# Red Oak bear numbers



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

I know several veteran bear hunters who have hunted Red Oak for decades, with intimate knowledge of the Pigeon River Country. They all tell me how hard it is to find a bear track now days. Then there are others who say there is an abundance of bears. Are the folks reporting an abundance of bears talking about Club Country?

Also, still interested in knowing why the Baldwin BMU is the hottest bear hunting area in Michigan....and why it is managed differently than the other BMU's? Can anyone venture a guess?


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

I live south of there and I have seen more bear this year in my travels than I have in the last 5 years. I have heard just north of me of several people getting many pictures of different bear


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I still want to know why the DNR did not adopt the White Oak BMU. The large clubs should be be allowed to have annual tags based on acreage owned. I don't know what the right number of acres would be for automatic tag allotment. 1 tag per 2,500 acres?


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Red Oak is way too big...


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I still want to know why the DNR did not adopt the White Oak BMU. The large clubs should be be allowed to have annual tags based on acreage owned. I don't know what the right number of acres would be for automatic tag allotment. 1 tag per 2,500 acres?


Not saying it is/isn't a good idea....the problem/perception would be private landowners getting guaranteed bear tags when public land folks do not. Ya could say it's just like landowner doe tags but bears maybe viewed a little different.

If those private land owner bear tags do not count against the BMU quota then it maybe easier to sell.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Scout 2 said:


> I live south of there and I have seen more bear this year in my travels than I have in the last 5 years. I have heard just north of me of several people getting many pictures of different bear


I don't see an increase, but I think it's been pretty stable for a long time. Seen a big one Friday, he still looked a little thin though.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Scout 2 said:


> I live south of there and I have seen more bear this year in my travels than I have in the last 5 years. I have heard just north of me of several people getting many pictures of different bear


I don't see an increase, but I think it's been pretty stable for a long time. Seen a big one Friday, he still looked a little thin though. He was turning logs in a clear cut.


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> I don't see an increase, but I think it's been pretty stable for a long time. Seen a big one Friday, he still looked a little thin though. He was turning logs in a clear cut.


We have had a small one on our porch several times so far this year. My grandson and I saw a big one in the trail behind the house on Memorial day weekend. Neighbors had a cookout so I think he was going. I have saw 3 so far north of town in the Canyon creek area. The wife and I saw one over in your direction by the oil well last weekend


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Luv2hunteup,

Couple things that worked against creating the proposed White Oak bear management unit. Biologist Dwyane Etter felt due to the habitat in Club Country it was likely an area where a significant number of bear reproduction took place....and from there dispersed out into the rest of the Red Oak BMU. In other words he felt it was key in maintaining bear numbers in the Red Oak BMU. Seemed a reasonable concern.

Another factor...reportedly, a FOIA request resulted in documentation
revealing political favors in the works favoring Club Country's push for the creation of the White Oak BMU. To the best of my knowledge that killed the push for the White Oak BMU.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Luv2hunteup,
> 
> Couple things that worked against creating the proposed White Oak bear management unit. Biologist Dwyane Etter felt due to the habitat in Club Country it was likely an area where a significant number of bear reproduction took place....and from there dispersed out into the rest of the Red Oak BMU. In other words he felt it was key in maintaining bear numbers in the Red Oak BMU. Seemed a reasonable concern.
> 
> ...


That's the exact reason why the land owners in White Oak should be rewarded with extra tags and those outside that area who don't maintain good habitat should have a smaller allotment of tags. 

I'll bet Etter is a Bernie supporter.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I still want to know why the DNR did not adopt the White Oak BMU. The large clubs should be be allowed to have annual tags based on acreage owned. I don't know what the right number of acres would be for automatic tag allotment. 1 tag per 2,500 acres?


Or they could let people that draw tags into the clubs to hunt their problem bear. Just an idea.

Anytime you'd like me to do the math on how many tags they should get based on their acreage as a percentage of the entire Red Oak BMU, let me know. Just need to know how many acres the particular club has. I can figure out approximately how many acres are in Red Oak easy enough. 

The last time I did this, the landowner didn't seem to care for the idea of getting one tag every 100+ years. No idea why, as that would be what he would be "entitled" to as a landowner in Red Oak. Just the same as the clubs would be.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

srconnell22 said:


> Or they could let people that draw tags into the clubs to hunt their problem bear. Just an idea.
> 
> .


I'm sure you charge a fee for most of your guide services. Why should any club let anyone bear hunt for free?


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Spartan88 said:


> I'm sure you charge a fee for most of your guide services. Why should any club let anyone bear hunt for free?


We aren't talking about guided hunts and charging money. We are talking about a group of people that feel like they should be entitled to bear tags because they own land. 

I don't care if they charge $0 or $5,000 to bear hunt their ground. If they have issues with bear, the easy solution is to allow hunting (paid or not makes no difference) every year by multiple hunters until the problem goes away. 

If you are going to stand there and complain about the number of bear on your property but not allow anyone in to hunt it, I don't feel bad that the bear are eating all of your deer bait.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

I was told by a law enforcement official in the U.S. Forest Service's Law Division about flying over Club Country and seeing illegal massive piles of deer bait. Also heard an official in the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation about "all the turkey feeders" drawing in bears. So, it seems reasonable to consider some of the bear nuisance complaints coming out of Club Country are of their own making.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

As are most bear complaints!


----------



## BigWoods (Jul 6, 2003)

Rooster, I sent you a PM.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

srconnell22 said:


> We aren't talking about guided hunts and charging money. We are talking about a group of people that feel like they should be entitled to bear tags because they own land.
> 
> I don't care if they charge $0 or $5,000 to bear hunt their ground. If they have issues with bear, the easy solution is to allow hunting (paid or not makes no difference) every year by multiple hunters until the problem goes away.
> 
> If you are going to stand there and complain about the number of bear on your property but not allow anyone in to hunt it, I don't feel bad that the bear are eating all of your deer bait.


Are you implying that I bait and break the law Connell?

Let me add, I'm not complaining about bear numbers, I just stated a fact that Red Oak is too big.

And, I don't feel entitled to jack s*** because I own land in a high bear population area.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Spartan88 said:


> Are you implying that I bait and break the law Connell?
> 
> Let me add, I'm not complaining about bear numbers, I just stated a fact that Red Oak is too big.
> 
> And, I don't feel entitled to jack s*** because I own land in a high bear population area.


Not in any way, shape or form. I think you are taking my comments personally. I don't know you from Adam. I don't know what you do or don't do. I don't know where you own land or don't own land. I'm honestly not even sure where you came from on this. 

My comments are in reference to Luv2hunt's comments (which is why I quoted him and not you) regarding the clubs should be entitled to private landowner tags (1 per 2500 acres) because they have bear on them. 

The biggest complainers when it comes to bear are deer waiters. The biggest complaint? "The bear are eating my deer bait. The deer can't even get to it before the bear clean it up. I can't kill a deer because of the bear. Kill all the bear to save my deer hunting!"

If anybody is overloaded with bear, it's someone in the Baldwin BMU.

It's very simple... If you want to get rid of the bear, let people hunt them. I don't care if you charge them or not. You'll quickly find out your overpopulation of bear is really a couple bear and all will be right with the world again.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> I was told by a law enforcement official in the U.S. Forest Service's Law Division about flying over Club Country and seeing illegal massive piles of deer bait. Also heard an official in the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation about "all the turkey feeders" drawing in bears. So, it seems reasonable to consider some of the bear nuisance complaints coming out of Club Country are of their own making.


Let the clu


srconnell22 said:


> Not in any way, shape or form. I think you are taking my comments personally. I don't know you from Adam. I don't know what you do or don't do. I don't know where you own land or don't own land. I'm honestly not even sure where you came from on this.
> 
> My comments are in reference to Luv2hunt's comments (which is why I quoted him and not you) regarding the clubs should be entitled to private landowner tags (1 per 2500 acres) because they have bear on them.
> 
> ...


Hunters in club country get all sorts of crap tossed at them. Accusations of baiting bear year round, semi loads of deer bait (yes that did happen before the ban and before I hunted the area). And now a couple new ones for me, the hound guys saying that turkey feeders are the reason for the bear problems. Another one, fed agents seeing large bait piles on club land.

When I first came to this board I was shocked at the 'Soviet' view some people had on private land owners. Specifically that they should allow tag holders to hunt their private property. One of them was a former outdoor writer.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

I agree with SR 100% about a faction in the deer hunting community openly wanting bear killed off because they tend to take over their deer baits. In fact, even though I have only seen limited evidence of it, I am convinced one of the major hunting organizations several years 
ago leveraged the DNR to engineer a significant reduction in the state's black bear population. This was back during queen Humphries reign. 

The 2008 Bear Management Plan stresses the need to manage bear numbers with "consideration" to nuisance complaints. Strikes me as a
weak excuse when we consider states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
and even the "specially managed" Baldwin BMU....all with great bear populations managing just fine and not using nuisance complaints as an excuse to reduce bear numbers. 

Currently, I believe our Wildlife Division is doing a commendable job of managing the state's black bear. Right now, my only concern is with 
a couple NRC commissioners who have not taken the sound science management mandate seriously.


----------

