# Bear Regulation Proposal at Today's NRC Meeting



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Bear regulation discussions will take place at some point between 1pm-3pm this afternoon.

Public comments, where many of the speakers will be discussing bear regulations, will begin at 4:30 pm.

Here's a link where you can watch the meeting live:

http://www.michiganoutofdoors.com/DNR_stream


----------



## SpringCreek Rock (Jun 10, 2003)

Well how did it turn out ?


----------



## MOODMagazine (Aug 21, 2006)

The NRC voted to support Option 2 -- keeping things as they are -- for 2010.

They made an amendment that creates a 20-person taskforce which will be named by NRC Chair Keith Charters, MUCC and one other person to be named by Charters.

There was some confusion at the meeting. The three-person team of Charters, MUCC and TBA are not chairing the taskforce. They are there to choose the 20-person panel. The panel will be made up of a variety of groups, people, etc. and you can bet that MUCC will do all we can to make certain that the group is well-represented by those groups that know the resource and the sport best.

Over the next 6 months, that taskforce will come up with some sort of option for the NRC to consider for 2011. Unfortunately, the NRC was adamant that they will not wait for a study to be done. So we'll have to rely on the current science that's available. And there is some. Do we wish there was more? Certainly. But from what I've seen, there is science available on the issue and it will be heard. That's the best we could ask for.

Thanks to all the people that contacted the Commission and showed up to testify. We're lucky to have groups in Michigan that care enough to spend the time and effort.

If you want to watch the NRC meeting, it's on the MichiganOutofDoors.com site. Just click on the NRC stream link at the top of the home page. It taped in about 6 pieces so just look for the ones with the April 8 date.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

i find it strange that if option one would have been the outcome,it would have been rammed down our throat for two years,yet mr charters was not in attendance, another poster with the turttle lake study made a post over their concern,in the post he exposed the truth,and that is the large landowners and mr charters have DEEP POCKETS,and were funding the study,this boils down to one thing and one thing only,a flawed,biased study with data swayed to benefit those funding the study,when the study first started,i volunteered to help,at my own expense.i never so much as got a response, that alone should raise red flags.keith charters term as the board chair has expired,he has not been reappointed,it is now time for mr charters to stop taking tax payers money,per diem,and step down,the people have spoken,public outcry should be expressed,resenting the fact that he should choose the 20 person panel,to further explore this topic.he is a prime example of why special interest should not be involved in natural resource management,I THOUGHT THE PEOPLE HAD SPOKEN WHEN PROPOSAL G PASSED.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Mr. Charters does not represent the "Natural Resources of Michigan" in my opinion. His term has expired so has the support of Michigan Sportsmen and Women.


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

Mr. JMC,
I am the operations manager for the Turtle Lake Club and the "Flawed Bogus Study" falls under my authority. I want to appologize that your offer to assist on this "Bogus Study" for free went unanswered, but I did not recieve the message. I would like to rectify that problem. The portion of the project you would be most interested in will run from July 7 thru August 7 this year. Trucks leave at 5:30 am and return when we are done, normaly around 11:00 pm. You will need to pack both lunch and dinner, several pair of gloves and boots and a few changes of clothes each day. I would bring a good supply of bug spray as most of this work is in deep swamp country. We furnish suture materials and a good first aid kit for puncture wounds and such. I will make sure you are involved in every aspect of the project from drawing blood to dna cataloging each animal. You will have the opportunity to spend time with Dr. Daniel Sconamilia who is the population expert I retained from Argentina and is the project leader. I will make all data available for your review so you can wrap your scientific mind around the data and reach your own conclusions without anyone but yourself doing the "ramming down the throat" of information that is ficticious and bogus. The one thing I ask is that once you have reached your conclusion is that you spend as much time on this forum "telling facts" that you have witnessed and talk about the validity of the study as you have spreading the negative comments. If your up for that agreement, then welcome aboard, your offer to "help for free" is hereby publicly accepted. Send me a message and I will get you on the schedule.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Time to ante up; your bluff has been called. :lol:


----------



## .480 (Feb 21, 2006)

How come JMC isn't responding?????????


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

Wayne Sitton said:


> Mr. JMC,
> I am the operations manager for the Turtle Lake Club and the "Flawed Bogus Study" falls under my authority. I want to appologize that your offer to assist on this "Bogus Study" for free went unanswered, but I did not recieve the message. I would like to rectify that problem. The portion of the project you would be most interested in will run from July 7 thru August 7 this year. Trucks leave at 5:30 am and return when we are done, normaly around 11:00 pm. You will need to pack both lunch and dinner, several pair of gloves and boots and a few changes of clothes each day. I would bring a good supply of bug spray as most of this work is in deep swamp country. We furnish suture materials and a good first aid kit for puncture wounds and such. I will make sure you are involved in every aspect of the project from drawing blood to dna cataloging each animal. You will have the opportunity to spend time with Dr. Daniel Sconamilia who is the population expert I retained from Argentina and is the project leader. I will make all data available for your review so you can wrap your scientific mind around the data and reach your own conclusions without anyone but yourself doing the "ramming down the throat" of information that is ficticious and bogus. The one thing I ask is that once you have reached your conclusion is that you spend as much time on this forum "telling facts" that you have witnessed and talk about the validity of the study as you have spreading the negative comments. If your up for that agreement, then welcome aboard, your offer to "help for free" is hereby publicly accepted. Send me a message and I will get you on the schedule.


I'll help out a few days at least. let me know.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

i would be glad to help out,like i said im my email,i spend most of my time in the woods and not on the net.i am an avid bear hunter and spend most days in the woods,scouting..luv2hunteup,guess my bluff isnt called.maybe u should go back to the city,you have too much time on your hands to worry about me,guess if i waited 6 months for a response to my offer,a few days to respond COULD be expected.BUT YOU AND I BOTH KNOW YOUR A TROLL,go back below where you belong.


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

Mr. Finn,
I appreciate your offer and am not saying no just that everyone on this forum would like to come hang out and watch. From a liability and operational standpoint I have to make good business choices. If JMC has withdraw his offer then I make the following proposal. I would like for all the bear hunters on this forum to elect or appoint someone who you all trust, respect and apparently can't be bought to contact me. I am a straight up kind of man and think a head on approach is the quickest and most respected. I don't deny deep pockets, large property owners, private clubs perhaps have an unfair advantage when it comes to hunting in Michigan. However, none of these factors should play a role in good scientific game managment. I am very frustrated with all the comments from some forum members and their whinning about equality. Look at it this way and if the shoe were on the other foot so to speak. If you paid dues, had a very busy schedule and could only bear or deer hunt on the last 3 days of season, how upset would you be to know that someone else had sat in your blind and harvested a bear or deer the day before your hunt? There are lots of options, none of which private club members would support. I am a huge supporter of youth hunts, disabled hunts and so on but if everyone opened the gates to the public, why would anyone pay member dues? How would private clubs operate and at the end of the day cash flow would be an issue and eventual land fragmentation almost for certain. Land sales into smaller parcels would be devistating for not only the bear population but others as well. You made the comment (which I am certain you didn't mean) to change the habitat, which is not the first time I have heard that suggestion. I can't believe destroying prime bear habitat in order to lower populations would be the resposible thing to do. I am taking the lead on the bear thing in our area out of pressure from other property owners and in an effort to prevent the unthinkable. I certainly can't speak for everyone nor attempt to, but club country has too many bear and the local landowners want something done. I have started the population study in an effort to give the state and sportsmen valid data in order to make good managment decessions. It is very difficult to find anyone who will accept scietific data over bar stool talk without tearing it down and calling it bogus or flawed. I assure you this study is cutting edge and utilizing the best people I can find and applying well documented and accepted modeling practices. I would very much like someone who is unbias to join us in the study that would simply report to this forum on the progress and findings concerning the population in our area. I think honestly most folks look at club country as a "source" or incubator for the entire NLP and have concerns proper bear managment will impact their hunting/harvest opportunities counties away. This may well be a valid concern, but how will we know without a unbias study? People forget about the term "Source Sink" which means it works both ways. A few leave and a few come in and the population either grows or stays the same. I have been managing here for 15 years and can say the population is 5 times what it was. 
There is a problem brewing, are there too many bear to be healthy, I honestly don't know. Will lowering bear populations in club country have an effect miles away, again, I don't know. Could bear be relocated to other areas, yes, but the MDNRE is reluctant due to disease, valid concern, I don't know. Could private landowners open their property up to public hunting, sure, they won't but if they did, the bear would be just as dead, same cause and effect, but socialy more palitable. We hear a lot about TB in the deer and black bear are a dead end host, what does that mean. Bear transmit TB within their own species so not an issue, WHAT??? Gentlemen, TB KILLS! Over population forces more contact, more positives and eventually could spell disaster for the species, am I sure, no, but it makes sense and no one is looking. Ask your leaders what the prevelence rates are running in the black bear population, it is high, very high. With all due respect and I sincerely mean that, I am not preaching but am sick and tired of all the speculation. We are attempting a valid study to determine what is going on, win, lose or draw it will be unbiased. If anyone out there has a better solution other than the normal (open the gates, rich, bogus, Keith Charters) kind of solutions, I would truly like to hear them. The NRC and MDNRE are attempting to keep everyone happy which is not going to happen. They are doing the best they can in my opinion given pressure from every direction. Let's conduct the study, do it to the best of our ability, provide the state with data so they can make educated and biologicaly sound managment changes and go from there. I would welcome a respected michigan sportsmen to join the study if you guys thought it would help solve the problem (politically) for private land owners before the bear have the same fate as the wolf. I am very open for discussion, as long as it's adult and professional. Respectfully....


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

the info is on this site,i responded on 09/24/09.now,if it took a few days to respond to mr sitton,i guess it was a timely amount of time from my original offer. .480 and luvs2hunt must think that i am like them and have nothing better to do with my time than surf the web,get a life,you obviously are more concerned with trying to stir up controversy than conservation.if they were not so ignorant and used the search option,they would clearly see the post i made almost seven months ago,well,i will raise the ante.


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

No need to raise the ante be here July 7 2010 at 7:00 am for orientation. I will ask that you check your attitude at the gate this is a very professional group and study. I expect professionalism and will tolerate nothing less. See you then.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

mr sitton,i was merely concerned as during the december bear user group meeting,the biologist stated that he had concerns over the data,as there was a possibility that you could be overwhelmed.i am in fact a hound hunter,though i have no objections or bias for any user group or method of harvest,i am also very familiar with freeze branding,i would appreciate an opportunity to assist,as i am passionate about michigans black bear,i was opposed to option 1,when in reality it would have benefited me and the area i hunt,reducing public tags,i do not believe that the bear in the area i live migrate from the club country,there are just too many obstacles,and open terrain for that to happen.i do on numerous occasions hunt in the pigeon river country which adjoins the club country.if the offer is still open,i will be prompt,unbiased,and reliable.hopefully i did not offend you,i sincerely want nothing more than sound management.if the offer still stands,i will pm you my contact info and we can go from there.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

apologize,i was typing while you responded.i will be there with a positive attitude to help in any way you need.thanks


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

JMC,
You make a good comment about the biologist statement at the bear users group. Since so many people view these post I would like to comment on that. Our study has about a half dozen full time biologist working in a small (compaired to the entire state) area. A project as specific as ours would be impossible to conduct over the entire state of Michigan. I sat on the Bear Consultation Team and every one agreed that bear issues need to be addressed on a smaller landscape level. In fairness to the MDNRE they simply do not have the people or funding available to conduct such an intense density study. I have no concern of being "overwhelmed" as we have adequate people to collect and annalyze all the data. My concern is what happens to the "scientific data" once the state recieves it. This intense mountain of data simply will not fit their standardized models for regional population estimates. The whole purpose of this study is to determine an undisputable population count on private property located in club country. Whatever changes are made after that will at least have supporting data. The final determination will be made by the MDNRE and NRC and our only goal is to provide data on property they have little access too in order for the to make an informed decesion.


----------



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

Wayne Sitton:
At an earlier NRC meeting this year the DNRE said that their surveys in club country showed that the bear were not a problem the land owners could not handle and did not need special attention. Is their survey flawed, or is your club so large the population problem is unique to your club? Do not take that as a "baited" question. You obviously see the sitution differently that what the DNRE reported based on their surveys, so why the difference? This same difference of opinion or data seems also to be taking place between the NRC and the DNRE. I would be interested in your opinion on that as well.


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

I am unsure what data or model the MDNRE uses to establish a population estimate. From my conversations, which have been many, I don't feel they have much for supporting data simply because they only have limited access to private lands in this area. They reported to the bear consultation team that the hunter harvest cards sent in play a big role in their estimates. I can attest to the fact no population study has been conducted on this property for 8 or 10 years by DNR. Even those studies were pretty simple, bait hanging in trees and counting hits. Granted this property is large and we have much higher populations in some areas and hardly any in others. It is not just TLC but almost all landowners in this area will tell you the population is exceeding what they believe to be "full". I am not beating up the MDNRE and believe all the state biologist would agree that populations fluctuate greatly depending on the area. The DNR reports to the NRC what they believe to be accurate based on the data available and I do not believe anyone is being deceptive. They simply do not have the manpower, funding or access to do a population study on such a small landscape level and therein lies the controversy. The population very well may not be growing substantualy looking at it by region, that is certainly not the case locally.


----------



## deermedic (Feb 13, 2008)

Wayne:
 Have the members of your club considered the idea of accompanying hunters that have tags for your area onto your property and letting them fill their tag. It seems like you have a need to remove bears and there are many people that have permits with little opportunity to harvest an animal. I realize that it is private property, but it just seems like a possible solution to removing some bears. Im not saying you give them the run of your property. More like a guided hunt where both parties get benefit. Just a thought.Mike


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Wayne Sitton said:


> The final determination will be made by the MDNRE and NRC and our only goal is to provide data on property they have little access too in order for the to make an informed decesion.


 Why is the DNRE'S access limited? If you have a problem shouldnt the DNRE biologist have any access they need?

Too me it seems that limiting state biologist access to the property and conducting private research. And expecting the state to use that private research to set management regulations to deal with an alleged problem that they are not allowed access to is a questionable idea.......And quite frankly it should be against the law for the DNRE/NRC to do so without their own research and data.

It seems to me somebody is trying to hide something. The property may be privately owned...THE BEARS ARE PUBLICLY OWNED.


----------

