# managed area thread *important for you bingo guys



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Michigan DNR is looking to discuss options and cost cutting measures at this upcoming CWAC (i believe) for 2009/2010 managed area season. I know they are putting out some options for the area managers, cwac members and associations to discuss. I personally feel this info should become public so that "we" the hunters have some input on what we think and even can offer as worthy suggestions to our CWAC representatives if this is disussed at upcoming meetings.

Below is some ideas being tossed around. I will list them and let this disussion go as we (SFCHA) have a rep on the council and there is a few CWAC reps on this board itself. I would like them to see the input from the hunters as well so they can better represent the hunter come decision time.

Please email your rep, or the even the DNR as some of the suggested ideas really are unfavorable to us.


Reduce check station staffing to one shift. This option would close offices after the afternoon draws (e.g., at 1:00PM). This option would still service hunters for both morning and afternoon draws and staff would be able to collect important biological data from morning harvested birds. Each area could potentially identify certain fields/marshes that would be available for self-registration after the check station is closed.


End drawings on November 14. Beginning November 15, areas would be open to hunting with a self-registration for hunters at the check stations.


End the permit reissue system at Allegan.


Limit managed hunting (i.e., draws) to five days per week at areas that currently run draws seven days a week. The remaining two days could be open on a self-serve basis.


Increase the number of reserved hunts. Currently only the opening weekend hunts are by reservation only. This option would increase reserved hunts during the early part of the season (e.g., the first one or two weeks or the first two weekends of the hunting season would be by reservation only). Reserved hunt draws are much more efficient to run and take fewer staff. This option is not feasible for the 2009-10 season, but could be implemented for the 2010-11 season.

please use the corresponding numbers in your thread so we can identify what you do or don't like about the suggestion. I will comment later as to not influence direction...wanna see what most think.


----------



## gooseboy (Jul 11, 2008)

i would think a self registration system would be great, however as I see things, it would be difficult to moniter, post your section the night before, hunters/violators going in to areas without correct hunting stamps, or whatever. I guess to hear the ideas of self registration would be needed before I could actually make any more comments on this.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

gooseboy said:


> i would think a self registration system would be great, however as I see things, it would be difficult to moniter, post your section the night before, hunters/violators going in to areas without correct hunting stamps, or whatever. I guess to hear the ideas of self registration would be needed before I could actually make any more comments on this.


just picture fish point and november 15th with lets say....10-15 parties. fields are first come first serve. how much fun would it be? I know i wouldn't make that drive to hunt it. would hunter participation be larger or smaller? how would the future of that area be affected.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Also sitting back to watch before I chime in...


----------



## gooseboy (Jul 11, 2008)

my thought is this..........say shiawassee town, wanted to hunt north prior, say zone 59, I just dont want it to make it or havi it possible that all of north prior would say zones are taken, when in reality there is only one party in the whole thing....that would be awesome tho...no sky busters, nobody shooting at your birds working.....just want to see some kind of checks and balances to avoid the mis-use of this privaledge...


----------



## DuckMan87 (Jun 11, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> End drawings on November 14. Beginning November 15, areas would be open to hunting with a self-registration for hunters at the check stations.


heres the problem i see with that, i donno how the draws are up by u guys... (sag bay area)
but down here at harsens...coem november we just start to see any numbers of ducks and a weekend draw is 90+ partys (per draw) no matter the weather:yikes: so if u have 90 partys all showin up at the same time, or even at the butt crazk of dawn whats to stop them from sittin in a field all day?? or pulling 15 guys into one area?? Not say its a bad idea, but ive seen free for alls turn out to be rly bad due to those couple pricks that make them that way!! 

i think staffing through the second draw is the best solution to cost issues, that way its still regulated in a controlled manner, which still doesnt solve the prick issue but it might make them think twice about it and it wont have peopel setup in a field all day poundin away at the birds


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I can see the fist fights at the first come first serve already.

How about $5 a day / $20 a year to hunt. I'll pay it. That's an increase of what, 30 miles of scouting gas over current prices?


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

I warned all of you, I knew this was coming


----------



## Sampsons_owner (Dec 30, 2005)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I can see the fist fights at the first come first serve already.
> 
> How about $5 a day / $20 a year to hunt. I'll pay it. That's an increase of what, 30 miles of scouting gas over current prices?


How about $10 a day and $30 for an annual. Juniors can be $5 and $10. I spend more than $10 at the mcdonalds at shiawassee every time I go over there. So what the heck. Steve


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

Up the fees.

Have rest days/afternoons/mornings, whatever, it will improve the hunting. This will reduce overhead.

Hunted through university under this system, it worked very well, some food for thought,
http://www.longpoint.on.ca/lpwa/HuntingOpps.asp. Guys came from all over the including the states and couldnt believe how good a system it was.

A free for all somedays, :help: i value my life too much....


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

If they eliminate redraw at Allegan it would be bad. With only a handfull of good spots, maybe 10 - 20 depending on wind, the 400 parties there don't stand a chance. A lot take a redraw # if they are drawn even at like 30 or 50. The good spots can be tagged out and back in on a good day in an hour. This gives mor ehunters oppurtunities to hunt. 

For me personally, I drive an 1.25 hours to get there, and if drawn bad I got to drive home. With the redraw it gives me a slight chance of hunting. I would simply not go if redraw was eliminated. But I have only hunted there a few times the last several times, as 400 plus parties there kind of makes it tough. Weekdays are better, but still 200 parties or more the times I went. My luck with the draws is simply not that great, and with gas prices, well I can shoot a duck maybe two around home, or save and go on a trip up north or something. 

just my opinion. I understand budget cuts are needed. It sucks, yes, but sometimes you can't avoid it, when the money is gone, it is gone.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

1. I don't really see a problem shutting down the staffing a bit earlier. I know the bilogical data is an important aspect of sound management though, but is it worth the extra expense to know the sex, age, etc. I personally feel that it's more important to know the number of species being harvested compared to what sex or age it is. It's also important from a goose standpoint to know what percentage of migrating birds vs. locals are being harvested. 

2. I can't speak for the East side, but this would be a foolish idea for any managed area on the West side. They did it years ago, and it was a mess. Some people just don't have the option to get there early enough to have a good spot. Should we penalize those people? The people who have nothing better to do, or that have no responsibilities will have the best spots every single day. 

3. I don't mind if the re-issue is abandoned either. If you get a bad draw go home. Or better yet, be smart about your pick and select a spot that will better your chances of harvesting birds based on what parties are hunting next to you, or movement of the birds in the past few days. It slays me seeing people pick spots that statistically are good, but way off base for how the birds are currently moving. If I could only kill birds with a good draw, I wouldn't have killed many to say the least.

4. The self serve idea for two days may not be a bad option. I would like to see it done self serve on days which historically have fewer people in the draw though. See reason number 2 above.

5. I'm somewhat mixed on the reserved hunt idea. Not many people can set aside and know exact days in which they can hunt. My life is already full of dates, timelines, meetings, etc. I don't want to have to plan my hunting time. 

Why don't they just figure out how much more money they need to keep it the way that it is, and add that cost to our licenses. Trust me when I say that I don't want a price increase any more than the next guy. Times are tough enough for me as it is, but I can't see it costing all of us that much more really. I'm not a pencil pusher though, so I can't say that would be a viable option. I'm just throwing it out there.

If I had to pick any of the options listed above, it would be options 2 and 3.

As always, just my .02.


----------



## 2001rotax800 (Jul 30, 2004)

I say up the fee's also. These are great facilties, with great habitat, if they are left to first come first serve they will get destroyed. You could also Add a $1 dollar draw fee that could be applied to your daily fee if drawn, that would bring in $90 just for holding the drawing on top of the daily revenue. I am sure we are all feeling the pinch, but if we want to enjoy these places, we need to fund them accordingly.


----------



## kolarchi (Mar 20, 2006)

Increase the fee to cover cost. I have no problem paying it as long as it goes to the managed units.


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

I know how most feel about an increase in fees to hunt, anything. But lets take a good hard look at everything. These days everything you buy is more expensive. 

Heck my wife was telling me that bacon is now coming in a 12oz package, not a 1# package as before, but guess what, the price stayed the same. DId they tell you it was a 12 oz package heck no, but my wife is smarter than a fifth grader, so she noticed it right away.

I say,........................... now don't flame my **** to bad. The dnr should raise fees across the board. It doesn't take a mathmatics wiz to figure out with a $5.00 increase in let say...........................firearm deer hunting licences. 750,000 x $5.00 almost 4 million dollars. And that's just gun deer hunters. Same goes for bow hunters, waterfowl, small game, fishing etc. 

If a dude wants to go bird watching on the Allegan unit, charge his bird lovin butt a daily fee, or he can buy an annual if he prefers. Deer hunters on the managed systems, charge them a usage fee as well. Which they haven't at Allegan.

I guess if you use it, you have to pay for it. Shi Kid you and I have discussed this before and I know how you feel, but what can ya do. The only problem I see with the dnr raising the fees, is, someone?? will use it some place other than where it SHOULD BE USED. Because she can and has to, to make ends meet? Off my stump. It's been along time coming guy's. And to be honest, I supported a licence increase years ago. 

Smoke


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

keep ideas flowing i like to see this.

one thing to keep in mind about fees. These are every day joe hunting. not everyone can afford raised prices. I am always concerned about fee raises for anything specially when this is a state run venture. I'm all for keeping it affordable and it should have some kind of inflation scale. Raising fee's translates into LESS hunter participation in the long run ALWAYS. times may be tight for government, but they are tighter for consumer. I'm also ver weary of any kind of fee raises being diverted to other costs outside of running the managed area.

before you jump on the raised fee bandwagon, i want you to really think about it in the longrun. A scheduled price increase structure for inflation would be a better deal...not just "raising the fees".


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

i'm also surprised no one has caught on to the pre-registration idea....you know where this going right??? how about 4$ application to try for your quality pre-registered hunt.....this ring any bells lately for raising funds for the dnr......michigan casino hunting anyone?


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

> before you jump on the raised fee bandwagon, i want you to really think about it in the longrun. A scheduled price increase structure for inflation would be a better deal...not just "raising the fees".


Wow you type fast SK! :lol: Good point to ponder I agree, but something needs to be done soon, before the managed areas are all but washed out. And I'll bet it happens quickly when it does. I don't trust goverment officals anymore than the next guy, maybe less, but what are we supposed to do? I don't want to see the managed areas go away. I spend way to much quality time there. 

Let's hear some other ideas. JD,...... JD,........... JD? Yoooo hooooo. 
smoke


----------



## north-bound (Nov 20, 2007)

#1 Would be my choice. If that didn't work then try raising the fees up. 

#2,#4 Bring the popcorn with ya this could be fun to watch.

#3 I have never hunted their so i have no comment for this one. I guess i don't understand what the reissue is. Is it if you don't like your draw you get another chance? If thats the case i could have used that a few times last year.

#5 It would be hard for me to do this one just because of lifes curveballs. Most of the time i would be fine but ya never know. I would just like to keep the doors open instead a more reserved hunts.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

smoke said:


> Wow you type fast SK! :lol: Good point to ponder I agree, but something needs to be done soon, before the managed areas are all but washed out. And I'll bet it happens quickly when it does. I don't trust goverment officals anymore than the next guy, maybe less, but what are we supposed to do? I don't want to see the managed areas go away. I spend way to much quality time there.
> 
> Let's hear some other ideas. JD,...... JD,........... JD? Yoooo hooooo.
> smoke


i think the last fiasco ruined me with dealing with government/dnr.....lost complete trust with them. these bulletins come out and put the fear of god in you and then their next tactic is push thru a fee raise. This time i feel its probably warranted but it makes you remember the 2007 season and what a fiasco they caused for what??? their own inability to manage themselves.

do i think we are in trouble on the managed areas? yes
do i think raising fees will solve it more than one year? no

you can't rob the dnr's general funding (down from 28% late 90's to 8% now) and expect to keep these things a float. these budgets have been murdered over the last 10 years and seem to have no future of being corrected. If you want to have safe funding a solid future, you need to be a criminal....their funding has increased %800 in that timeframe. so who needs budget cuts, hunters or criminals?


----------



## dnrinsider (Aug 25, 2008)

Just so as everyone knows, the DNR has no authority to increase fees. The Legislature sets fees. It is not nearly as simple as it seems. As I recall (and I'm going on memory here), the last time the Legislature raised fees (1996) the DNR requested increased fees for managed waterfowl areas, but the Legislature rejected the increase.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

dnrinsider said:


> As I recall (and I'm going on memory here), the last time the Legislature raised fees (1996) the DNR requested increased fees for managed waterfowl areas, but the Legislature rejected the increase.


believe so. seem to remember this.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

#1 No. Reducing staff possibly or maybe have an intern, instead of a Biologist/tech issuing permits/checking birds would help with labor costs. Self-registration will lead to nothing but problems.

#2 Again, self-registration won't work. There will always be conflicts. Those conflicts will lead to altercations or worse, someone giving up the sport because of the hassle.

#3 Ending the re-issue at Allegan is a good idea. Those birds NEED a rest! They get pounded in the same 10 zones twice a day all season. In fact, I would go with a MWW schedule there. Sat & Sun am & pm, Tu & Th am only. Watch the quality of the hunting go up. Now it's a joke, some days only a coupla birds are taken.

#4 Yes, please do limit the days --see above. However, bad idea for self-registration, again...see above.

#5 Yes...well maybe. Increasing the number of reserved hunts does make sense, however, it will eliminate the guys who go at the spur of the moment because of unexpected time off, favorable weather, etc., therefore eliminating those dollars. If the reserved hunts would "sell-out" with fees paid upon application, then maybe.

This topic has generated over 1800 hits as of 1:15pm on 8/3. Obviously there is a ton of interest. There is no Silver Bullet. We have to lower expenses and raise revenue. Closing the managed areas a few days a week should help out with expenses and give the birds a rest. Raising revenue a nominal amount ($5 day period, no seasonal fee) should help as well. MWW doesn't even currently have a fee. We HAVE to make sure these monies STAY at the managed areas. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NO SELF REGULATION!!!

TNL


----------



## Mr. Marley (Oct 28, 2005)

Up the fee's..... thing's would be out of control.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Mr. Marley said:


> Up the fee's..... thing's would be out of control.


again, raising the fees is not an option here. this is for this season. even if you raised the fee's tomorrow, they would still be under budgeted. they have to cut costs and here are the options to talk about. 

just bumping this up as cwac is coming and want to keep the debate goin. Some very good points have been touched on, and it seems that everyone is in favor of the 1pm field station closing (after the 11am draw).


----------



## mudplunger (Jan 13, 2006)

Reduce check station staffing to one shift. This option would close offices after the afternoon draws (e.g., at 1:00PM). This option would still service hunters for both morning and afternoon draws and staff would be able to collect important biological data from morning harvested birds. Each area could potentially identify certain fields/marshes that would be available for self-registration after the check station is closed.
This is the one that will not reduce hunter days/trips and also keep the most order in the field. I'm for it. 

End drawings on November 14. Beginning November 15, areas would be open to hunting with a self-registration for hunters at the check stations.
I am not in favor of "no drawings" when hunter numbers are still high. Will lead to chaos in the field.

End the permit reissue system at Allegan.
I'm in favor of it. I never liked sitting in the parking lot hoping someone would check in from a good area. I'd rather be out hunting. 

Limit managed hunting (i.e., draws) to five days per week at areas that currently run draws seven days a week. The remaining two days could be open on a self-serve basis.
Will lead to chaos on those 2 days. I travel 3 1/2 hours to hunt 2 days during the week and if I can only hunt 1 day (assuming MWF ar the hunting days) I wouldn't make the trip except on weekends. 

Increase the number of reserved hunts. Currently only the opening weekend hunts are by reservation only. This option would increase reserved hunts during the early part of the season (e.g., the first one or two weeks or the first two weekends of the hunting season would be by reservation only). Reserved hunt draws are much more efficient to run and take fewer staff. This option is not feasible for the 2009-10 season, but could be implemented for the 2010-11 season. I've only been drawn a few times in the reservation system and than followed it up with poor picks at the draw - each time we barely had enough time to make it out to our spot for shooting time. That has never happened to me in a daily draw so I don't know how much more efficient it is - maybe more efficient for the staff so they don't have to worry about hunters after the draw? I am not in favor of it.
please use the corresponding numbers in your thread so we can identify what you do or don't like about the suggestion. I will comment later as to not influence direction...wanna see what most think.[/quote]


----------



## Flooded Timber (Nov 1, 2006)

Option #1 seems it is the lesser of the evils... I also agree that self registration is a bad idea.


----------



## thetrueflatsman (Aug 5, 2009)

I hunted in De at a managed area. I was on a self -draw system and it worked just fine. 
There were not any fights, no arguements and it wasn't a free for all. There were rules that everyone followed. It would be far better than the fixed draws that are going on now at one of our MWA. 

I don't agree on statements regarding "raising the fee's will weed out the hunters from the shooters" or something like that. So am I to take that "real hunters" have more money?


----------



## 2001rotax800 (Jul 30, 2004)

I know for a fact that not all under budgeted. It is like any other business out there, some are very good at keeping finances in check and using them wisely and efficiently, other's not so much. I would like to see the balance sheets for these managed areas and see where and how they are spending their $. Then we can say they are under or over budgeted, until then we really have nothing to compare to. 

My plan as a hunter, as it has been is to not buy the annual permit, pay on a per use basis, $3 a day is really small in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

thetrueflatsman said:


> I don't agree on statements regarding "raising the fee's will weed out the hunters from the shooters" or something like that. So am I to take that "real hunters" have more money?


No, I don't think how much money a person's got has anything to do with it. Real hunters will find a way to hunt, regardless of whether the fees are raised or not. It's in their blood and they would sooner die than quit. They might grumble about the cost, but they'll pay it. Shooters on the other hand might find some other recreational activity that interests them more if the cost of hunting goes up. 

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack.....:evilsmile


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

2001rotax800 said:


> I know for a fact that not all under budgeted. It is like any other business out there, some are very good at keeping finances in check and using them wisely and efficiently, other's not so much. I would like to see the balance sheets for these managed areas and see where and how they are spending their $. Then we can say they are under or over budgeted, until then we really have nothing to compare to.
> 
> My plan as a hunter, as it has been is to not buy the annual permit, pay on a per use basis, $3 a day is really small in the grand scheme of things.


How can you say you know for a fact and then say you would like to see their balance sheets? Wouldn't you already have to have access to that to say for a "fact" they are not under budgeted?


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> how would you like to put in for a raffle in July, then only find out (if you're a lucky) you have a SINGLE DAY to hunt at a SGMA, and then being told it is this SPECIFIC DAY and only THIS particular day that can hunt it? (roughly speaking) - Try Ohio.


Uh..yeah. Add on top of that guys will enter multiple times for their neighbor, sister, brother, dead grandmother, etc. etc...as the permits are transferable. Not uncommon for guys to put in 20 applications for the chance to hunt 1 of 4 areas once at each spot. There is a $3.00 fee per application. 

You have no choice as to when you hunt. The computer assigns your date and it is an AM hunt only. Now..I've had some great shoots at these places, but have also rotted. 

I hunt Michigan's SGA's quite often, and in fact the majority of my MI hunting is done at either Pte. Mouillee or Muskegon Wastewater, but I have been to the Todd Farm a handful of times as well. I never quite understood the "re-draw" thing at the Todd..but it seems to be a popular thing to do. 

The question we all need to ask ourselves here is exactly WHAT are we hoping for if any changes in the current regulations governing the SGA's are to be made. Are we trying to save money? Please...the money required to run those places is a pittance in comparison to other government projects in ANY state. Those DNR guys and gals make jack-crap for salary. Raising fees won't help them...it'll just put more money into the coffers to be used somewhere else. Go ahead and smoke the pipe of conservation if you believe otherwise...

You guys need to realize that I frequently use Michigan's SGA management as a GOOD example of just how to run State owned lands. To me...I don't see anything wrong with the way they are run at the current time. You go and cut back on days to hunt, length of work day, etc. etc. and now you are costing good people their JOBS. 

I would like to think that raising fees would be the answer..but as a good friend told me the other day...there are only two ways to work out a problem.

1. Identify why it exists
2. Fix it

Throwing money at this situation is going to do nothing....if in fact there would even be any money left to throw after the government had snatched their share for whatever pet project needed to be done.

Having said that...I would not balk at a fee increase.


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

You sound like you've been to the blind draws.

14yr old girls and wives, aunts, avid non-hunters.....anyone that can fog a mirror to get one more chance at a blind draw. 99% never see the inside of the blind they "won".

i.e. : Mercer Blind Draw. been there - done that.


(btw: I put in for the raffle draw at all 4 spots this year too!  )


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

BFG said:


> Uh..yeah. Add on top of that guys will enter multiple times for their neighbor, sister, brother, dead grandmother, etc. etc...as the permits are transferable. Not uncommon for guys to put in 20 applications for the chance to hunt 1 of 4 areas once at each spot. There is a $3.00 fee per application.
> 
> You have no choice as to when you hunt. The computer assigns your date and it is an AM hunt only. Now..I've had some great shoots at these places, but have also rotted.
> 
> ...


couldn't agree more. when you strip the budget so bad there is no way in hell your gonna make it back by raising hunter fee's. very slippery slope and thats why i'm trying personally to throw options out that don't include raised fee's. I have no facts in hand that raising fee's would guarantee our SGA's long term existence. How about the DNR give us a plan and outlook on what money they need and how its gonna get funded?


----------



## smithsc1 (Feb 8, 2008)

1 Reduce check station staffing to one shift. This option would close offices after the afternoon draws (e.g., at 1:00PM). This option would still service hunters for both morning and afternoon draws and staff would be able to collect important biological data from morning harvested birds. Each area could potentially identify certain fields/marshes that would be available for self-registration after the check station is closed.
Sounds like a good idea.


2 End drawings on November 14. Beginning November 15, areas would be open to hunting with a self-registration for hunters at the check stations.
Sounds like a bad idea.

3 End the permit reissue system at Allegan.
Sounds like a ok idea.

4 Limit managed hunting (i.e., draws) to five days per week at areas that currently run draws seven days a week. The remaining two days could be open on a self-serve basis.
Sounds like a bad idea.

5 Increase the number of reserved hunts. Currently only the opening weekend hunts are by reservation only. This option would increase reserved hunts during the early part of the season (e.g., the first one or two weeks or the first two weekends of the hunting season would be by reservation only). Reserved hunt draws are much more efficient to run and take fewer staff. This option is not feasible for the 2009-10 season, but could be implemented for the 2010-11 season. 
Sounds like a bad idea.


----------



## 2001rotax800 (Jul 30, 2004)

TSS Caddis said:


> How can you say you know for a fact and then say you would like to see their balance sheets? Wouldn't you already have to have access to that to say for a "fact" they are not under budgeted?


Good point! I guess I need to correct my self. I do not know for a fact, but I do know some area's are self supporting and responsable enough that they are not hound the state for $$$$ to stay afloat. Some of these areas do, and that is why the state has considered closing them, which as we all know would be a great loss! All reas are not managed the same.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

2001rotax800 said:


> Good point! I guess I need to correct my self. I do not know for a fact, but I do know some area's are self supporting and responsable enough that they are not hound the state for $$$$ to stay afloat. Some of these areas do, and that is why the state has considered closing them, which as we all know would be a great loss! All reas are not managed the same.


sorry i call BS on this. I've seen the sheets and know how much they cost to run and how much to manage. all of them are in the red. Dunno where your getting your info from. Unless the dnr is pulling a fast one on costs to run. 

show me one managed area that has NOT cut employees in the last 2 years. if you can show me one, i will believe you.

show me one managed area that is operating at 100% and has no list of improvements that are essential for it to run.

i know of 6 projects at shiawassee alone that are essential....the buildings were built in the late 50's or early sixties and about ready to collapse. Our floodgates which are about to let loose have been delayed in repair for 3 years. We have a bridge that is gone...and not being replaced. Thats just at shiawassee. NQ's was dead in the water for the last 3 years....horrible pumps, no dredging of the pump ditches (most is fixed now i think). Fish point has multiple pump projects underway. 

so these 3 areas are in world of hurt and risk of losing them.....so your telling me that harsens is above water and meeting budget no problem? hasn't lost any employees, no need of dike management or improvements, doesn't have a phragmite problem that no one can afford to even dig into at this moment cuz of funding?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> sorry i call BS on this. I've seen the sheets and know how much they cost to run and how much to manage. all of them are in the red. Dunno where your getting your info from. Unless the dnr is pulling a fast one on costs to run.
> 
> show me one managed area that has NOT cut employees in the last 2 years. if you can show me one, i will believe you.
> 
> ...


Ya beat me to that response. Course I ain't up at 12:41am like the time on your post says you were. I've seen the books, and can say without a doubt that all of these areas are money losers, with the annual operating costs far exceeding the income from managed area permits. Most get a lot of assistance, both monetary and in volunteer labor, from associations such as SFCHA, FPWA, the numerous groups at St. Clair Flats, etc. If it weren't for these groups, these areas probably would've reverted to open hunting years ago.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

field-n-feathers said:


> 1. I don't really see a problem shutting down the staffing a bit earlier. I know the bilogical data is an important aspect of sound management though, but is it worth the extra expense to know the sex, age, etc. I personally feel that it's more important to know the number of species being harvested compared to what sex or age it is. It's also important from a goose standpoint to know what percentage of migrating birds vs. locals are being harvested.
> 
> 2. I can't speak for the East side, but this would be a foolish idea for any managed area on the West side. They did it years ago, and it was a mess. Some people just don't have the option to get there early enough to have a good spot. Should we penalize those people? The people who have nothing better to do, or that have no responsibilities will have the best spots every single day.
> 
> ...


 
I noticed I posted the wrong option choices in the last sentence. I changed it in the above quote. It wouldn't let me just edit it. Oooops!


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

At the risk of sounding redundant and too much like Business 101, the answer is fairly simple. The only way to get in the black is to raise revenue (more hunters, higher fees, or both) and lower expenses (labor, material costs, number of operating days, etc.). 

It would seem that fees could be raised a nominal amount to say $5 per and eliminate the yearly permit. If this is needed to be done by the legislature, then so be it. Include in the bill to keep these fees at the particular game area where they are gathered. IT's a 60% increase in dailys and who knows how much in annuals.

Cost containment is probably more gear towards labor. Shut the SGAs down for 2 days a week. Other State employees have had furloughs this summer. Saving nearly 30% in labor costs for 60 days might just give them the breathing room they need to get by for the rest of the year.

Plus a 2 day shutdown per week would give the birds a chance to rest and make better hunting for everybody.

Times are tough people. Regulate now so we have it later. My .02

TNL


----------



## StackemHigh (Oct 9, 2008)

sean said:


> I cant see where it would hurt if you raised the fees a few more dollars. Sure, it probably wont be the solution, but it sure the hell wouldnt hurt. This in combination with some of the other changes you are talking about would help. As far as being AM only hunts go.....Im not sure how often you have hunted managed areas but I guarantee having "only" AM hunts wouldnt necessarily give you "better" hunts. Half of the season the ducks sit in the fields all night and hardly fly in the AM and start to come out more in the late evening. Now, if you were to have say AM & PM on the weekends with Mon-PM only, Tue-AM only, Wed-PM only, Thur-AM only, and Fri-PM only. This would give the birds less pressure during the week, you could have your pre-registered hunts, and you would cut down a bunch of hours during the week. I dunno, maybe a stupid idea. What do you think?


 
I have spent my fair share of time in the managed units, never really favored AM or PM, but the idea of AM some days and PM others seems like a good idea as well. My point of it being better hunts is that the birds would not be pressured as much and would possibly react better to hunters calls/decoys instead of flying airliner high to the refuge. Raising fees will not fix the problem no, Im not saying its out of the question as an aid, but I would much rather research other ways to fix the issues at hand rather than it. We all have seen how well our state handles money...


----------



## neil duffey (Feb 22, 2004)

i like options 4 and 5 but id like to see option 4 go the 5 day route and then the remaining two days of the week the area just be closed to hunting all together... it would make for far better hunting. open 5 days, cool off for two days...


----------



## twoteal (Jul 22, 2001)

I have never hunted any of these areas or any "bingos" but I would not be opossed to throwing money at it till its fixed. The way I see it latey we have been throwing money at less worthy causes. I think a 50.00 state stamp would be fair for my use of the resource. I know that this wouldn't fix things for the current season but a 1 year usage fee by those that plan to use the places your talking about might keep more people from losing there jobs/hours

The reason I have never used those areas is that I can't figure out all the regulations that go into running the things. I rather go through a tax audit then try to figure out the "rules" for hunting there, I just figured they red tape the "managed areas" to keep hunter participation down. If you want to really fix it, simplify it and charge for the use.

Good luck


----------

