# Does it bother any of you...



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

that the MDNR, at the urging of the organized hound hunters, are most likely going to have the UP bobcat bag limit reduced this season to one cat per person, despite the MDNR, according to Adam Bump, having two different models with one showing only a slight decrease in the UP bobcat population and while the other shows a stable bobcat population? 

If, according the MDNR's own population models, the population is only slightly down, or even stable, I don't feel the MDNR is doing their job and properly managing the resource by endorsing the reduced bag limits without any BIOLOGICAL scientific facts that prove the bobcat population is in need of a reduced bag limit, or what all of the contributing factors are that are causing the ALLEGED population crisis. And without those facts how can the MDNR address how to correct this ALLEGED downturn in the population?

Decreasing the bag limit does not address the ALLEGED downturn in the bobcat population as it does nothing to limit the total harvest that could take place. THE ONLY WAY TO LIMIT THE HARVEST IS THROUGH A LOTTERY DRAWING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL BOBCAT MANAGEMENT UNIT HARVEST QUOTA FOR EACH BOBCAT MANAGEMENT UNIT AND A TOTAL HARVEST QUOTA FOR THE ENTIRE UP! Short of those two quota systems being implemented the MDNR and NRC will not be properly addressing an ALLEGED bobcat population downturn that needs their immediate attention, but they will be making a political decision in favor of the organized hound hunter associations while throwing biological science based wildlife management out the window. 

Now, ask yourself who would benefit from having a one bobcat limit per person in the UP? Not the trapper! Not the individual solo bobcat hunter! The only people who would benefit from a one bobcat bag limit would be those who are commercial guides that pursue bobcats, and hounds men who hunt bobcats, and coyotes, in social groups. And that is why the organized hound hunting groups have been pushing this issue for the past several years at the furbearer working group meetings. This is just another attack on trapping by the organized hound hunting groups, in cooperation with the MDNR and NRC. IF the hound hunting groups were genuinely concerned about the bobcat population why not just propose a three to five year closed season on bobcats to allow them to repopulate and allow the MDNR to study and implement a recovery program? That at least would make more biological sense than a reduced bag limit per person that does nothing to address the ALLEGED issue. But that would negatively impact their hunting opportunities, which is what this all about anyways if the truth would be told. They want more bobcats and less competition for them. That is the bottom line.

What do you guys say?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Beats me.
Are cat numbers down?
Is harvest up?
Are more people participating ,hinting that harvest may increase?

To suggest the D.N.R./N.R.C. through cooperation with hound hunting groups is attacking trapping ,is a stretch.
Rather it is organised group(s) working within the framework required to change regulations.

You will lose the argument that sound scientific biological facts are the only thing driving regulation , or that legally it is the only thing allowed to influence regulations.
Sounds good ,but does not stand alone. (and I have not been overjoyed all the time about that either) All the state needs to do is ensure bobcats /wildlife present under their "care" exist.

Truth be told ,I'm ignorant of a conflict up there .
Sounds great to be able to run hounds. As well as trap.
Having done both with other critters in the past ,it would be interesting to have both parties at the table with the D.N.R. ...l.o.l...
Till then ,who has the stronger voice and influence and communicates that in a gracious way with the states officials?


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Like I stated, according to Adam Bump, one of their population models shows a very slight decrease whereas the other shows a stable population. Harvest numbers appear to be consistent with previous years according to Adam Bump. 

No Waif, it is not a stretch to see that correlation. You are right in your assumption that it is organized groups working within the framework required to change regulations. But there is more to this than meets the eye. I've been down this road before numerous times over the years. In this instance all of the organized trapper associations are AGAINST the reduction. There apparently is no need for the reduction other than that is what the organized hound hunters want. APPARENTLY THERE IS NO FACTUAL PROOF THAT THE BOBCAT POPULATION IS IN TROUBLE OR EVEN IN A DOWNTURN!

"Are more people participating, hinting that harvest may increase?" So what if more people participate and the harvest numbers increase! Apparently there are enough bobcats for that to happen otherwise the prudent thing to do would be to institute the bobcat harvest quotas for each bobcat management unit and for the entire UP as a whole in addition to limiting participation via a lottery drawing for kill tags as I and others have already suggested. That is the only real way you can limit participation and control the harvest numbers, plus that would be the fairest way to handle this situation for all participants and ensure sound biological management of the resource. 

I never said that sound scientific biological facts are the only thing driving regulation change, or that legally it is the only thing legally allowed to influence regulation change. Those are your words, not mine. I'm not naive enough to think that. But in this case sound scientific biological facts are absent or are being ignored, and if the DNR and NRC follow through with this regulation change/restriction against trappers and solo bobcat hunters it will be purely on politics. It will have nothing to do with proper management of the bobcat population.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

You brought up a lack of biological ( in capitol letters) scientific facts in the context(?) of their being needed for a reduced limit.

Whatever. If you e- mailed me in a situation where it mattered ,I would dismiss it as a rant for your capitols used in whole words.
It is called yelling in most circles.

Good luck.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Not surprising at all, they did the same thing in the NLP a decade +/- ago.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Either there is animals to harvest or Not. If there is they should be available to both groups.

If only one group is to get them, then it's the trappers turn, this time


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Waif, capitols can also be utilized to demonstrate emphasis. And yes, I believe biological facts should be a major consideration in any wildlife management decision. Social science should be a minor consideration. But then again, the MDNR isn't in the business of managing wildlife, they are in the business of managing people these days. 

You also brought up a very good point in one of your posts when you mentioned the organization(s) that, "has the stronger voice and influence and communicates that in a gracious way with the states officials?" That's an easy one. The organized hounds men groups have the stronger voice and influence. They should, they routinely buy that voice and influence by purchasing equipment for the MDNR (like the bear live traps they are having made in cooperation with local colleges, and specialized gear for CO's, etc..), by participating in the winter bear den projects, by not being afraid to take the MDNR to court if they don't get their way, and by having a high priced lobbyist working for them. I guess you could say that is "communicating in a gracious way with the state officials". 

Don't get me wrong, I admire the influence the organized hounds men have. In my opinion the organized trapper associations need to be more like the hound groups. Trappers need a professional lobbyist working for them. Trappers need to challenge the MDNR in the judicial system when it is needed; like now if this reduction is implemented. Trappers need to become more proactive in funding studies and projects, and in purchasing equipment for the MDNR if that is what it takes to acquire "influence" with the MDNR and NRC.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Patrickr said:


> Waif, capitols can also be utilized to demonstrate emphasis. And yes, I believe biological facts should be a major consideration in any wildlife management decision. Social science should be a minor consideration. But then again, the MDNR isn't in the business of managing wildlife, they are in the business of managing people these days.
> 
> You also brought up a very good point in one of your posts when you mentioned the organization(s) that, "has the stronger voice and influence and communicates that in a gracious way with the states officials?" That's an easy one. The organized hounds men groups have the stronger voice and influence. They should, they routinely buy that voice and influence by purchasing equipment for the MDNR (like the bear live traps they are having made in cooperation with local colleges, and specialized gear for CO's, etc..), by participating in the winter bear den projects, by not being afraid to take the MDNR to court if they don't get their way, and by having a high priced lobbyist working for them. I guess you could say that is "communicating in a gracious way with the state officials".
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I admire the influence the organized hounds men have. In my opinion the organized trapper associations need to be more like the hound groups. Trappers need a professional lobbyist working for them. Trappers need to challenge the MDNR in the judicial system when it is needed; like now if this reduction is implemented. Trappers need to become more proactive in funding studies and projects, and in purchasing equipment for the MDNR if that is what it takes to acquire "influence" with the MDNR and NRC.


*RIGHT ON* Patrickr, *RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!!*


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Patrickr said:


> Waif, capitols can also be utilized to demonstrate emphasis. And yes, I believe biological facts should be a major consideration in any wildlife management decision. Social science should be a minor consideration. But then again, the MDNR isn't in the business of managing wildlife, they are in the business of managing people these days.
> 
> You also brought up a very good point in one of your posts when you mentioned the organization(s) that, "has the stronger voice and influence and communicates that in a gracious way with the states officials?" That's an easy one. The organized hounds men groups have the stronger voice and influence. They should, they routinely buy that voice and influence by purchasing equipment for the MDNR (like the bear live traps they are having made in cooperation with local colleges, and specialized gear for CO's, etc..), by participating in the winter bear den projects, by not being afraid to take the MDNR to court if they don't get their way, and by having a high priced lobbyist working for them. I guess you could say that is "communicating in a gracious way with the state officials".
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I admire the influence the organized hounds men have. In my opinion the organized trapper associations need to be more like the hound groups. Trappers need a professional lobbyist working for them. Trappers need to challenge the MDNR in the judicial system when it is needed; like now if this reduction is implemented. Trappers need to become more proactive in funding studies and projects, and in purchasing equipment for the MDNR if that is what it takes to acquire "influence" with the MDNR and NRC.


You got it right there.(!).
Not against hounds here ,but a patchwork quilt of smaller parcels means trapping makes more sense on my property. And of course support of my trapper while I study yote sets...
That means support of trapping in general. While not disallowing hounds where they can be run.. I'd give yote hounds the nod to run my place if asked.
With no trained designated hunting dogs left , my feed bill still runs 250 a month.
My expense caused by myself ,but I can see where some one /others would want to recoup some of that when clients can offset part of the costs.
Were I hunting dogs again it would still be solo ,but the temptation to host others would /does impact the sport more. Not why I hunt ,or raise dogs ,but it varies with owners...

A limit per dog pack is very different than an unlimited number of pack owners,guests,and clients all able to take a cat. At least that is my biggest take away from the issue.

When a stakeholder( trapper or houndsman) is impacted by a limit ,it should be by a balanced take through equal advantage across the board. And of course equal opportunity/potential negativity of impacts on the resource as far as population.

Yes you could take other people out for sport or profit to run a line after you score a cat.
Not the point though.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

I think the bottom line is, as always: The squeaky wheel gets the grease or maybe in this case the most squeaky wheels get the grease. FM


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Forest Meister, I think in this case it is more like the most squeaky wheels are greasing the palms of the MDNR and NRC causing them to ignore biological facts and negatively impacting other user groups without a justifiable reason. 

Waif, you and I are a lot closer in our opinions than I first thought. I have absolutely nothing against hunting with hounds as long as the hounds are not "free cast" and allowed to pursue animals on to property where they don't have permission to be run. I used to hunt with hounds so I am well aware of how difficult it can be to stop a dog on a hot trail, but it can be accomplished if the dog is well trained.

I MIGHT be the only trapper in Michigan who was at one time in favor of hunters being able to use hounds to hunt fisher. That is provided the fisher population could withstand the additional pressure and a system could be developed to the satisfaction of all user groups. After all, what difference does it make how the animal is harvested as long as it is harvested in accordance with all applicable regulations. But from what I understand it sounds as if there will not be a fisher season this year.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Waif said:


> To suggest the D.N.R./N.R.C. through cooperation with hound hunting groups is attacking trapping ,is a stretch.
> Rather it is organised group(s) working within the framework required to change regulations.


While it is true that the rules are made and modified within the framework of rules that are in place. It is painfully clear that the hound hunters of this state only care about their own agendas and have no trouble throwing trappers under the bus to get what they want and strangely enough the NRC and DNR seem to be ok with it.. Look back at when the hound hunters sued the state to stop a bobcat trapping season in the western lower peninsula.. It wasn't that there weren't enough cats to harvest but they didn't want to share.. The hound hunters will never get my support actually I will do everything I can to tell anyone just what they are... 

BTW had a guy just this winter come and tell me he had a coyote bayed behind my house and that he was asking if he could kill it.. I reluctantly said OK but had to go to an event. However curiosity brought me to look the next day and a whole different story became apparent.. He had killed a bobcat and from the tracks I would say it was a large one at that.. Never again will I let another dog guy with permission be on my land..


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

FullQuiver said:


> While it is true that the rules are made and modified within the framework of rules that are in place. It is painfully clear that the hound hunters of this state only care about their own agendas and have no trouble throwing trappers under the bus to get what they want and strangely enough the NRC and DNR seem to be ok with it.. Look back at when the hound hunters sued the state to stop a bobcat trapping season in the western lower peninsula.. It wasn't that there weren't enough cats to harvest but they didn't want to share.. The hound hunters will never get my support actually I will do everything I can to tell anyone just what they are...
> 
> BTW had a guy just this winter come and tell me he had a coyote bayed behind my house and that he was asking if he could kill it.. I reluctantly said OK but had to go to an event. However curiosity brought me to look the next day and a whole different story became apparent.. He had killed a bobcat and from the tracks I would say it was a large one at that.. Never again will I let another dog guy with permission be on my land..


Aww c' mon ,let me on...

Is it much different with bear hunters with or without hounds? 

Your dishonest houndsman ought to be adressed. Easy enough to understand your now fair bias.
If by being bayed it meant the ( now fictitious) coyote was cornered or denned or treed.....the guy was blowing smoke. Unless you have such a site for one to go ,and it was very tired , injured or stressed severely ,or a female maybe ,or such a scenario where the hound(s) should have it down if not underground.(?)


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

My big question is: How far are the organized trappers willing to go to block a reduction in the bobcat bag limit in the UP if the NRC votes in favor of the implementing it? Are they willing to go to court of the issue since there is no science, according to Adam Bump, to support the change in regulations?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Patrickr said:


> My big question is: How far are the organized trappers willing to go to block a reduction in the bobcat bag limit in the UP if the NRC votes in favor of the implementing it? Are they willing to go to court of the issue since there is no science, according to Adam Bump, to support the change in regulations?


I don't think going to court over this would accomplish anything. Proposal g was written to allow sound science and public input to make changes in wildlife management. So if the public gives input that they want this bobcat regulation and science doesn't show that it hurts the species the NRC has the ability to make this rule change. There doesn't have to be science showing it helps the population you would have to have science showing you are hurting the population with the regulation. 

A perfect example of this is antler point restrictions. In the past the DNR has given the opinion that antler point restrictions don't hurt deer populations. They don't believe they help either. The DNR has taken a neutral stance. When groups in different regions step up and ask for restrictions the NRC has granted them. 

If you want to fight it the place to do so would be at the NRC level.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

I disagree. I believe this would be a perfect time for the organized trappers to flex some muscle to prevent the reduction in take from occurring in the UP since there are no biological facts to support the reduction and no course of action to remedy the "alleged" population crisis that is the basis for the reduction in bag limit. 

Proposal G was originally supposed to be based on sound biological science, but somewhere along the line the word "biological" was removed. As it was passed "sound science" includes social science, including something as elusive as "public perception". 

DirtySteve, I am 100% in favor of sound scientific management of our wildlife and other natural resources we have here in Michigan as long as the majority of any management decision is based on biological facts, not allegations by a politically and financially powerful user group. IF there are no biological facts to support the requested reduction in individual bag limits, and there are no plans in place to remedy the "alleged" population crisis, then there shouldn't be a reduction approved that hurts one user group to the benefit of another user group.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Not surprising at all, they did the same thing in the NLP a decade +/- ago.

That is for sure.
For many years there was only bobcat HUNTING on state land--no TRAPPING. Many of these counties are 70-80% state land and doggers dont want their dogs getting caught in a trap as they run wild on our land...

It is NOT anti-trapping just selfishness. They have a good relationships with the legislature, NRC probably.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Well, CL, I draw a line when selfishness leads to what amounts to an anti trapping measure being implemented. Especially if, and when, there is no significant biological factor that prompts the action to be took. I have yet to see the hound men seriously try and reach win-win regulations for both the trappers and the hounds men.

Back in the days that you mentioned I would have had a message for the hounds men; I don't want to catch your dogs either. It does me no good as I can't sell them and they create more work for me. So what was their win-win solution to the issue? They didn't have one. Nothing has changed over the years since then either. For the hounds men it is all or nothing. That is the bottom line with them in my opinion and based on my experiences of dealing with them.

They absolutely do have a great relationship with the legislature, DNR, and NRC. I can not fault them for that.


----------



## furandhides (Jul 3, 2008)

First, do away with the CITES nonsense. No more tagging of any kind. No limit on bobcat and otter. Either do these two things, or close the seasons on both species.


----------



## Patrickr (May 2, 2016)

Roger, due to the extremely limited bag limits I do not target bobcat, otter, badger, marten or fisher. I am in agreement with you. CITES has to go.

I do remember when we were not allowed to trap bobcat on public lands. Despised it then and despise any restrictions now that aren't a win-win for all parties concerned.


----------

