# Reminder on NRC sound science mandate



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Last year during the petition drive which led to the NRC being granted final authority over Michigan's fish & wildlife some folks expressd their concern the NRC would revert back to being influenced by special interests. Sad to say, it appears they were right.

The mandate the new law requires of the NRC states: Must use principles of sound science and may take testimony from DNR personnel, experts and others, and review scientfic literature, data and other sources in support of its duty to use sound science.

Unfortunately, the NRC recently morphed in the term "social science."
The thesaursus defining the term "sound science" states: The branch of science that studies society and relationships of individuals within a society. Simply stated, opinions society has does not have a damn thing to do with managing the state's fish wildlife using science. Instead, it opens the door to political influence. There is NO mention of the term social science in the new law.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

That was one of my stated concerns when I first read this proposal, I felt then that the word "science" was to vague. I was always a proponent of putting the word "biological" in front of the word science, but that didn't happen. To say a special interest groups would fight their way into this is not surprise, and it doesn't matter which group we are speaking of, whether it's hunting, fishing, trapping, or any other outdoor pursuits. Also, I personally think having a group of people (NRC) making decision for the DNR is stupid. Shouldn't we trust the biologists that we pay good money for? It was always my impression a biologist was there to determine things such as the health of the fish, and wildlife and how they should be used. It would only make sense to me that fish and wildlife should be controlled based solely on carrying capacity. For example, take fish, if one hectare of water can support 100 fish, why would you try to have rules and regs that try to make a hectare of water have 1000 fish? Same with deer, if a certain section of land can support 100 deer, why would you try to make this same land support 1000 deer? Hope that makes sense.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto said:


> It would only make sense to me that fish and wildlife should be controlled based solely on carrying capacity. For example, take fish, if one hectare of water can support 100 fish, why would you try to have rules and regs that try to make a hectare of water have 1000 fish? Same with deer, if a certain section of land can support 100 deer, why would you try to make this same land support 1000 deer? Hope that makes sense.


I don't think that makes sense at all. First, the biological carrying capacity is not as cut and dry as you make it sound. A lake might have a capacity of 2000 bluegill per hectare but none of them are over 6". Through management, predators are added and the 'gills drop to 1400 per hectare with an average size of 7"-9". Which carrying capacity is the right one? The one that society prefers is the right one and that is how it should be managed. Second, there is a social carrying capacity. The habitat in the UP may be able to carry more than a thousand wolves but the social carrying capacity is much lower. Should we not hunt the wolves until they out grow the habitat? I say no. Let society determine what number of wolves above the minimum sustainable is acceptable and manage them with hunting until that number is reached.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Kazoo, interesting point, but managing bluegills using sound science would not mean to overpopulate to the point they become stunted. Sound science would dictate managing them to a population level that did not produce stunted gills.

As for wolves, sound science determined 200 wolves in the U.P. for 5 years was a sound scientific balance. Instead, special interests have had a negative impact on scientific mangement. Some examples where "social science" prevailed....not allowing trapping of wolves, and the design of the tepid wolf season. Another was the White Oak fiasco where special interests injected their "social science" lobbying to create a special bear management unit for club country.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I think you and I are in agreement. The 200 number for wolves is the sustainable population not the biological carrying capacity. Clearly 700-800 wolves can live there, but not nearly that many are socially acceptable. By considering the social capacity we can manage for a reasonable number and provide recreational opportunity. If we consider exclusively the biological we are already there and self-sustaining; no hunt needed. 

When it comes to fish, who is to say that a stunted population is more or less worthy and in need of management? Fish populations get out of balance all the time. Think of brook trout in a beaver pond. Also, here in the SW we have many lakes that are stocked with walleye. These lakes have no natural reproduction so the biological capacity is essentially zero. It would be the easiest thing in the world for PETA to sue and argue that stocking and fishing both violate the biological capacity rule. If biological carrying capacity were the law how would you justify taking game and fish at all? They will reach a balance on their own so long as you prevent habitat degradation. Hunting and fishing are social activities, I'll take some social considerations to insure the tradition continues.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Kazoo, I believe we basically agree. I just do not agree on calling it social science. I would call it sound science when the wolf population is held in check so it does not destroy its food source. 

My real concern is the Richard P. Smith type propaganda lobbying the NRC to continue the decline of Michigan's black bear using bogus claims of bear being a significant predator of fawns, and whining about bears being a nusiance. There is no bigger nusiance in the state of Michigan than white tail deer, and nobody is proposing to kill them off. Yet, the NRC seems to believe Smith has standing. 

Or, another example....reportedly, at the March 19th NRC meeting NRC commissioner J.R. Richardson expressed opposition to cutting harvest tag on bear because "his deer hunting buddies tell him there's lots of bears." Obviously, J.R.'s version of "social science" is caving in to special interests.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

They all cave to special interests, that's why MUCC their own seat up front at the meeting


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Yes they do, at least to some extent. That's one of the reasons I opposed the Scientific Fish and Wildlife act, it actually increases the influence of conservation groups. That will probably tilt in my favor most of the time but I thought the old system worked well enough. If your special hunting interest does not coincide with deer hunting interests your probably going to lose most of the time. I don't hunt deer and the grouse hunting I do could be improved if there was less emphasis on deer. Oh well.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Kzoo, I agree with you about catering to the white tail interests. Back in 2012 at an NRC meeting a bunch of us showed up in force pushing for a reduction in bear kill tags. Earlier the DNR had put together 3 proposals.
The general consensus was MDNR would push for the 2nd proposal of the 3. It was regarded as an ineffective proposal. Two days prior to the Lansing NRC meeting biologist Dwayne Etter broke the news there was an error in his computer model and he then acknowledged he had been wrong....bear numbers across the state were in decline. 

Just prior to the start of the NRC meeting I was standing next to a DNR official when I heard him say, "I don't know what we are going to do, we already told the safari club we were going with proposal 2." Obviously, Etter's 11th hour discovery killed the proposal 2 idea.

I am not 100% sure why the safari club would use it influence to degrade the state's bear population worse than it already is. Only thing I know is locally here in the NW U.P. its common for locals to gripe about bears taking over their deer baits. So, maybe that's a factor.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Rooster, scientific studies in northern MI & WI have shown black bears to be the top predator of young fawns.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

2dogsphil, please indentify th studies you are referring to.A couple years ago when the claim beas were a major predator I felt it was pure propaganda used to take pressure of wolves. Matter of fact, back during that time frame a DNR wildlife tech was quoted in the Houghton Gazette making the claim. Bearboy followed up with a formal complaint to then DNR Director Stokes. He in turn had Lt. Tim Robinson from the DNR Law Division follow up with Bearboy. Eventually, the Lt. acknowledged the wildlife tech's statemet were intended to detract from public opinion on wolves.During this same time frame I contacted Dr. Lynn Rogers, one of the foremost experts on black bear in the country. He told me black bear will prey upon fawns if they happen to encounter one, but once fawns reach the age of 10 to 14 days the fawns have matured enough to simply run off and bears almost never pursue them.The University of Mississippi conducted the Predator/Prey Study here in the U.P. for the past 3 yrs. It is the most extensive study of fawn predation ever taken. Out of 68 bears collared over the 3 year period they found one example of a black bear preying on a fawn....an even then they had no way of determining whether the bear fed on a dead carcass, or actually preyed upon the fawn. Reportedly, the late 2014 spring caused fawns to be aborted and abandoned after birth by the thousands here in the U.P. And, considering all the fawn carcasses available to be scavenged it is plenty obvious even the prestegious Predator/Prey Study does not qualify as sound science.Bottom line...claims Michigan black bear are a major predator of fawns is pure propaganda design to take the focus off of wolves.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Here's where you trip yourself up everytime Kzoo, and let me start by explaining I have no problem with you personally at all. 

IF we are to use social science as a guiding of our outdoor pursuits, doesn't that then make my argument for Public Trust Doctrine even more valid??? If you want to use social science to determine what should and shouldn't be done, than it has to include ALL social aspects, in other words, it HAS to include everyone. All this wildlife, fish, etc are all held in trust for the people not a certain segment of society. Thank you for making my point for me.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

EXCERPT FROM 1/25/14 REPORT IN THE JOURNAL SENTINAL -- MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN


''We all know predators kill deer. But how many? And among te state's predators, which kill the most deer?

And how do other known sources of mortality such as human hunting and vehicle collisions factor into the annual deer population cycle?

This is where science is necessary to help us understand what is actually happening in our world.

Thanks to the state's decision in 2009 to embark on its largest ever deer research initiative, answers are emerging to many of the questions that have been debated for decades.

The research is a partnership of the Department of Natural Resources and University of Wisconsin. Andrew Norton and Camille Warbington, UW graduate students, have been leading the studies of adult deer and fawns, respectively. More than 1,000 volunteers have participated in the work over the last four years.

The work has been conducted near Winter to represent the northern forest ecosystem and near Shiocton in the eastern farmland region. Researchers placed radio-collars on deer to determine home ranges, habits and sources of mortality.

How about the fawn study?

The researchers tracked the fawns daily through summer. The eight-week survival average is 58% for fawns in the northern study area and 76% in the eastern farmland.

Of the fawns that died in summer in the northern study area, 79% were taken by predators. Black bears led the way, killing nine fawns, followed by coyote (six) and bobcat (six). Unknown predators accounted for 11 fawns."

EXCERPT FROM: *Role of predators, winter weather, and habitat on white-tailed deer fawn survival in the south-central Upper Peninsula of Michigan*

Progress Report: 16 September 201315 September 2014
Date Issued: 15 September 2014

Prepared by:
Mississippi State University  College of Forest Resources


"Deer Mortality

From 15 September 2013 to 25 August 2014, we recorded 46 adult female mortalities. We attributed twenty mortalities to predation (11 wolf, 7 coyote, 1 bobcat, and 6 unidentified). Unidentified predations showed signs of predation (e.g., puncture wounds, hemorrhaging, evidence of struggle), but lacked species-specific sign (e.g., canine spacing, tracks, scat) or showed sign of multiple predator species. Eleven mortalities resulted from natural causes, all showing signs of malnutrition. We
attributed one mortality each to drowning, illegal hunting harvest, unknown trauma, and capture-related stress. We were unable to determine the cause of mortality for 4 females....

We recorded 8 mortalities of neonate fawns born in MayJune 2014, including 4 bear predations, 1 coyote predation, 1 bobcat predation, 1 unidentified predation, and 1 intact carcass that we will submit to the Michigan DNR Diagnostic Laboratory for necropsy. We also observed 1 stillborn fawn at a VIT search site. We censored two fawn collars due to one radio failure and another that fell off the animal. Excluding censors, 2014 fawn apparent survival from birth to 1 Sep was 65%. For omparison, 2013 fawn apparent survival from birth to 1 Sep was 27%."


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Thanks for taking he time to post the two studies. Neither study can determine wherher fawns were pryed upon by bear, or scavenged. And, to suggest black bear killed more fawns than coyotes...and not even a mention of wolves tells me both studies ae skewed toward steering public oinion away from wolves. 

To repeat myself....neither study qualifies as sound science. They cannot differentiate between preyed upon, or scavenged.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Here's where you trip yourself up everytime toto, and let me start by explaining I have no problem with you personally at all. 

Your plan to mandate that hunting and fishing be used to maintain biological carrying capacity is a grand slam for PETA. Right now the UP is well below carrying capacity for deer, so low that one of the six proposals that may go to the NRC next week is to not have a UP deer season this year. If biological carrying capacity were the only goal then there is no question there would not be a season. Deer are low in much of the SLP so no season there either. Grouse, woodcock, duck, rabbit, squirrel, salmon, lake trout, inland walleye, bear, marten, otter, the list goes on and on of species that are below capacity. All of them would be protected under your plan. There is literally not a single aspect of your plan that does not attack hunting and fishing. By considering the social issues of tradition, economics, recreation etc. we are able to maintain seasons despite fluctuating numbers. Having the social aspects considered doesn't always work out the way you or I may want it but it is better than the alternative.

Your obsession with the issue of gear regs and the obsession with wolf hunting have brought us the new rule making process and the increased influence of special interest groups. This result was predictable, do a search on the subject in the General Hunting forum and you'll see where I called it. Now the groups that can spend years politically grooming candidates for the NRC will be able to exert their full influence on those appointees and the legislature/public will be unable to counter act them. MUCC, Trout Unlimited, Anglers of the Au Sable, Whitetails Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Farm Bureau, Timber associations, deep pocket groups who can afford to take a ten or twenty year view, will control the all aspects of game management. I hope you like the results.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Here's where you trip yourself up everytime toto, and let me start by explaining I have no problem with you personally at all.
> 
> Your plan to mandate that hunting and fishing be used to maintain biological carrying capacity is a grand slam for PETA. Right now the UP is well below carrying capacity for deer, so low that one of the six proposals that may go to the NRC next week is to not have a UP deer season this year. If biological carrying capacity were the only goal then there is no question there would not be a season.


If biological carry capacity was what we managed to, we wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with. As you and others have said, we have always managed socially (yes there have always been social considerations, but I will argue we have entered into a social era that puts more emphasis on what social committees want than what our biologists want), and it is this new type social management which has gotten us to a point we may not have a deer season in the UP. Funny how that works. So we better not use biological management, because we may end up in the predicament we are faced with having used social? :lol: 


kzoofisher said:


> Deer are low in much of the SLP so no season there either. Grouse, woodcock, duck, rabbit, squirrel, salmon, lake trout, inland walleye, bear, marten, otter, the list goes on and on of species that are below capacity. All of them would be protected under your plan. There is literally not a single aspect of your plan that does not attack hunting and fishing. By considering the social issues of tradition, economics, recreation etc. we are able to maintain seasons despite fluctuating numbers. Having the social aspects considered doesn't always work out the way you or I may want it but it is better than the alternative.


The notion that biological carry capacity when below goal, wouldn't allow for hunting is ridiculous. Just like "social issues of "tradition, economics, recreation," etc.. when below goal allows for hunting, so too the biological. When biological goals, just like regulations in social hunting are below goal, hunting would continue under reduced permits. The only difference between the social and biological, is the biological wouldn't be constantly manipulated by special interests. 



kzoofisher said:


> Your obsession with the issue of gear regs and the obsession with wolf hunting have brought us the new rule making process and the increased influence of special interest groups. This result was predictable, do a search on the subject in the General Hunting forum and you'll see where I called it. Now the groups that can spend years politically grooming candidates for the NRC will be able to exert their full influence on those appointees and the legislature/public will be unable to counter act them. MUCC, Trout Unlimited, Anglers of the Au Sable, Whitetails Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Farm Bureau, Timber associations, deep pocket groups who can afford to take a ten or twenty year view, will control the all aspects of game management. I hope you like the results.


Ah, the GLFSA which Toto is a member called it, you argued and defended the special interests and their involvement in social management. Now that special interests and deep pockets are controlling these committees and coming to fruit, you want to claim you called it. Your propensity to distort facts is amazing. 

Lets look at some of the past arguments and see if they agree with the picture you paint today.


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=450726

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=422377

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=420560&page=2


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

So now it's about me and what I've been saying, well thank you for making me so important. The bottom line is, I look at the flies only crowd as PETA light. They want to have their personal playground to play with the fish, and come back another day and play with them again, hey no problem with catch and release, but why should they have their own personal playground? Why should they use public funds to improve habitat if only they can play there, or only those that choose to fish the way they see fit? As for the wolf thing, I've never said much about it, I don't comment on things I don't have any knowledge of. That isn't to say my thoughts on things are always correct. One question on the original post, what was the intent of the law as drafted? That's the real question. Was it intended to use social science, which is an inexact science, to draft plans for our hunting and fishing? Shouldn't we be more concerned about the health of the herd, or the population of the fish more than we should be concerned about the special few?? I submit, the biologists should be the ones who determine what needs to be done using the science of wildlife, or fisheries biology, period. Not paying attention to carrying capacity is one sure way to really ruin things, look at the salmon situation right now? Why do you think the DNR reduced stocking of salmon in the Great Lakes? Simple answer, the carrying capacity dictated that this needed to be done.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

toto and Ray,
Dont know why the two of you keep saying that I wouldnt use biology in management when I have said the opposite. Perhaps you need the strawman for your arguments. Going all they way back to post #5 The 200 number for wolves is the sustainable population not the biological carrying capacity. Clearly 700-800 wolves can live there, but not nearly that many are socially acceptable. By considering the social capacity we can manage for a reasonable number and provide recreational opportunity. If we consider exclusively the biological we are already there and self-sustaining; no hunt needed.  Maintaining above the minimum viable population and below the maximum gives biologists a cushion against disease and weather events that are out of their control. This is necessary because fish and wildlife management have far too many uncontrollable variables to be an exact science. A wolf hunt that would maintain carrying capacity at all times would be extremely limited and even then would be easily challenged in court. This is why the DNR does not set population goals above what is needed to sustain the species; because any such published goal can be challenged in court. On the other hand, a goal of socially acceptable populations gives the DNR much more freedom and flexibility to set seasons. If a population drops precipitously like the salmon and the UP deer, both due mostly to environmental factors, the DNR can react quickly and biology will be the heaviest weighted factor. Social issues will still be counted though because the government must always be responsible to the citizens. 

Have social considerations increased in importance? Yes, they have. Why? Because many game and fish populations have recovered to an extent where they can be managed for things other than just increasing, or at least sustaining, numbers. Deer are a great example. The herd has been large enough and healthy enough that actually reducing numbers has been the goal in many areas. Had the herd reached BCC*? No. But it had grown to the level where conflicts with agriculture, cars and residential landscaping became so troublesome that reductions were called for by virtually everyone except deer hunters and anti-hunters. Increased doe permits, block permits etc. were the result and in many areas numbers were successfully reduced. Im sure not all hunters were happy about it but the deer dont belong to the hunters, they belong to the people of the State of Michigan and so the DNR has to take them into account too, as Ray noted.

As Ive said before, the increased influence of deep pocket groups is probably going to work out well for me. When I warned people of that possibility in another thread it wasnt for my own benefit. I did it because I thought quite a few people had very unrealistic expectations about the results of the law and because I thought that reworking our regulatory process over what was really a fairly small issue was bad policy. Throwing the baby out with the bath water was the phrase I used at the time. It is very early under the new system and well see how it turns out. I suspect that the law will be rewritten to give the legislature more oversight in a few years.

*Id like to say again that biological carrying capacity is not an singular metric that can be universally applied. Population sizes and structures will vary for many reasons, not the least of which is exploitation by man. An unexploited lake will have slower growth rates and larger average size than an exploited lake. Both may be at BCC. The unexploited lake though will have more pounds of fish per acre than the exploited one. Knowing this, the managers can adjust regulations to try and achieve populations that closely resemble an unexploited lake while still allowing fishing. Thats how you apply real science to real social goals. Whether or not they do so depends on social pressure, not on some magical idea of biological carrying capacity.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> toto and Ray,
> Don&#8217;t know why the two of you keep saying that I wouldn&#8217;t use biology in management when I have said the opposite. Perhaps you need the strawman for your arguments. Going all they way back to post #5 &#8220;The 200 number for wolves is the sustainable population not the biological carrying capacity. Clearly 700-800 wolves can live there, but not nearly that many are socially acceptable. By considering the social capacity we can manage for a reasonable number and provide recreational opportunity. If we consider exclusively the biological we are already there and self-sustaining; no hunt needed. &#8220; Maintaining above the minimum viable population and below the maximum gives biologists a cushion against disease and weather events that are out of their control. This is necessary because fish and wildlife management have far too many uncontrollable variables to be an exact science. A wolf hunt that would maintain carrying capacity at all times would be extremely limited and even then would be easily challenged in court. This is why the DNR does not set population goals above what is needed to sustain the species; because any such published goal can be challenged in court. On the other hand, a goal of &#8220;socially acceptable&#8221; populations gives the DNR much more freedom and flexibility to set seasons. If a population drops precipitously like the salmon and the UP deer, both due mostly to environmental factors, the DNR can react quickly and biology will be the heaviest weighted factor. Social issues will still be counted though because the government must always be responsible to the citizens.
> 
> Have social considerations increased in importance? Yes, they have. Why? Because many game and fish populations have recovered to an extent where they can be managed for things other than just increasing, or at least sustaining, numbers. Deer are a great example. The herd has been large enough and healthy enough that actually reducing numbers has been the goal in many areas. Had the herd reached BCC*? No. But it had grown to the level where conflicts with agriculture, cars and residential landscaping became so troublesome that reductions were called for by virtually everyone except deer hunters and anti-hunters. Increased doe permits, block permits etc. were the result and in many areas numbers were successfully reduced. I&#8217;m sure not all hunters were happy about it but the deer don&#8217;t belong to the hunters, they belong to the people of the State of Michigan and so the DNR has to take them into account too, as Ray noted.
> ...


As we have said before, social considerations have always been part of the biological. We shouldn't socially be deciding things like fish limits on the PM by a raise of hands of a couple dozen people at some DNR meeting in Cadillac.



> As I&#8217;ve said before, the increased influence of deep pocket groups is probably going to work out well for me.


 :lol:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Don't tell me, you were for the special interests (on gear restrictions) before you were against them (on wolf hunt). Funny how that works.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> As we have said before, social considerations have always been part of the biological. We shouldn't socially be deciding things like fish limits on the PM by a raise of hands of a couple dozen people at some DNR meeting in Cadillac. Good thing we aren't and didn't. You may have attended only one meeting in one place during those discussions but there were quite a few meetings in other places. And since then the DNR has worked really hard at including the people who previously couldn't be bothered to speak up.
> 
> :lol:
> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Don't tell me, you were for the special interests (on gear restrictions) before you were against them (on wolf hunt). Funny how that works.I wasn't against the wolf special interest, I was against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Try to read without tunnel vision.


Before the first wolf season I said that rushing into it would cause more trouble than it was worth. A couple year PR campaign of livestock and pet predation and a wolf hunt would have happened with enough support to be ballot proof. Too many people couldn't wait and now we are without a hunt again. 

On the plus side of all this is that gear restrictions have been in place for the start of five seasons, and more restrictions have been added without much complaint. I think people have grown used to them and are ok with it now. Are they even on the table to be discussed for next year? There is a CRSC meeting next week but I don't get to see the agendas. Maybe the power brokers are going to keep it from discussion until it is too late to do anything about it. Wouldn't surprise me if they throw a bone to the opposition though, like a UP stream or a trade of flies only to artificials only with the addition of no kill. Pure guess work on my part.


----------

