# Michigan Coalition Against CCARE



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Anyone want to join the MIACCARE?


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

Why dont you make an organization against PETA ? Or one of the other organizations who want to take away your rights to hunt ?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

They're pretty much one in the same...


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

This is funny. It only helps the search engines point our way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Tracker- Why would you want to stand against an origination looking to improve the hunting for everyone. Unless of course you are an ANTI-HUNTER!!


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Steve-

For everyone?.....how about just hound hunters when talking the issue of bear hunting.

You guys are brain washed already....


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Tracker- So what you are trying to tell me. Is that an orginazation working to improve the bear population. Is not to the benifit of all? If there are no bear to hunt are not all hunters affected? Am I missing something here? If the NRA was concerned about the bear population. Would you want to start a coalition against them. Since using your logic an increase in the bear population would only benefit the gun hunters? This does not make sense.

It is called Concerned Citizens Against Resource Exploitation!! This is not just bear hunting. It is all hunting, and resources that are being exploited. One really needs to thing about that with the decline in game populations across the board. Hunting practices that are being addressed by C.C.A.R.E. not only affect the bear hunting, but all other hunting as well. Getting rules changed limiting the mass quantities of bait placed by commercial bear hunters also affects the commercial deer baiters. Does this not help all the deer hunters. Limiting the controlling infulences in areas by outfitters. Does this not benefit every person that wants to use that area. 

People that are not paid, working for the benefit of all people is a bad thing? Let me ask you this. What have you done lately to help all of the outdoor user groups of the lands in MI?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Steve-

Go to their website, or are you involved with them...hence your defense.

It's simple to see, just like the past year or two on M-S, that they are two houndsman trying to shut down operations that bear hunt over bait in MI in order to get the woods all to themselves. That's all it is.

They're gonna get in over their head...that's what's gonna happen.

Just like another said, they are a "very good anti".

If you want a good organization, a legit one at that, get involved in one that is backed by actual sholars, managers, researchers, biologists, etc. in the particular field.

I see you're a hound hunter too though Steve...so I guess you would back them.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Pro CCARE:

Andy Drumm-hound hunter
Steve White-hound hunter
Bearboy-hound hunter
Rooster Cogburn-hound hunter


See a pattern here?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Point in case....

From the CCARE website (www.ccare.ws):

"CARE was formed in reaction to the complaints echoed by hunters across the region of poor hunting success. Commercial baiting operations(for bear and deer) across Michigan have overstepped responsible hunting techniques, crowding out sportsman and women. The result has been harmful to the resource(bear and deer), other animals, and the overall perception of hunting by the public. It is our goal to work closely with the Michigan DNR to resolve these problems, said Markham."


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

uptracker, why didn't you list the others involved with CCARE form this site that are associated with the other hunting and trapping organizations in our state and are not hound hunters. Many of these people have never hound hunted at all they just have a concern about resource exploitation. They have also been working on a joint plan to help improve the bobcat populations and improve management throughout the state. I know their are people involved with CCARE brainstorming on this topic that you would never attack the way you have a few people on this site. You are the one with the ax to grind and the hidden agenda my freind. I don't understand how someone who is for Quality Deer Management wouldn't be for Quality Bear Management.

John


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

uptracker said:


> Pro CCARE:
> 
> Andy Drumm-hound hunter
> Steve White-hound hunter
> ...


I agree - they should change the name of their organization. I see nothing to suggest they are concerned with "Resource Exploitation" as a whole - only bears, and only in the UP.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

hubbarj said:


> uptracker, why didn't you list the others involved with CCARE form this site that are associated with the other hunting and trapping organizations in our state and are not hound hunters. Many of these people have never hound hunted at all they just have a concern about resource exploitation. They have also been working on a joint plan to help improve the bobcat populations and improve management throughout the state. I know their are people involved with CCARE brainstorming on this topic that you would never attack the way you have a few people on this site. You are the one with the ax to grind and the hidden agenda my freind. I don't understand how someone who is for Quality Deer Management wouldn't be for Quality Bear Management.
> 
> John


Bobcat?

Oh, you mean similar to when the bear houndsman got the bobcat season closed in the NLP a few years back and then the DNR brought it back? That bobcat?

We've come full circle haven't we?


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

uptracker said:


> Point in case....
> 
> From the CCARE website (www.ccare.ws):
> 
> "CARE was formed in reaction to the complaints echoed by hunters across the region of poor hunting success. Commercial baiting operations(for bear and deer) across Michigan have overstepped responsible hunting techniques, crowding out sportsman and women. The result has been harmful to the resource(bear and deer), other animals, and the overall perception of hunting by the public. It is our goal to work closely with the Michigan DNR to resolve these problems, said Markham."


So what is your point there? Clearly says sportsmen and women. Clearly says commercial operations. Not trying to take away baiting or hunting from any person. Yet trying to make it better for all. A level playing field. Commercial operations that are placing out as many as 100 bait or more. Is a good idea for everyone in your eyes? Are you one of these commercial operators? People running people out of the woods under threat/acts of violence claiming sole use of an area for a commercial operation. Is good in your eyes? Does not having game to pursue affect everyone? Who is the benefactor of there being no game to hunt? Would seem to be a loss for everyone. Even the states wallet will be affected. 

Is it not funny how someone who is so willing to speak out against people working to better the outdoors for everyone. Is also hiding behind the keyboard with a screen name. My viewpoints in helping the resources for the better of all outdoor groups. Are backed by facts. Disscussed openly across the web, and public venues. My name, address, and phone number are posted all over the web. No hiding behind a keyboard shooting my mouth off. 

Like I said. What have you done to help the users of the outdoors in any state???


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

uptracker said:


> Bobcat?
> 
> Oh, you mean similar to when the bear houndsman got the bobcat season closed in the NLP a few years back and then the DNR brought it back? That bobcat?
> 
> We've come full circle haven't we?


Before spouting off again. Did you stop to think. That perhaps, just perhaps. The closing of the season allowed for the population to grow to a point where a season could be opened again.


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

lang49 said:


> I agree - they should change the name of their organization. I see nothing to suggest they are concerned with "Resource Exploitation" as a whole - only bears, and only in the UP.


Taken from Tracker's post.

"CARE was formed in reaction to the complaints echoed by hunters across the region of poor hunting success. Commercial baiting operations(for bear and deer) across Michigan have overstepped responsible hunting techniques, crowding out sportsman and women. The result has been harmful to the resource(bear and deer), other animals, and the overall perception of hunting by the public. It is our goal to work closely with the Michigan DNR to resolve these problems, said Markham."


Clearly states deer in there!! Also the problems being addressed now. Affect all of MI. That includes the lower as well. May not seem like it as the bulk of the problems are in the UP. Yet a goal to increase the bear population. Would increase the population in the lower as well. Limiting the commercial aspects of hunting affects the lower. The UP, the lower is all one state. Changes will help everyone.


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

uptracker said:


> Bobcat?
> 
> Oh, you mean similar to when the bear houndsman got the bobcat season closed in the NLP a few years back and then the DNR brought it back? That bobcat?
> 
> We've come full circle haven't we?


Not even close, if you would do a little more research on the site and see who is involved instead of making assumptions you would see that you are way of base. Well respected members of the trapping community are also on board as well as members of the MTA. Nobody on the CCARE site has ever been in support of the MBHA lawsuit to my knowledge. You should probably know what and who you are talking about before you open your mouth.


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

Well , I have nothing against bait hunting , I do how ever have something against operations selling our game , and not being regulated !! Whether game taken with hounds , or over bait on federal or state controlled land ! The land that is everyone's to use . Not just the bigger operations , or if they find your bait site , and put moth balls in it .. Or even worse ! I personally think guiding , outfitting or what ever you want to call it NEEDS to be regulated ! Some of these operations need to be put in their place , once again whether it be hound hunting or bait hunting outfitters or guides ! 
Mr Uptracker , If you feel the need to call me out on the internet with your ignorant statement on where I stand , without even knowing me or how I hunt or what I believe in .. feel free to give me a call ! 517-797-5323 . Or if you like I can give you my address and we can talk about it over a cup of coffee .Or even better yet , I will probably near the bridge next month or the beginning of April . But you probably wont do either .. Because you are so good at reading into things just what you want them to say , which is obvious by your posts on this site ! Maybe you need to go back and re read all of the posts I have made on this subject , or print them off and read them a few times , so maybe you will see what I type .
You need to get your facts straight !


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

uptracker:
Please include me in your Pro CCARE listing. On that forum I go by Checker and my name is Gary Schinske. Thanks.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Rich asked me to join and give my views on the issues which made them decide to start CCARE. I've flat out told them when their wrong and they have listened to my suggestions. The name calling has been a little childish in my opinion and I hope that will stop.

Anyone who is as passionate as these guys are about there sport have a right to have there concerns heard. They may be a little hot headed at times and they may of brought some of their own prejudices to the table with them. But they do have some legitimate issues.

If we have areas in our state where over harvest is going on for any game animals these issues need to be addressed. If smaller management zones are needed or cuts in permits are needed then I'm all for it.

Now if you have any data or information to dispute what there saying please post it now.

Griff


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Here is a suggestion that would solve it all,stop houndhunting and baiting.Go strictly spot and stalk or track them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

perch321 said:


> Here is a suggestion that would solve it all,stop houndhunting and baiting.Go strictly spot and stalk or track them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Now there is an idea. Sounds like something the DNR would say. Let's see if we can reduce the harvest success rates even further than they are!


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

perch321 said:


> Here is a suggestion that would solve it all,stop houndhunting and baiting.Go strictly spot and stalk or track them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Pennsylvania tried that. Now their bears are taken by drives with large numbers of folks pushing the laurel thickets. The vast majority of hunters go years without ever seeing a bear (live or dead). Spot and stalk doesn't work well in mountainous land that's forested (like PA)- not to mention forested land that's essentially flat (like most of Michigan). 

And as a trapper I like to think of myself as a reasonably good tracker, but tracking a bear through the September and October leaves would be quite a challenge! In our hunting area (Alcona County) they are pretty much denned up by the time the snow gets good enough.

John


----------



## bhhad25 (Nov 30, 2005)

Steve White said:


> Now there is an idea. Sounds like something the DNR would say. Let's see if we can reduce the harvest success rates even further than they are!



So you wanna increase population, but you don't want success rates to go down? Seems like more unsuccessful hunts would lead to a growth in population. I was on your side till you said this. 

Keep in mind, I'm new to all this. But this bickering sure makes me wanna keep my money here in the LP. Why take my hard earned $ to the UP and put up with this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Going by the historic data of success rates in MI. Reducing the amount of tags. Will most likely not change the success rate. Just the amount of unsuccessful tag holders. Which would also mean a slight loss of revenue to the state in wasted tags sales. A reduction in the number of bears harvested will increase the population. Without reducing the success rate. A size limit would also most likely increase the population. As more bear would reach breeding age before being harvested. This though may reduce the success rate a bit at first. As the amount of smaller bears that are shot now. Could not be harvested. 

The ultimate goal is to increase the overall population statewide. Hopefully increasing the success rates, and average size of harvested bears at the same time. I know it's a lot to ask. Yet is not an unreasonable task. 

Bhad, I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately though one of the best tactics to harvest a bear is with bait. Whether it's sat over, or used in conjunction with dogs. Abolishing the use of bait is a very bad idea.


----------



## old professor (Oct 26, 2008)

Steve, the problem is that the DNRE wants to reduce the populations in most units, not increase them! How do we change that?


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

In the Western Upper Peninsula the target harvest has been reduced the past year and again this year. Population studies are done in three main areas not BMU's. The notion of increasing tags, therefore revenue is the wrong approach. The late season hunters do not have a very high success rate. 

The chances of getting a decent size bear in the Upper Peninsula is very low. With current population(statewide) cub production cannot keep up with target harvests. The result has been a decline in bear numbers. This is not a debate between hunters and the MDNRE. They admitted it by revising the population estimate.


I have talked to several that will attend the NRC meeting. Some will speak and some will not. The main groups involved(without getting specific) are all going to ask the NRC to reduce tags. This concenus was reached at the bear users group in St. Ignace. All attending spoke and all but one person felt the bear numbers were down, way down. The NRC will listen and decide on a number of tags. The recomendation from the wildlife division is around 12,300. This is an increase from last year....

Overharvest of bear is nothing new. Other states have done it. Drummond Island should be a real red flag. Bears are the slowest reproducing game animal in Michigan.


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

Steve White said:


> Before spouting off again. Did you stop to think. That perhaps, just perhaps. The closing of the season allowed for the population to grow to a point where a season could be opened again.


Then wouldn't closing the bear season do the same?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

There is no need to close bear season. If we want higher bear numbers just stop all bear hunting for hire operations on lands open for public hunting whether it's baiting or hunting with hounds. There's enough private land in the UP to have bear hunting for hire operations held where. A private land owner should be allowed to guide for bear on their own land plus it would give that guy who doesn't have the time to devote to the sport or land a place to go if he chooses to hire someone.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> There is no need to close bear season. If we want higher bear numbers just stop all bear hunting for hire operations on lands open for public hunting whether it's baiting or hunting with hounds. There's enough private land in the UP to have bear hunting for hire operations held where. A private land owner should be allowed to guide for bear on their own land plus it would give that guy who doesn't have the time to devote to the sport or land a place to go if he chooses to hire someone.


Not taking a side, but wouldn't that be hard on the guys who guide with hounds (as opposed to baiters)? Most of the large tracts of land in the UP are Public or CFA. As I understand it, bears tend to run a pretty good ways. Odds are good, the dogs would push a bear onto or at least across public/CFA land.

Just raising the thought for discussion.

John


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

So let me see if I understand this you guys are saying to increase bear numbers in the State all you need to do is stop bear baiting by guides on public land? Why not stop bear *GUIDING* on public land instead. Its the same thing right?


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Holy crap snaps!! This thread just took several U turns. 



Luv2hunteup said:


> There is no need to close bear season. If we want higher bear numbers just stop all bear hunting for hire operations on lands open for public hunting whether it's baiting or hunting with hounds. There's enough private land in the UP to have bear hunting for hire operations held where. A private land owner should be allowed to guide for bear on their own land plus it would give that guy who doesn't have the time to devote to the sport or land a place to go if he chooses to hire someone.


Everyone has the same right to guide in MI whether it is on public or private lands. Why should only the ones that are privileged to own an acre somewhere be the only ones with the right. 



Frantz said:


> Then wouldn't closing the bear season do the same?


Frantz- If the bear numbers were to get so low that is was in the best interest of population, and user groups. Absolutely. It worked in WI!! Just like in did for MI cats. Hopefully it won't come to that!!



Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> So let me see if I understand this you guys are saying to increase bear numbers in the State all you need to do is stop bear baiting by guides on public land? Why not stop bear *GUIDING* on public land instead. Its the same thing right?


Brandon- ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! That has never been said, or is the issue. What has been said, and maybe twisted or misread. Is that the guiding needs to be regulated. Yes, this has a lot to do with the large commercial operations. I cannot stress that enough!! The LARGE commercial operations. Ones that are saturating areas with baits. Pushing out other users of the land. Sometimes not only with threats of violence, but actions of it as well. This is not the true guides that are providing a quality hunt with a personal experience. Folks that just throw out large amounts of baits just for the dollar with no regard to the resource. This regulation is only one step in the process. Other things like limiting the tag numbers to a level where the population can be sustained, and increase. Setting a size limit so that the cub killing will stop, allowing bears to reach breeding age. Getting rid of self registration also as a means of reducing the cub killing. 

This is not hounds vs bait. private lands vs public lands. guides vs everyone. This is about increasing the population of the black bear in MI as a whole. Not one single thing is to blame in itself. Nor is one single thing going to cure the problem. There are many things that need to be changed in order for the population to grow. It's going to take time to make the changes. It's going to take even more time for the population to come back. Just as a guess I bet it would take at least 10yrs of no hunting at all for MI to even come close to the population of bear that WI now has. Strange as it was only a few years ago. MI had way more bear than WI. Somewhere, somehow the management went wrong. Not one thing, but a whole bunch. It will take all user groups working together to correct this. The more finger pointing and bickering there is. The longer it is going to take!


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Steve White, would you be ok with posting how Wisconsin's low bear numbers years ago ended up with them trying to defend their bear management in court...and they failed, and what transpired as a result of the court's decision?


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Absolutely! Any information that could be used to help in making better management decisions. Would take some digging as I don't have that info off hand. Perhaps someone else does?

Better management is the heart of the issue. Even though WI has been doing well with the bears. They have been doing a great job of screwing up the deer, and cat numbers!!


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> Not taking a side, but wouldn't that be hard on the guys who guide with hounds (as opposed to baiters)?


Not really; just leave your weapon behind on private property and follow the hounds. It's really about the chase, the kill is kind of anti-climatic.


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Personally I would be all for eliminating guiding on public land. I may catch heat for saying that because Beaverhunter is right about it hurting guides that use hound but that is just my opinion. I am a hound hunter and this will probably cause me some greif but I have big shoulders. The other factor is the number of tags given out. If they continue to issue more tags than we have bear and our number of sows harvested keeps going up then we won't have to worry about guide regulations because we will go down the same road as Drummond Island a complete crash of our bear population.

John


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

I have been a registered member of M-S for over five years. I don't post much but do read a lot of the threads. How stupid do some of you guys think we are that you "concerned hunters" don't have a personal agenda that would allow you to be drawn for a tag more often by taking your asinine stand against bear guides? It doesn't take a genius to figure out why you have such a hard line stand against guided bear operations. These operations cater to downstaters and this just ticks you off. If you can eliminate the guiding operations you will reduce the number of tag applications because you know that those of us who don't live in bear country most likely would not apply because we don't have the time and/or money to maintain our own bait sites and for sure don't own dogs. Guiding on public land is done everywhere. It is no different than fishing guides on public waters. You know, I'd have a lot more respect for you guys if you'd just come out and say what you want to accomplish rather than hiding under the guise of looking out for the sport. You're looking out for yourself. That's OK. Man up and admit it for crying out loud! I'll be sending off a letter to the NRC and let them know what I think you guys are all about you can be sure.


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Sportdog, this is the funniest one yet. Where i live I can get a tag every other year adn where Rooster and Bearboy live they can draw every year. So take your statement and head back to the drawing board to see if you can come up with another one.

John


----------



## Beartreed (May 8, 2008)

Sportdog you are way off base.Our bunch of hunters only care that we have a couple of tags in camp so if we decide to shoot one we can. I've been bear hunting for 18 years and have shot one bear.Where we hunt you will draw a tag every 2-3 years and that's more often than we need.We usually have kids or guests(with tags) take the bears.I've said before,with most houndsmen it's about the hounds and the experience,not the kill.It's easy to get all the tags we care to get so why would we be so concerned with bait hunters getting tags too.We just don't need so many available.


----------



## coyote/dave (Mar 10, 2009)

sportdog..... ten years running hounds and never killed a bear... don't even put in for a tag anymore .... can show you some great videos... when i do decide to participate in a hunt its ussually for someones 85 year old uncle or a 12 year old kid..... you don't need to go to the U.P to find bears we have better hunting in the lower.... the issue hear is declining bear numbers in the U.P...... i can vouch for hubbarj....used to hunt his neck of the woods for years...bears are few and far between....not worth my time going up anymore.....


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

If the real subject is tag reduction, then why does the issue of guides operating on public land always come up? If you would care to take a moment and look back on my posts you will see that the issue of tag reduction was MY opinion on shrinking bear size and numbers, using factual information from scientific data by the DNR and not some guys opinion with a personal agenda. It seems like the public voted on this issue and agreed to let the experts in the field manage wildlife resources. Anybody remember that???? No one seems to want to address why you are against guide operations on PUBLIC land. Why is it OK for guys to guide for deer and turkey but not for bears? Why is it OK for charter boat captains to take clients out fishing on PUBLIC water? I haven't heard a big outcry against those people. Oh, that's right, that doesn't concern your self serving interests, does it? You know I never had anything against running bears with dogs but I'm starting to change my opinion on that after seeing the type of personalities that represent that sport on this forum. With every stroke of your keyboard you guys are reflecting poorly on bear hunting with dogs. You guys are going to keep it up until bear hunting becomes a thing of the past, all because of your greed and inflated ego. Nothing like bringing a fight amongst fellow hunters and ripping the way they hunt to supply more fodder to the anti-hunters that are out there in growing numbers. I'm sure they would love to hear how you really don't want to kill bears (but you do, don't you), you just want to harass the heck out of them and make them run in fear and disrupt their day to day activities for your pleasure. You want tag reduction? That shows that you care about the sport if it is really needed by scientific data. When you start bringing in some of the other things, that's where you lose all credibility. The reason you guys are getting your panties in a wad is that you know that I have you pegged and you don't like it.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Steve White: I am not sure what this means "Holy crap snaps!!", but I like it!


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

sportdog,

i could draw every year where i hunt but choose not to. i have 3 points going in this year and sending in for another point. shot my first and only bear in 2000 and dont care to shoot another one. seen way more let go to run another day then i have killed. your theory of us only wanting tags for ourselves doesnt hold much credit. your theory of hounds changing bear habits is bs. when is the last time you saw any guide in this state step up and do anything to better the bear population? i can drive ten miles just before dark and probably see a hundred deer and hundreds of turkeys. whens the last you saw that many bear standing around in fields? more people could do there own hunts if they tried but are led to believe they can't so they never try. some people probably do need to use a bait or hound guide and i'm fine with that but there needs to be some kind regulation on them. you probably can go through 100 threads on here and 50 of them will have an anti hound statement in it but thats ok. one person makes one suggestion about the way you choose to hunt and you get your panties in wad.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

sportdog,

i bet if you ask the yoopers if there against deer guiding in the u.p. most would be against seems how there deer population is in the toilet also


----------



## 12970 (Apr 19, 2005)

I take no side in this but from the way it appears here on MS, those that are with this organziation CCare are most Bear Hunters and most all the discussion is only about Bear Hunting. They might have included Deer in their mission statement but so far it mainly deals with Bear and Bear Hunting. I think that is why some are not sure or support them. Maybe they need to post about what they are doing for Deer and general hunting over all not just Bear Hunting. But that is the way it looks. 

There is a lot of things that could be done with hunting here in Michigan, Licensing Guides Services whether it is for Bear, Deer or Elk just to name a few that offer this kind of service. And having some kind of recourse if a hunter has issues with no licensing there is little a hunter can do. 

There is always many opinions on what hunting should be and not take sides is just dividining us as hunters. It appears that some are for this and others are not. And yet those that are with CCare are jumping in when this is Against CCare and yet most of the posts are for those with CCare. Forums are for open discussions and making vaild points. Seems that only are few know everything about this and yet against the NRC / DNR and the way these government agencies are managing this resource. I have not heard them going to the DNR about implementing the OBR which has been going on for sometime again only the Bear Hunting issue from their organization. 

So until they get involved with all hunting and take a stand for all the issues with the DNR & NRC it will be hard to understand how they are involved in all hunting in Michigan. I understand it tales money and time but sio far the talk is all about one topic.

Bears are reclusive animals not like Deer and Turkeys they stay away from the public for the most part except to find food and easy food when they get the scent of it. You will never seen Bears like you do other animals. They are like Coyotes ands Foxes so to suggest Bears could be like deer out in a field is misleading information unless there is no hunting of them for more years than most of us will be here on earth. 

Just an observation,
Newaygo1


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

dickey3476 said:


> sportdog,
> 
> i could draw every year where i hunt but choose not to. i have 3 points going in this year and sending in for another point. shot my first and only bear in 2000 and dont care to shoot another one. seen way more let go to run another day then i have killed. your theory of us only wanting tags for ourselves doesnt hold much credit. your theory of hounds changing bear habits is bs. when is the last time you saw any guide in this state step up and do anything to better the bear population?


Please answer these questions. #1 If you do not intend to shoot another bear, what is your intention in applying for a point? #2 Please point out in my post where I posed the theory that hounds changing bear habits? I stated that hounds running bears takes them out of their daily routine of living. Haven't you ever heard the expression "Being Hounded"? Where the heck do you think that term came from? How would you like being chased around by a pack of dogs all day? Think that might change your routine? Hello!!! #3 Not a question, a comment. It's the responsibility of the MDNR to manage, not better, the bear population. We don't need a bunch of radical agenda driven hound hunters trying to skew the regulations for their individual benefit. Let's leave that to those with the knowledge to do that as the voting public said that they should. The state of Michigan does not need or want political or individual groups setting game policy. You sure would not like it if PETA set the rules would you? I think not. Quit trying to be self serving and let the DNR do the job that they are qualified and paid to do. You hound hunters better keep a low profile. The public is not fond of your "sport" to begin with. Keep throwing it out there and it's going to be bad for ALL bear hunters in Michigan. We're riding a fine line, don't push it or we will be out of luck hunting bears with any method. As I said earlier. I have never been against bear hunting with hounds but you people are starting to create an enemy. And if it is testing me then I'm sure that I'm not the only one.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Newaygo1, your suggestion is appreciated. Sent you a private message.

The CCARE website was set-up so there would be a place where we can post documentation on black bear management issues. It is also intended to be a place where we can discuss both sides of those issues. 

By forming the CCARE organization it allows us to issue press releases. Such was the case with the Wildlife Division's proposal to issue more harvest tags than we have bear. The CCARE press release contained data we received from MDNRE...and we communicated it to sportsmen across the state. 

Deer management is a concern we all have. If CCARE members want to pursue issues relating to deer management they can introduce it on the website. Currently, White Tails Unlimited, UP Sportsmans Alliance and other organizations are focused on deer management. CCARE is focused on bear management and have several objectives needing resolution.


----------



## coyote/dave (Mar 10, 2009)

sportdog..... i really am not into killing a bear to inflate my ego ...i see more bears in one summer than you will in a life time ...my agenda is to keep it that way... don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the next guy does.... i have said it before on this forum and i will repeat myself.... reduce the amount of tags and everything else falls in line..... less tags will reduce the amount of baits in the woods,reduce hunter conflict and it just might give the population a chance to rebound... as for guides not my issue..... the d.n.r. creates this atmosphere of mis-trust by over saturating the woods with too many tags that won't be filled...then everybody blames everybody.... so does a guy who doesn't care to kill game have right to enjoy the resource or do only the killers have an opinion...... divide and conquer... i think the d.n.r. is winning this fight.... at least the tree huggers stick together...


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

coyote/dave said:


> sportdog..... i really am not into killing a bear to inflate my ego ...i see more bears in one summer than you will in a life time ...my agenda is to keep it that way... don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the next guy does.... i have said it before on this forum and i will repeat myself.... reduce the amount of tags and everything else falls in line..... less tags will reduce the amount of baits in the woods,reduce hunter conflict and it just might give the population a chance to rebound... as for guides not my issue..... the d.n.r. creates this atmosphere of mis-trust by over saturating the woods with too many tags that won't be filled...then everybody blames everybody.... so does a guy who doesn't care to kill game have right to enjoy the resource or do only the killers have an opinion...... divide and conquer... i think the d.n.r. is winning this fight.... at least the tree huggers stick together...


You didn't answer my question. Why do you buy a point if you have no intention of hunting bear????? You don't need preference points to observe bears. I agree with most of your post. IF the MDNR feels a reduction in tags is called for, let them formulate the plan. Thanks for at least admitting you are selfish and think that you know more than the MDNR. And for the record what the heck does the number of bears that you have seen have to do with bear resource management? You are one individual snapshot of bear sightings. Sorry, that's not good enough to satisfy state policy. But again, I respect your honesty, unlike some on this site. Just to be clear, and that it difficult on this site, I have no problem with tag reduction if deemed so by the experts in the DNR. Until the last couple of months I have had a positive opinion of hound bear hunters. That is now in question. Attempts to hoard the sport of bear hunting will always be challenged by me. Wild game is a state managed resource for the good of ALL residents of the state of Michigan, including those of us who live in the southern part of the state.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

Sportdog said:


> Please answer these questions. #1 If you do not intend to shoot another bear, what is your intention in applying for a point? #2 Please point out in my post where I posed the theory that hounds changing bear habits? I stated that hounds running bears takes them out of their daily routine of living. Haven't you ever heard the expression "Being Hounded"? Where the heck do you think that term came from? How would you like being chased around by a pack of dogs all day? Think that might change your routine? Hello!!! #3 Not a question, a comment. It's the responsibility of the MDNR to manage, not better, the bear population. We don't need a bunch of radical agenda driven hound hunters trying to skew the regulations for their individual benefit. Let's leave that to those with the knowledge to do that as the voting public said that they should. The state of Michigan does not need or want political or individual groups setting game policy. You sure would not like it if PETA set the rules would you? I think not. Quit trying to be self serving and let the DNR do the job that they are qualified and paid to do. You hound hunters better keep a low profile. The public is not fond of your "sport" to begin with. Keep throwing it out there and it's going to be bad for ALL bear hunters in Michigan. We're riding a fine line, don't push it or we will be out of luck hunting bears with any method. As I said earlier. I have never been against bear hunting with hounds but you people are starting to create an enemy. And if it is testing me then I'm sure that I'm not the only one.


 
i know the bear population sucks so thats one reason i do not try to draw. i have nephews nieces and soon to be kid that i could donate a tag to if i choose. i could donate one to a kid or person that has terminal illness if i wish. if i do someday desire to draw another bear tag my points will be there. i dont even know how to answer the second question because you pretty much said the same thing i did. and if the population keeps going the way it has been we won't have to worry about someone taking it away because there will be nothing to take.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

do you call the dnre changing there bear estimate from 19,000 to 11,000 sound scientific managment. 8000 bear is pretty big difference


----------



## coyote/dave (Mar 10, 2009)

sportdog.....you are right about the points....why donate four dollars to the resource when i can enjoy it for free..... probably won't bother with a n.k.t either.... i will just put my dogs away early and do more fishing..... quit early last year ... kill isn't any fun anymore...........


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

dickey3476 said:


> do you call the dnre changing there bear estimate from 19,000 to 11,000 sound scientific managment. 8000 bear is pretty big difference


Doesn't sound too good to me either. I would still venture that they know more than us internet experts. LOL. I have no problem pushing the MDNR to do a better job. I just don't want special interest groups trying to push policy that is self serving. Certainly you can understand that. Right? As I have said ad nausium, tag reduction suits me just fine if that is what is needed. I only draw the line when there is an self serving agenda wanting to make the rules. Your reasons for buying points is good. That is the reason my wife buys points. A healthy bear population drives me, not exclusionary policies that suit me at the expense of others.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Sportdog,

What self-serving interests are you referring to, regulating guiding in Michigan?

Just went back and waded through your posts on this thread and thought I'd save you the trouble of explaining the issue you feel is self-serviing. I see where you are upset about guides being required to apply for a State Land Use Permit if they plan to operate on state land. And on federal they will be required to apply for a Special Use Permit. FYI, the state land use permit is a Michigan state statute revised on July 9, 2005 and signed by Director Humphries. The Special Use Permit requirement for outfitter/guides is federal law. The guiding issue is addressed in the 2009 Michigan Bear Management Plan signed by Director Humphries and supported by representatives from all 18 user groups involved in developing the plan. You certainly have a right to complain about guides not being able to operate for free, but this is not a self-serving act by a handful of individuals.


----------



## rwenglish1 (Jan 6, 2007)

Baiters want more tags, because it takes longer to draw one. You could up theirs and a majority of bait hunters would still not get a bear. 

But also, many who are new to bait hunting do not have experience in sizing bears. So Sows and yearling cubs are killed, this has the biggest effect on reproduction and possibilities of reaching adulthood.

With hound hunting as stated in above posts, many don't care to kill a bear. We have several in our group, but they each continue to buy a participant tag. 
The state gains revenue on these hunters, I am guessing to about 15,000 ?? participant tags at the same cost of a kill tag, which goes on *year after year*. Not just when they draw a kill tag. 

Also as stated above we have young hunters or first time hunters at the tree. A bear is checked for the sex, and sized up for age and weight. With more experienced hunters there, many times a bear is left, leaving the hunter in a bummed state of mind sometimes, but at the next tree they learn what were talking about and get a bear sometimes, not always. 

But like my Grandpa use to say: "Thats why they call it hunting, not killing."

All of us really need to have better education programs on bear hunting no matter what the method. There needs to be more dialog on the ways of identifying a mature shootable bear than arguing on how many guides etc. 

Granted if someone uses a guiding service and has no idea what to look for when a bear comes in, or does not have someone with them who does have expirence and can hold them back from shooting a sow or yearlying, the hunter has a lot of mind games going on. 

This to me is the more important need than the issues at hand. The DNR or MBH, or some other group along with Cabelas as a sponsor could help with an education program.




Participant Tags How many are bought each year?


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

*


"We have met the enemy and he is us"*


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

I just cannot understand why so many are having a problem with wanting to increase the game populations in MI. Doing nothing is not going to help. The people in charge need to be held accountable of their actions. In allowing the game populations to be where they are no. Who really is to blame. The outdoor user groups following the harvest rules set by the DNR, or the DNR for not setting them in a way to allow a population to grow.


----------



## rwenglish1 (Jan 6, 2007)

Steve White said:


> I just cannot understand why so many are having a problem with wanting to increase the game populations in MI. Doing nothing is not going to help. The people in charge need to be held accountable of their actions. In allowing the game populations to be where they are no. Who really is to blame. The outdoor user groups following the harvest rules set by the DNR, or the DNR for not setting them in a way to allow a population to grow.


I respectfully disagree, you could make the DNR cut a 1/3 of the tags off. If hunters are not educated on what bears they should take and that 2/3's hunters with tags take the majority of those as Sows, and 1.2 year male and female bears, you still are not gaining.

I honestly feel you could leave it or even raise it so more people have a chance to be in the woods. But this is where the education part comes in. They must show responsibility and understand, not everybody with a tag is going to be able to kill a bear.

If you get a fishing license you are not guaranteed a master angler award. If you get a turkey license again no guarantee, but you get to get out in the woods and try. I know this is not the same with reproduction habits, but I don't know where we got off track thinking that when the coveted bear tags is obtained, that if you do not get a bear something is wrong. You might see three bears and if they are all a Mother Sow, with two 1.5 year old cubs it now comes down to how you call your hunting experience a SUCCESS.

I would really like to see more Hound hunters reach out and take others who do not have hounds and have no desire to have hounds. But would like to be involved in bear hunting while they are waiting for their tag to be drawn. They might only be able to go once or twice but I guarantee you that person will enjoy themselves immensity and when they draw their tag they will be better equipped with knowledge to hunt for bears. If they have to pass on a sow or young bear, they know they did the best they could and can't wait to help out next year running bear dogs and see more bears in the tree next year while they wait for another tag.



*Participant Tags How many are bought each year? *


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

Steve White said:


> I just cannot understand why so many are having a problem with wanting to increase the game populations in MI. Doing nothing is not going to help. The people in charge need to be held accountable of their actions. In allowing the game populations to be where they are no. Who really is to blame. The outdoor user groups following the harvest rules set by the DNR, or the DNR for not setting them in a way to allow a population to grow.


I have tried to have a real conversation on this site before and ended up so frustrated that I gave up. Since you are new, I'll give it a try. I have not seen or noticed anyone stating they were not in favor of increase in game populations on this thread. I did take the time to do a quick skim of the 2009 Bear Management Plan. The DNR does not promise to increase the bear population. The plan is to manage the resource within many parameters such as carrying capacity, human bear conflict, safety issues, viewing issues, hunting as a management tool and others. The crux that I got out of the plan was that the DNR wants maximum bear population BUT within what THEY deem as reasonable. Without debating every line of the document it is clear that they will control all aspects of the Michigan Black Bear. It says that they welcome input, that doesn't mean that they will implement every idea that is proposed by the public or user groups. I did find it interesting that the number of Michigan bear hunters using dogs is only 12 percent. That is a surprise to me because a much larger chunk of the posters here are dog hunters. I read a lot of print about land owner/houndsman issues and only a small amount on bait hunter conflict issues. I saw some issues dealing with conflict over baiting. It also dealt with tresspassing by houndsman. Now I have always been open and positive about the houndsman hunters but over a period of time on this site I have grown more and more out of patience with the houndsman. I really don't want to have a conflict on the internet or in the woods with hound hunters because I think that hurts all of us. I did take the time to go to the CCARE web page. It looks like a lot of complaining about the DNR and Game Wardens. After reading some of the forum I found it of little substantial merit. Just a bunch of guys complaining and others feeling sorry for themselves. Now please remember, I've only spent an hour or so reading the plan and the web site so I will not draw any permenant opinion but it looks awful weak for a organization to gain much grassroot support. I'll do some more reading this weekend.


----------



## rwenglish1 (Jan 6, 2007)

Sportdog said:


> I have tried to have a real conversation on this site before and ended up so frustrated that I gave up. Since you are new, I'll give it a try. I have not seen or noticed anyone stating they were not in favor of increase in game populations on this thread. I did take the time to do a quick skim of the 2009 Bear Management Plan. The DNR does not promise to increase the bear population. The plan is to manage the resource within many parameters such as carrying capacity, human bear conflict, safety issues, viewing issues, hunting as a management tool and others. The crux that I got out of the plan was that the DNR wants maximum bear population BUT within what THEY deem as reasonable. Without debating every line of the document it is clear that they will control all aspects of the Michigan Black Bear. It says that they welcome input, that doesn't mean that they will implement every idea that is proposed by the public or user groups. I did find it interesting that the number of Michigan bear hunters using dogs is only 12 percent. *That is a surprise to me because a much larger chunk of the posters here are dog hunters. I read a lot of print about land owner/houndsman issues and only a small amount on bait hunter conflict issues.* I saw some issues dealing with conflict over baiting. It also dealt with tresspassing by houndsman. Now I have always been open and positive about the houndsman hunters but over a period of time on this site I have grown more and more out of patience with the houndsman. I really don't want to have a conflict on the internet or in the woods with hound hunters because I think that hurts all of us. I did take the time to go to the CCARE web page. It looks like a lot of complaining about the DNR and Game Wardens. After reading some of the forum I found it of little substantial merit. Just a bunch of guys complaining and others feeling sorry for themselves. Now please remember, I've only spent an hour or so reading the plan and the web site so I will not draw any permenant opinion but it looks awful weak for a organization to gain much grassroot support. I'll do some more reading this weekend.


This is just my opinion on your statement and it is not meant to put anybody down. But hound hunters are a 24/7 group, they feed and care for them and read and talk about them. 

A non hound hunter is like most people with hobbies, after bowling season the ball goes in the closet. After golf season the clubs go in the closet, after fishing season the boats go in the garage. 

So a non hound hunter enjoys many other activities and depending on what that is determines where they spend their time.


One other point of interest, a non hound hunter can hunt within a 300 yd radius of another non hound hunters bait site. If neither one shoots they know nothing of the other hunter. 

But if one hound comes through cold trailing with that long bawl started off a hound hunters bait, within a half mile of them, they both know of it.


----------

