# Wisconsin vs Michigan????



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

I appreciate the information and viewpoints folks have been expressing on this bear issue. Not sure why some seem to be taking offense to bear data posted on here. The data comes from the DNR and in the bear management meetings I attended...none of what was posted on here was challenged by DNR wildlife specialists. 

Seems to me some folks are basically interested in hunting & harvesting
(nothing wrong with that) and others are deeply involved with black bear, much like the many knowledgeable sportsmen on this site are totally dedicated to all things white tail...and have great insight into management issues.


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> could be, might have to start guiding for real i dont anticipate much competition as far out in the woods as we go.:d


 there are already people guiding in the deadstream .. I am in the area from july until october running bear .. I have ran into people who claim to be guiding ..


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Yes there are a couple who guide around the edges. I dont know of any who run a serious advertised buisiness. We just do a couple friends and family things in the middle. Next years my turn There are plans to expand on that in the near future.

Ever have any problems losing dogs in there? I have heard of dog guys on the south and west sides. My buddy had a dog make it out to his house several years ago. And recovered a dog and hunter by boat once also.


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

Nope never have lost a dog in there .. I have talked to some that said they were going to shoot dogs if seen .. 
The deadstream is probably some of the roughest country in the lower .. Most people hunt around the edges ..they dont get far off of the pipelines or decent trails .. I know there are alot of guys who hunt the hay marsh , or thats what we have called it ,, 

it seems that there are less bear moving out of the deadstream though .. And more hunters piling in there ..


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

AI found an interesting article in the nov.21 issue of michigan out door new's the headline is"BEAR HUNT HIGHLIGHTED BY BIGGER BRUIN'S IN "08"in the article the interview a few people first is a weigh in sation the u.p. seller's do-op they registerd 165 bears the same as 2007 according to Ted Breland.He said"the thing this year was there were several big bear's brought in" "our biggest weighed 519 and we had seven or eight over 400 pound's.We usually get one oe two that big.Overall,it was a real good year,the bear all looked in real good shape. dnr wildlife biologist Terry Mcfadden said he also checked in an above average number of large black bear's,including several in the 500-pound range. Every year we get a handful of large bear's,but it seemed we had a few more this year.McFadden said"over-all our harvest was very comaprable to the last four year's.
The size's were up in Escanaba as"the average bear we saw this year seemed to be a little bigger than usual",said Glenn White of white's grocery,we had two over 500 pond's one weighed 525.
D.N.R. bear specialist Adam Bump said he is still gathering information from check sation's,but indication's point to another succesful season. "Over-all,from what I've heard,i' say it was a good to very good season.I would put the article on,except I don't know how to attach.It is on the front page


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Wow, Having that been said do you think that the fact the average 2008 bear was around 115 pounds is even worse than we all thought! Adam Bump mentioned its impossible to tell the age of bear(6 months or 1 year) that is in that age bracket. There is no doubt that big bears are taken each year. Weight of a boar does not insure its age. Like I mentioned before my biggest bear I ever shot was 465 field dressed(only four years old). The success rate of Upper Michigan's bear hunters is at a historic low. 17 % in zone one. I know of bear registered in Keweenaw County 38 pounds, so there are extremes. The average age and average weight is alarming. DNR biologists have revised their assessment of the population in the Western UP from stable and increasing to stable and decreasing. Without any further field studies, isn't that odd?


----------



## aquanator (Dec 1, 2005)

The DNR states the bear populatoin climbed an estimated 10% last year, and nowhere do they confirm that the average weight was 155 lbs. Just curious where that "fact" came from?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

The information on the age of bear harvested in the Bergland & Baraga zones comes from premolar samples taken from harvested bear. The DNR reports 93% of the successful hunters contributed premolars for the survey. The aging rings on the tooth prove roughly 2/3rds of the bear killed in the Bergland & Baraga zones in 2007 were 3 years of age and younger. This is a documented fact. 

The motivation here is to get the word out to sportsmen across the state. If you want to draw a tag in a zone where 2/3rds of the bear taken are 3 years and younger...its your choice. Keep in mind, individuals promoting the great bear hunting in the Western U.P. may have a personal agenda.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I have a seen a letter dated in January of 2009 stating that bear population in the Western UP was stable and declining(makes no sense to me). It was written by the supervisor of the western up wildlife division. I may be able to get a copy. Its funny how in the the bear management plan they said it was increasing and stable. No doubt you did read that the population increased. Its disturbing that they "changed" there position when questioned. See they also discontinued the "tetracycline" studies......its because they do not work......


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Another thing with the percentage's,they say 17% success,well if you take 17% of the kill in The Baraga and Bergland unit's alone it would be, 494 killed in Baraga which is 60 more bear killed then in 2007 with 500 more tag's in 08 than 07.Bergland there would have been 323 bear killed in 08 or 14 more than killed in 2007 with 335 more tag's.There is also the question of how many of the people with tag's did not hunt?You have to look at the whole picture.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Perch....the hunter success rate of 17% is statewide. When the 17% hunter success rate was brought up to Adam Bump in Crystal Falls, he did not disagree. Instead he said the success rate is intended to satisfy other users who do not want a larger bear population. Wish you could have attended the management meetings in the U.P. with us and participated in the discussion. There was a consensus the Western U.P. and several other significant areas have experienced a significant decline in bear numbers. Mr. Bump stated, "we will need to take another look at our population model, it may be wrong." That's a direct quote from the DNR's head bear biologist.


----------



## aquanator (Dec 1, 2005)

I understand the low percentage, it's fairly low for deer too, but some of us run 100% for years simply by hunting more seriously than the "average Joe". Low percentages don't really tell all of the story. 

I also understand the tooth aging averages. I have no doubt that in certain areas it's been as low as stated.

But I still have not heard where the average weight of the bear shot in 2008 was 115 lbs - does no one know the source of that number?

Otherwise we might as well all make up our own number.....I think I'll go with 123.4 lbs....


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Aquanator,

Not sure how this got twisted around...the DNR says the average weight of a Michigan black bear is 115 to 120 lbs. and adding to the frustration...the DNR does not weigh bear being checked in. So, it is a mystery how they came up with the number.

I have a lot of contact with bear hunters across the country...and asked,
what's the weight of an average bear in your state? Got some really wild numbers back. I do not know how they determined what the average weight is. We used to be under the assumption it was 130 lbs. Only thing that's definite is we have areas where 2/3rds of the bear harvested are 3 years old and younger. It is a concern.

I'm in total agreement with you on the low deer numbers in some areas, and the fact some folks put in the time and effort to still be successful.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

If you look at the Michigan Bearhunter Association magazine February 2009 the kill stats for 2008 are listed. Total zone one 17%. Total zone two 18%. Should be easy to get one of these to look at. All members get one in the mail. I hope every bear hunter is supporting organization like MBHA. You might not agree with all the opinions of the club or all the members...but overall....I try to support lots of different hunting organizations, I don't agree with everyone, but we HAVE to stick together to combat the Anti-hunting groups.


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Rooster I am questioning Adam Bump,he quoted one thing in the November Michigan outdoor new's saying the harvest was good to very good,as well as size's were bigger according to the registration station's and Marquette dnr wildlife biologist Terry McFadden said he aslo checked in above normal large bear,then at the meeting's they are saying the bear are doomed.I agree with bear boy if we do not stick together instead of looking at only one person's way of hunting we will be doomed by the ani-hunting group's,and if the people in charge keep changing their mind's about size and number's every couple of month's how will we ever know what is truly going on.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Perch321, We should all be mad. What kind of "facts" are we getting from the DNR? They keep changing. All I know is the different hunting groups are all saying one thing, the UP's bear population is not at all good. With the exception of a few "commercial baiter" that have profit on their minds, not conservation. I would think that if there was enough game to go around and the right amount of tags issued so hunters could enjoy a quality hunt, with a "chance" of getting a decent bear, we would all be happy. Sounds simple, Wisconsin seems to be able to accomplish this. Why can't Michigan? Do you think its proper management to let commercial hunting operations to become bear registration centers. They get all "inside" information from the DNR and also get information from hunters that report the kill location. All they have to do is move into a sportsmen's area thats successful. Moving in tons of bait and paid hunters that ruin it for everyone. Something has to change. In my area, illeagal bait is ignored by officials as well as hunter harrassment. This is just plain wrong!


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

I waited until I talked with the guy I hunt with in the U.P. and he does not know of a baiter that also register's bear,he has been taking hunter's for over 40 year's.I do know the sporting good store where they register in Bruce has a person there that is a dog hunter and keep's very close tab's and a book on where bear are taken for himself and other's,when I was there 3 year's ago and went along when a bear was registered he said"that is the 8th bear from that area I will have to start running my dog's there". So don't blame the baiter's,when I go fishing to Lake Gogebic in May I will take picture's of the dog "operation's" that are up there.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Perch, 

Please post photos if you can. The issue relating to licensing guides includes dog hunters. 

Interesting what you mentioned about someone registering bear using the information for their own personal use. I was under the impression most guys don't provide real accurate information where they killed a bear. I sure would be inclined to mislead someone pulling that stuff.


----------



## thongg (Jul 10, 2007)

i will take michigan new defensive coach and good incoming class lol got to have some fun


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Lac le Belle Lodge is both.....Also the "Guide" in Chassell used to be....now his neighbor does it....promotes the "guide" pretty much on this forum


----------



## Big Gunner (Jul 1, 2008)

Bear boy - I agree in that a guide should not be a check-in station, but since your on the topic of check in stations. The DNR does not pay anyone to be a bear check-in station to my knowledge. These stations are volunteers or as you noted, a guide who's in the middle of nowhere. I have never been to the Lac Labelle area, but I wouldn't think that there are probably too many check-in stations up in BFE. Plus....I don't know too many hunters who tell anyone the exact place they shot there animal. Guess I don't see what the fuss is about. Personally I appreciate the people or businesses that provide hunters with convenient resources as long as it is legal!


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

We even have electricity in BFE. You said a mouthful. This isn't the North Pole! Wow!


----------



## redtoivola (Sep 21, 2008)

As an outdoors person who spends as many hours as possible in the bush I'm always looking for sign of my favorite game animal, the black bear. I 'm out many days in all seasons, walking, picking berries, training dogs and hunting dogs. I've been in the same area of the western U.P. since 1995 and have definately seen less and less bear sign in the last 4-5 years. I thought it was OK to depend on the DNR to manage the resource but I no longer have much faith in their ablility to do so . I'm not sure where the problem with the bear population started but I really believe the numbers are way down in my area. The DNR statistics are conflicting and that in itself is cause for concern. If the state's paid professional experts don't really have a handle on the viability of the bear population here what the *#*# are they basing they're harvest decisions on?


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Redtoivola, Its funny you found that the bear popultaion is down. The "bear management plan" said that the bear popultion increased after a year of study, now the experts "changed their minds". After a couple meetining the DNR has agreed with the "hunters" of Michigan and are planning on cutting tags 30% in most UP BMU's. Tiny bears were killed in record numbers without a representitive sample reflecting a "sustainable popultion". Some members of the "bear consultation team" (user groups) felt the bear popultion is down 90% from 2000 levels. This estimation is based on hunters using bait sites that they have used for ten years or more. Bait sites that were hit daily in the past are hit about 10% of the time. Sounds logical to me. Tetracycline studies do not work and are being dismissed and are being replaced by DNA(that also proves nothing exept family trees). The DNR botched this one big time and wasted our money.


----------



## .480 (Feb 21, 2006)

I started bear hunting in 1993, on Sate Land.
You could put out bait on Aug. 10th and when you checked it Aug. 11th the bait was already hit.

I started using cameras at bait sites around 2000 I could get 10 to 13 different bears on a bait site.

Fast foreward to my last bear tag 2007. I had ONE bear I was able to get to hit my bait on State land after about 10 days of trying. 

My main observation over these 14 years is hound pressure. From '93 to 2000 there may have been two to three hound groups that ran this area, and they didn't do much running at all. 
NOW there are about 7 to 8 hound groups running this State land and they go steady from July through September. 
If you go out there even when it is 90 degrees out in July and August there will be houndsman chasing bear steady.
This has got to have a negative impact on bear numbers in this area.
Because if you go to private land areas 20 to 25 miles away from here the bears are like they used to be on the Sate lands.
Hound hunting is a legal method of hunting bear, but come on guys there has to be a little self control and self regulating done here.
I have a 130 pound rotweiler and in the summer, he just lays around and tries not to exert himself too much. Think of being a much larger bear and constantly being chased around all summer long.
I wouldn't stick around these areas either.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Almost 90% of bear kills are bait hunters. This is a fact(in Michigan). For example 76 bear were killed in keweenaw county in 2008. Three by hound hunters. Even though it would seem that hound pressure would be the reason for lack of bear, its not. There have been studies done with collared bear and hound pursuit. Shortly after the chase(within minutes) bear return to their original territory. Although you probably have your mind made up that its dogs. The reason bear are not hitting baits is simple....over harvest. It is an error to try to blame one group and split the single voice that is important to combat anti-hunting groups. I am for all types of hunters, bait, hound, archery, and whatever else I missed. This is far to important of an issue to squabble among hunters.


----------



## jeffm (Sep 20, 2008)

_(Bearboy's comment)_
_The reason bear are not hitting baits is simple....over harvest. It is an error to try to blame one group and split the single voice that is important to combat anti-hunting groups. I am for all types of hunters, bait, hound, archery, and whatever else I missed. This is far to important of an issue to squabble among hunters._
______________________________________________
Right on !! Bearboy, you are right on the money with that comment and many many more that I have read here on your different post.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

I've been reading this tread and think everyone has valid opinions and concerns. But...

There could be a very simple reason for a reduction in bear numbers as well as bait site visits by bears. predation by wolves. We all know it happens. It's been documented, and it stands to reason. The wolves have been known to kill young bears as well as digging bears out of their dens. They are also known to stake out baiting staions. Both bear and deer. This will keep bears away.

Wolf numbers up, prey numbers down. Granted, there's not much we can do about this.

As for the DNRs population model. I don't know if it's faulty or just slow to recognize a shift in population. Of course as outdoorsmen and women. it's our duty to question the DNR and NRC. Just remember they are dedicated, and their trying.

I hope to draw a tag this year. Good luck to everyone who does!


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Micky Finn...that's a well thought out post. I agree with you 100%, there's many dedicated folks in the Michigan DNR. There's only a handful of administrators with an agenda that's putting the whole department in bad light.

Joe Hudson. Pres. of the U.P. Bear Houndsmens Association brought up the question of wolves preying on bear at the bear management meeting in St. Ignace several weeks ago. He had a couple photos of wolf predation on bear. He asked one of the guy's from the wildlife division if they had any idea how much of an impact wolves were having on bear. The DNR official stated they had no data on it. Then he really put his foot in his mouth when he said, "it didn't seem likely wolves would tackle an animal like a bear because they are capable of defending themselves." Everybody's jaw dropped when they heard that! Somebody mumbled, they're in hibernation.


----------



## sourdough44 (Mar 2, 2008)

There was a picture & story in the paper over here a few years ago where wolves dragged a modest bear out of hibernation & killed it. Yes they ate most of it.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

wolves could be part of the reason for the difference between bear populations in the UP and NLP. I think you guys might be on to something.


----------



## Outback (Sep 15, 2008)

New to bear hunting myself but I feel it's probably a combonation of most of the things mentioned in the last few pages. I would hope the DNR wants to do whats best for the bear. Although I'm worried that they are making decisions on opinions and not facts. Kinda what they did to the nlp deer herd.
We as hunters and sportsman must not argue with one another but instead unite for a common goal. It's not up to me on how one particular hunter wants to take his bear or the size of bear he decides to harvest. To each their own.
Wolves absolutely have an impact on the bear numbers. Look at what they are doing to the big game numbers out west. If wolves can take down a 600-800 lb. elk what chance does a 150lb. bear have? Just like out west the problem will compound unless the dnr admits to the wolfs servility.


----------



## agross (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

I had to remove my post,Hank does not want to get involved in any controversy and does not want to post the picture,I should have known better than to think he would.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I am sure that the wolves kill a few bear. I saw the pictures, thats proof! The real problem is the bears main predator, us. Sportsmen think the DNR is doing the right thing in managing our bear. Think again, remember when the quota system became the way the DNR was to manage the harvest, only 800-1100 bears were being taken. Biologists(who were right) said Michigan could not harvest that many bear. Now they harvested more than double for a few years. A lot of false information gets spread around blaming this and that. The truth is the DNR mismanged our bear by offering way to many tags. Bear are real hard to judge size or sex, I screwed up myself judging size. I shot a small bear thinking it was big. Not tiny, but not what I thought. It happens all the time. So, limit the tags solve the problem. There are a few good size bear left, darn few! Keep in mind when people are feeding you BS about the nocturnal huge bear all around....Nocturnal bear are hound hunters dream.....and they are not finding any bear either! Not seeing bear...cause there not there!


----------



## Hap Jones (Jan 29, 2003)

It's unfortunate that people post a lot of hot air on this website without really researching or knowing the facts. Sorry for the long post, but I'll clarify a few "facts" for those who care.

As far as success rates being an indicator of the bear population, they are correlated in some fashion, but how? And is comparing WI to MI like comparing apples to apples? I grew up in PA and there's a large bear population there. Success rates were around 3%! In PA anyone can hunt bear and about 150,000 do each year. The season is only 3-days long (in mid-Nov) and dogs and bait are illegal. They've also added a week to the 1st week of deer season (1st week after Thanksgiving) in some areas. In WI, there are 3 seasons like MI, but in 2008 bait hunters got the 1st week, bait and houndsman can hunt the next 3 weeks, and the last week was houndsman only. Their season ends in mid-Oct, 12 days prior to when MI's ends. Who gets the 1st crack at bears flip-flops each year. I'm also told that in WI it takes 8+ years to draw a tag but I don't know if that is true. I won't get into all the details, but success rates vary greatly dependent upon how seasons are set up. In "fact", there is a balance to be struck between how many people get to hunt, how long the season is (and when it is), and what methods of hunting are used.

As far as bear weights are concerned, the MDNR does not collect weights when you register a bear. So, how does anyone know what the average weight of a bear is? Does it matter? In "fact", bear weights are not a good indicator of bear condition because they fluctuate greatly dependent on annual availability of natural foods, sex, age, and reproductive condition of the bear. Several posted above that the age structure of bears harvested in the UP is young, thus wouldn't they expect weights to be low?

Age structure of the population is not the same as age structure of the harvest. Younger bears are more vulnerable to harvest and that's one possible reason why harvest is typically skewed towards younger animals. In a healthy population, there should also be more younger animals, otherwise reproduction may be a concern. In "fact", age structure alone can't tell you whether the population is increasing or decreasing. You also need good estimates of reproduction, cub survival and adult survival to make a correct assessment. 

An additional point about the age structure relates to WI's recent research results indicating they could have up to twice as many bears as previously thought. If that's the case, then they likely have a growing population with many young bears. Young bears in a densely populated area typically disperse, especially young males. In "fact", Michigan has detected several young bears harvested in the western UP that were marked with tetracycline in WI. 

It's interesting that some above trash the tetracycline model used by MDNR, but when they discuss that WI has many more bears than MI they fail to recognize that WI used the very same technigue to estimate their population. In "fact", MI and MN researchers developed this technique in the late 1980s and it's published in a scientific journal (not your favorite hunting mag). MN has recently conducted additional research using this technique and MI recently completed an internal review of the techniques use. As far as the genetic technique is concerned, it's used only in the LP. In "fact", the development of that technique was also cutting edge research that is published in a scientific journal.

As far as wolves killing and eating bear, does is happen? Absolutely! The question is does it happen at a frequency that it has an impact on the bear population? The MDNR has radio-collared bear in several areas of the UP and are planning on putting out more collars in future years. To my knowledge, no radio-collared bear have been killed by wolves. Logically, we only need to look at other areas of North America that have large populations of wolves and large populations of black bear (Alaska, the northern Rockies, all of Canada, MN, WI) to understand that wolves likely have little impact on bear populations. Bear are not true hibernators and awake easily in the den. Most bears that den in the UP use ground dens. That means that a pack of wolves cannot get behind a bear in a den. It's one wolve sticking its head in a small hole face to face with a bear. I believe most wolves wouldn't take that chance. If you're a wolve, do you really want to take the chance of tackling something that can easily kill you when its got the advantage?

The "facts" are that MI is fortunate to have the information it does in making management decisions. The true leaders in bear research and management in this country are MI and MN, followed by NC, PA and WI. If you don't believe me, do an on-line search, don't just listen to what people profess to be "fact" on this forum.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Hap, just edited my statement about DNR talking points. I apologize, we're trying to have an exchange about bear management. My post did not contribute. What I should have posted...I believed in a lot of the things you stated, but over time it just does not pass the proverbial smell test anymore. There is a great deal of difference in what we're hearing out of the DNR administration compared to what's going on in the field. Also overlooked is the Natural Resources Commission. They have the final say, including the number of kill tags issued. The NRC is made up of of political appointees. Most do not have a background in resource management. We have it from one of the commissioner's, "he know's the harvest schedule for the western U.P. has been abused." And currently we have another NRC "hatched" special interest undertaking. Against guidlines spelled out in our bear management plan...my information has it one of the NRC commissioner's owns property in the Club Country...and has proposed issuing 300 kill tags for Club Country. To do that the Red Oak Zone needs to be split. So this individual, my information has it, has proposed establishing the "White Oak Zone."
DNR Wildlife managers oppose this proposal. They regard Club Country as a key part of the bear ecosystem. Wildlife managers are on record stating they would not support issuing 300 kill tags without first conducting at least a 2 year population study to verfy the ecosystem could absorb the kill without significant damage to all of Red Oak. This sort of special interest management is a blatant violation of the voters mandate which has been written into law..."manage using sound scientific data." It appears to me we have at least one NRC commissioner overstepping their authority. To say Michigan is at the forefront of bear management just does not work anymore. Politics and special interests influence game management in this state....and they will until the Proposal G mandate is enforced.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Adam Bump said they were going to "trash" the tetracyline studies...unreliable. All bear experts say the most difficult part of their jobs is popultion estimation. Kill stats are about the only thing you can go by. Pennsylvania is not Michigan. Every bear I killed and registared with the MDNR was weighed and recorded. Its not a requirement, but they all do it. The only time it isn't done is if the hide and head are brought in only. Wisconsin recently adopted the same model as Michigan.......wow! Michigan does not have the reputation as being a leader in bear management....Just the opposite I'm afraid.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

Very good post! I agree that decisions should be based on science. We all agreed to this in 1996.

"As far as wolves killing and eating bear, does is happen? Absolutely! The question is does it happen at a frequency that it has an impact on the bear population? The MDNR has radio-collared bear in several areas of the UP and are planning on putting out more collars in future years. To my knowledge, no radio-collared bear have been killed by wolves. Logically, we only need to look at other areas of North America that have large populations of wolves and large populations of black bear (Alaska, the northern Rockies, all of Canada, MN, WI) to understand that wolves likely have little impact on bear populations. Bear are not true hibernators and awake easily in the den. Most bears that den in the UP use ground dens. That means that a pack of wolves cannot get behind a bear in a den. It's one wolve sticking its head in a small hole face to face with a bear. I believe most wolves wouldn't take that chance. If you're a wolve, do you really want to take the chance of tackling something that can easily kill you when its got the advantage?"

But I gotta call you on this part. First off, I'm using anecdotal evidence, not the results of sound scientific research. I understand the difference. But, it does illistrates my point. My own gun dogs have driven bears out of their dens. (against my wishes I might add). Also quite a few bears build nests as opposed to entering actual cave like dens. Which make them vulnerable to predation. I would also point out, about the only thing in our woods that a pack of wolves can't kill is a man with a 30/06. 

Wolves also stake out bait stations as I posted. This will change bear behavior or open them up to predation. I don't think the wolves will wipe out the bears anytime soon. But they do make changes in bear behavior which will reflect in the results hunters achieve. Both in seeing and tagging larger bears.

Once again, good luck everyone!


----------



## Hap Jones (Jan 29, 2003)

"Adam Bump said they were going to "trash" the tetracyline studies...unreliable." 

Hmmmm, interesting, I've talked to Adam and he's said no such thing. What he did say is that the tetracycline model and another model used by MDNR don't agree and they are going to work to try to determine why.

"All bear experts say the most difficult part of their jobs is popultion estimation. Kill stats are about the only thing you can go by."

I suggest you pick up a copy of the "Wildlife Techniques Manual" published by The Wildlife Society. The 5th Edition has a nice flow chart laying out what population estimators and indices are available to wildlife biologists. I don't see the section on "kill stats being the only thing you can use"?

"Pennsylvania is not Michigan."

Thanks for making my point. And neither is WI.

"Every bear I killed and registared with the MDNR was weighed and recorded. Its not a requirement, but they all do it. The only time it isn't done is if the hide and head are brought in only."

Have you been to every DNR check station? The next time you register a bear ask where on the data form it has a place to enter bear weight. Like I said above, bear weight does not tell you anything about bear condition. 

"Wisconsin recently adopted the same model as Michigan.......wow!"

Yes they did, and yes WOW, MI must be doing something right?! 

"Michigan does not have the reputation as being a leader in bear management....Just the opposite I'm afraid."

I'm afraid you wouldn't know. You might want to check with MBHA and SCI to see how much $$$ they've contributed to some of the research. Again, take some time to do an on-line search.


----------

