Kroll was named to the state's deer trustee position, is that his team's final recommendations if implemented will be heavily skewed toward the state's larger landowners (500+ acres) and folks who own small parcels in areas comprised mostly of private land.

It is also my prediction that the final recommendations (again, if implemented) will do little, if anything, to improve deer herds and deer hunting on Wisconsin's 5.7 million acres of public land."

Where does this leave the public-land hunter? "It will suck to be you," said one deer manager who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for his job. "The resources and efforts will go toward improving the private land sector. This is all about turning deer hunting away from the Public Land Doctrine and more toward a European-style of management like they have in Texas."

I do, of course, hope these assumptions are wrong. As with all things in life, we should maintain an open mind to change. Life is all about change. However, change for the sake of change is usually a recipe for disaster. Especially when that change is driven by something more than a sincere desire to manage public resources for the greater good."

I'm on Barrett's side; but don't like to see false rumors presented as fact.

I think that poster should report this directly to the Wisconsin Dept of Forestry. Seriously, the OP contained conjecture that Kroll would follow the privatization of public lands that he supported in Texas. This conjecture is hardly a stretch considering the main thrust of Walker's Governorship, which has been to privatize anything that can be privatized.

Just another of my irrelevant posts that have no substance. :)

A bare assertion from a Republican Righty that he/she is "rabidly against Walker" without any stated reasoning does lack substance. Moreover, it is so contrary to the politics of the Right that it deserves a full explanation.

Hay said:

if Walker were going to lose, this Hot Topics site would be filled to the brim with "progressives" running around high-fiving each other to a bloodly pulp.

Unfortunately Barret has little chance as you point out. Much of that is due to a huge focus on this Wisconsin race by RW GOP contributors.

As far as high fiving if Walker was defeated, at least it would be for a worthy accomplishment. What was disgusting was all the celebration today by Boehner, Romney, Cantor, et. al, over the .1 % rise in unemployment numbers. That's what they have been pining for and planning for for three years.

Popcorn !!

"A bare assertion from a Republican Righty that he/she is "rabidly against Walker" without any stated reasoning does lack substance. Moreover, it is so contrary to the politics of the Right that it deserves a full explanation."

____________

"Righty Republican"? That's your judgment and you're wrong. Not agreeing with "Lefty Liberals" does not a "Righty Republican" make. So you require proof that I am wholeheartedly anti-Walker? I am also totally anti-Obama. I actually equate the two on some levels. Notably, the pechant for appointing "czars". Wierd, huh? (I'd say "aye", but then we'll get off topic while someone chimes in to tell me how they think we talk around here.)

I don't know if Kroll is a good guy or a bad guy, I only know that I resent paying him and his assistants to do a job that the Wisconsin Conservation Congress is probably already doing just fine. The blog opinions aren't worth a wooden nickel--just like any other political drivel. Business as usual.

"Unfortunately Barret has little chance as you point out."

Why? Because Barrett is outspent? We'll see; a lot of us are (guardedly) optimistic. And if we don't oust Walker this time, he'd better be ready for next time :)

Anyway, Heri, don't assume that because a person disagrees with a majority of the "Lefties" here or elsewhere, that they are the opposite, or "Righties". Sometimes it's just a loss of patience with the negative rhetoric, and closed-mindedness that seems so apparent to me.

I'm obviously not going out of my way to pretend to agree with the popular view.

Popcorn !!

Told you guys for months to take a close look at the other states!

_____________________________________________________________________

Kroll was Director of Forestry in Texas ten years ago but his writings and policy positions are well beyond gossip and absolutely should be on the table for deer hunters and others concerned about wildlife on public lands in Wisconsin.

Of course. Note that Kroll's "findings" are scheduled for publication after the recall. Too bad the story surfaced before the recall. No wonder it needs to get downplayed at any cost. The overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites hunt to provide their families with meat. That is going to go over well with them.

"The overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites hunt to provide their families with meat. That is going to go over well with them."

Ahem. Not. Please see below; number of hunters have been declining. A lot of us do hunt, and we do eat what we kill. But an overwhelming majority do not even hunt, let along depend on it.
______________

Deer hunting in Wisconsin: Is canary in the coal mine?
Print Email 2011-01-01T20:29:00Z Deer hunting in Wisconsin: Is canary in the coal mine?The Associated Press The Associated Press
January 01, 2011 8:29 pm � Associated Press(0) CommentsWarning signs are useless unless recognized as such.

A first-time visitor to an 1850s coal mine might have felt sorrow seeing a dead parakeet in its cage. A miner, meanwhile, would have glanced at it and dashed for the exit, knowing deadly gases would kill him next if he didn't act fast.

Likewise, folks in wildlife agencies and the hunting industry gasp, blink and request verification when told Wisconsin's greatest declines in deer hunting participation the past decade were among males 25 to 44 years old.

But yep, that's what Dr. Richelle Winkler at the University of Wisconsin's Applied Population Laboratory found while studying Wisconsin's trends.

Why is that so alarming? Because 25- to 44-year-old males have long been considered prime participants. They generally hunt the most, hunt the hardest, buy the most gear, shoot the most deer, father the most kids and train the most young hunters.

As long as their numbers grew, or their participation rates kept pace with their segment of the overall population, hunting would remain strong. In fact, even as Wisconsin's hunter numbers declined the past decade -- and the nation's declined the past quarter-century -- analysts often assumed the losses reflected the aging Baby Boomer generation.

That is, as Boomers passed age 50 and quit hunting as their interest or health slipped, they supposedly depopulated the hunting community. But it's not that easy. When Winkler studied Wisconsin's firearms hunting data from 2000 through '09, she didn't simply chart license sales for each sex/age group between 15 and 80.

No, she determined hunting participation rates for each age group, which meant dividing each year-group of deer hunters by its corresponding cohort in the state's overall population. This revealed Baby Boomers are in no hurry to quit hunting, but they aren't being replaced by equally large groups of diehards.

"Yes, there's a lot of Baby Boomers in Wisconsin, but a high percentage of them like to hunt," Winkler said in an interview. "They're also hunting later into life than their predecessors, probably because they have more money and are in better health. But there's fewer hunters in the age groups behind them, and their participation rates are lower, too."

Further, although 23 percent of males aged 25 to 44 statewide bought a gun deer license in 2009, participation rates were lowest in highly populated counties: Milwaukee (5.3 percent); Kenosha (9.2); Dane (12.3); and Racine (13).

In contrast, counties with high participation rates for males aged 25 to 44 in 2009 were rural, less-populated "outposts" such as Taylor (64 percent); Buffalo (62.2); and Price (61.6).

A decline has other repercussions. When analyzing 2004-2009 data, Winkler detected increased participation rates for 12-year-old hunters. This suggests the state's increased efforts to introduce youths to hunting might be working.

She said, however, that it's too soon to know if these programs will boost long-term participation. The 2004-2009 analysis showed a steep drop in participation rates for 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds; and even steeper declines in 35- to 45-year-olds.

"If your parents aren't hunting, you're not likely hunting, either," Winkler said.

Again, the numbers suggest hunting's challenges go beyond simple factors such as fewer deer sightings, unhappiness with hunting regulations or hunter-education requirements.

The declines also don't suggest a rising tide in anti-hunting influence. In fact, a recent Department of Natural Resources study found 25 percent of Wisconsinites identified themselves as hunters, even though DNR sales figures show only 14 percent of residents buy hunting licenses each year. Apparently these folks have hunted before or intend to hunt "next fall," but don't get around to it.

It's time we ask why their interest has waned.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/article_aab5828a-1618-11e0-9 e48-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1wfbMF7WH

_____________

Again, I'm anti-Walker; just setting this particular record straight.

That non-hunters don't hunt should have been obvious.

I love it when I have to spell out the obvious.

Your post said that the majority of Wisconsinites hunt to provide their families with meat - a big difference.

No comprehension problem but a writing one, IMO.

Pick out a single issue, ignore all others. Right from the playbook...

Anyway. As of now, 13 members have been granted immunity in the ongoing John Doe investigation. Either way, Walker is toast.

Jeez Louise.

Gracias, DS and DF.

I won't let it go to my head.

-Ron-

.....BUT did he plagiarize a recipe, that is what is our main concern here.

Just for the fun of it...tell me what you see:

++++++++++++

Not very exciting even by my admittedly low standards.

The betting on Walker is still at about 96%.

We'll see.

Hay

And that is how it should have been stated.
Nobody had a problem comprehending what you wrote. The problem is that what you wrote is not what you meant, and is inaccurate to boot.

Dockside's gentle correction of your mistake was beautifully done. She was much kinder to you, even though you were in the wrong, than you were to elvis, who was in the right. Elvis deserved better from you.

Recent child, or in the past?

California's current standing at number one in the governor as baby-daddy category could be in jeopardy. Challenged by a girlie-man, no less!

Dr. Bernadette Gillick, a university professor in Minnesota has come out with this story apparently because when she was watching the debates for governor she became so disgusted with Walker's hypocrisy, she decided to come out with this. It has not been verified YET as far as I know.

"Bernadette remembers being present when Ruth was dealing with the wrath of Scott�s mother, who allegedly admonished Ruth for trying to "ruin [her son's] reputation."

"I supported her [Ruth] as he [Scott] went from encouraging her to get an abortion, to telling me it was in my best interest to keep my mouth shut, to denying that he was the father and having his own mother call her and tell her to stop erroneously accusing her son of paternity," Bernadette recounts.

It was a "horrible time" for her friend. "Imagine her being 18 years old and pregnant, walking around Marquette�s Jesuit Catholic campus with her boyfriend denying he was the father," says Bernadette.

All this was taking place while Walker was running for student body president. As one of his classmates, Dr. Glenn Barry recalled in a remembrance published last week, Walker�s campaign was, "one of the dirtiest in school history." The student newspaper Marquette Tribune called him "unfit for office" after his campaign was discovered collecting and throwing out copies of their paper that endorsed his opponent. Commenting on the election and Walker�s political career and style at Marquette, he noted, "Walker lost on all counts, but not before destroying a few people�s reputations, and amassing personal power."

If Bernadette�s story is true, Ruth � and eventually their child � were just a few of the people who got in the way of Walker�s quest for power.

After consulting with her family, Ruth decided against an abortion. Bernadette was with Ruth in the hospital for the birth of her child later that year (and says Walker was not present), and later stood up as a bridesmaid in Ruth�s 1992 marriage to another man. She says Walker eventually had to concede that he was the father, after the birth and paternity test."

-Ron-