# Michigan's waterfowling dilema



## LoBrass

We have a rich tradition (many, actually) and EVERYONE wants to see this continue. The issues we face can be resolved with some compromise by ALL parties _or_ we continue status quo and some guys are going to face continued disappointment. The Feds are giving us a chance now to make changes to our zone configuration and we need to be diligently working to use this opportunity if we seek to resolve our biggest problem which seems to be SW Michigan's desire to hunt later into December.

There is little question, in my mind, that Michigan faces the greatest challenge of any state when considering our seasons, zones, start dates and splits because we have such a diverse state. You can literally hunt 7 miles off shore one day for long-tails and scoters and be shooting beaver pond woodies the next just 8 miles away!! Add in the marshes, rivers, corn fields or lakes and you can begin to see our complex mission to use this current framework to TRY to make everyone happy. It is no small task.

While I cannot say with any sureness what our seasons will look like in 2012, I can say that some people are already working on gathering as much data as possible to work out the remaining issues presented before us. I am one of them. Yesterday I had the opportunity to travel to SW Michigan (mostly in Berrien County) and I made a conscious effort to understand what I was seeing. I did see huntable populations of ducks and geese. I saw similar numbers in SE Michigan too. Does this mean we should be hunting them now as opposed to earlier dates-I can't say. Obviously if birds are present we would like to hunt. 

One of my contentions is to hunt birds when birds are here. While this is an obvious statement I think we should temper it by saying we should hunt _when the largest numbers of birds are present_. A simple graph showing bird population counts can begin to present this information. The challenges arise when we talk about different regions of the state. SW Michigan's peak numbers do correspond (based on Allegan numbers) to a late December peak of mallard numbers. We are NOT currently hunting ducks there at _this_ time. I have concerns with this (as do a few others). Do we start the region later? What percentage of hunters will consider a later start a detriment? The start date of this region is a major consideration as the rest of the current zone seems quite content with the 2011 dates.

Losing the split option seems scary to many, me included. However, I do not live my life in fear and I believe I no longer wish to fear losing our split. The CWAC committee has been against losing the split. I do not believe the committee would adopt a 4th zone without presenting a VERY strong case. One benefit of going to a 4 zone configuration would be that the split is cast aside like a sinking decoy!! What a relief!! The question can be raised-is this our BEST option? A second benefit is that Michigan extends it's season by another full week (assuming we have 4 different start dates). My opinion is beginning to move toward this option. 

As far as where to draw the lines. The conversations I have had with a number of SW Michigan residents has yielded many different variations. My initial thoughts are to keep the area relatively small and isolated to the southwestern most 5 or 6 counties starting in the north with Allegan County. This small zone size is not unprecedented as Ohio now has a "Lake Erie Marsh Zone" which comprises a similarly sized area. I still believe Saginaw Bay belongs in zone 2 with that line running along 25 to the tip of the thumb. This option keeps the vast majority of the fields of the thumb in zone 3 and extends that regions field hunting season by a week under dates similar to 2011.

Please note that this is a public forum and I am merely providing my personal opinions. When at a CWAC meeting I MUST represent Waterfowl USA and likely will not be able to present a proposal as my committee has thus far looked for "No Change".

Will this option present a total fix to Michigan's dilema?-not hardly. However, I believe this option is closer to a permanent solution without significantly stepping on any single regions toes too awfully hard.

I welcome any thoughts and let's keep it civil-please.


----------



## PhilBernardi

And I'll take a simpler conceptual notion: conservation of the resource is job number one.

If that means NOT hunting when birds are present, then that is what has to happen. 

Every waterfowler's self-interest is fine. But it isn't when the aggregate thereof negatively affects policy and programs that are working positively for the "short" or "long" term interests of the resource.

Simple concepts, difficult practices.


----------



## jerryriggin

i hunt the bay the zone 2 start would be nice. but some of our best shoots come once it ices up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## just ducky

John,

Sounds almost like the President giving us a state of the state address. Maybe you should've started it with "four score and seven years ago..." just joking. But honestly, a very clear and concise post. I happen to agree 100%.

Regarding the fear some have over losing the option for a split, to elaborate on what you said about four separate openers, and hopefully support your position, consider this....

ZONE 1 - UP
ZONE 2 - Northern lower, with the exact line to be determined (especially around the bay)
ZONE 3 - majority of southern lower penninsula
ZONE 4 - some corner of west/southwest Michigan

Obviously those lines would have to be hammered out, but hear me out here. Let's just say that we were able to get four separate openers, so for grins, this is what it looks like:

Zone 1 - last Sat in Sept
Zone 2 - first Sat in Oct
Zone 3 - second Sat in Oct
Zone 4 - third Sat in Oct

Now EVEN IF we are reduced to a 30 day season :yikes:, and I'm a hunter in...let's say Midland. I'm likely in Zone 2. But I'm also likely within easy driving distance of Zone 3. And maybe I have relatives/friends in either the UP, or SW Michigan, where I can hunt too. Now look at the options I have...I could theoretically hunt from the first Saturday in September, well into November, IN A 30 DAY SEASON!!!!!

This example could be used in a lot of different ways, but the point is we could EASILY have MORE variety and options available with the proper alignment of zone lines, NOT LESS!

I just personally think it makes all kinds of sense, and far outweighs my own personal fear about losing splits. Now having said all of that, does it still rely on us all agreeing on opening dates? You bet. That's the one thing we can't change. But I think if people would just open their minds, they may see that it isn't necessarily gloom and doom to lose splits.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> And I'll take a simpler conceptual notion: conservation of the resource is job number one.
> 
> If that means NOT hunting when birds are present, then that is what has to happen.
> 
> Every waterfowler's self-interest is fine. But it isn't when the aggregate thereof negatively affects policy and programs that are working positively for the "short" or "long" term interests of the resource.
> 
> Simple concepts, difficult practices.


i do agree with this. what i want to know from you phil is what specifically are you pointing out, local mallard decline?


----------



## just ducky

So okay, to protect the resource, the feds back us down to a 45 day season, or god forbid a 30 day. As I pointed out, a 4 zone concept HAS THE POTENTIAL to give us more opportunties than what splits would, not less. Think about it...with a 30 day season, and a split, I'd have to break my hunting up into two chunks somehow. First and foremost, how in the hell will we EVER agree on how that split looks? And second, I still only have 30 days...period. But with 4 zones, each running 30 straight days, with the right opening/closing dates, I could have more opportunity than if I had a split.


----------



## TSS Caddis

LoBrass said:


> Losing the split option seems scary to many, me included. However, I do not live my life in fear and I believe I no longer wish to fear losing our split.



Good post.

It's not "fear", it's standard Risk Management.

If it seems there is a good chance of a < 60 day season in the next 5 years, you keep the split in your back pocket mitigate that risk. If you think you can make it 5 years with 60 days then you take the chance on 4 zones. Tail waggin the dog until this is addressed..


On a side note, can you outline why you believe Sag Bay belongs in Zone 2? 

Zones are neither here nor there to me, it's dates that matter, so saying Sag Bay belongs in Zone 2 without reference to dates, doesn't mean much. To me it just seems like Sag Bay is viewed as an obstacle to be moved out of the way to get to an end goal for the extreme south without much thought of impacts to Sag Bay or Zone 2. 

Before moving Sag Bay anywhere I think there also needs to be some sort of concensus as to what the rest of Zone III would like. What is being taken as fact seems to be that the southern counties want to go later. From what I've read there seems to be equal camps with one arguing to go later and one arguing to start earlier to keep from being frozen out(Harsens). So assuming you keep the split in your back pocket, you first need to get a concensus with southern counties before moving any line.

The above always seems to be glossed over.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> So okay, to protect the resource, the feds back us down to a 45 day season, or god forbid a 30 day. As I pointed out, a 4 zone concept HAS THE POTENTIAL to give us more opportunties than what splits would, not less. Think about it...with a 30 day season, and a split, I'd have to break my hunting up into two chunks somehow. First and foremost, how in the hell will we EVER agree on how that split looks? And second, I still only have 30 days...period. But with 4 zones, each running 30 straight days, with the right opening/closing dates, I could have more opportunity than if I had a split.


To be frank, very few on the board are willing to leave their own county. They can already travel to kill more birds but don't, so as much as I may agree with the above in concept, in practice most will not benefit.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> ...On a side note, can you outline why you believe Sag Bay belongs in Zone 2?
> 
> Zones are neither here nor there to me, it's dates that matter, so saying Sag Bay belongs in Zone 2 without reference to dates, doesn't mean much. To me it just seems like Sag Bay is viewed as an obstacle to be moved out of the way to get to an end goal for the extreme south without much thought of impacts to Sag Bay or Zone 2.
> 
> Before moving Sag Bay anywhere I think there also needs to be some sort of concensus as to what the rest of Zone III would like. What is being taken as fact seems to be that the southern counties want to go later. From what I've read there seems to be equal camps with one arguing to go later and one arguing to start earlier to keep from being frozen out(Harsens). So assuming you keep the split in your back pocket, you first need to get a concensus with southern counties before moving any line.
> 
> The above always seems to be glossed over.


Obviously John will respond, but let me throw my two cents in on the bay (and please people...this is just my two cents...don't bash me please...constructive criticism welcomed  )

First Gene, I do agree that it's not so much the zone lines, but the dates that will be the critical thing. Obviously we can't decide dates here. We can only speculate, and as you said, try to play "risk management". A bit of a gamble? sure. But I think a reasonable risk.

The bay currently sits in Zone 3. A good share of people (avoiding the term "majority") would like to hunt early on the bay to take advantage of teal and wood ducks before they leave (bluewings anyway). I've heard this comment from both sides of the bay. Yes, there are also those such as you Caddis who hunt the big water until ice up. But I've even heard you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that late October/early November is a great time for you big water guys on the bay. However this vocal position for an early start from "a good share" around the bay is in opposition to "a good share" of people from other parts of zone 3, for instance Shiawassee, Harsens, Lake St. Clair and Pointe M., not to mention the west and southwest side of the state. So what we have annually is this tug of war over when zone 3 should start. Some years the pendulum sways earlier...some years later. There is also a "good share" of people from the eastern bay area who really are vocal in wanting to hunt the fields inland in the thumb as late as possible. How late is the question. So as was discussed at length at the March 2011 CWAC meeting, by placing the bay in Zone 2, and running the Zone 2/3 divider along the tip of the thumb, the bay area hunters could have early hunting, then hop over this zone line and hunt fields inland in the thumb when the birds are feeding heavy in the fields. It was basically a compromise to try to give everyone a little...again, no one was completely happy. I think that's what John means when he said the zone line could run along the tip of the thumb.

Again guys, think big picture, not just your preferred type of hunting, and that everyone must give a little in order for something like this to work.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> To be frank, very few on the board are willing to leave their own county. They can already travel to kill more birds but don't, so as much as I may agree with the above in concept, in practice most will not benefit.


Boy I dunno about that Gene. Many of the people I talk to regularly drive a long way to hunt. I know I do...typically 40 to 75 miles one way. But that I guess would be a good poll topic_..."how often do you drive over 40 miles to hunt ducks?"_


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Boy I dunno about that Gene. Many of the people I talk to regularly drive a long way to hunt. I know I do...typically 40 to 75 miles one way. But that I guess would be a good poll topic_..."how often do you drive over 40 miles to hunt ducks?"_


Regarding this particular question, data about it can be derived from the current MI survey data set - with "some" manipulation. 

We can get some reasonable idea of proximity of hunting from the survey (MI for sure, and I know that the Fed bird part survey has that data too). 

Just letting ya know.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> However this vocal position for an early start from "a good share" around the bay is in opposition to "a good share" of people from other parts of zone 3, for instance Shiawassee, Harsens, Lake St. Clair and Pointe M., not to mention the west and southwest side of the state. So what we have annually is this tug of war over when zone 3 should start.


I think it's all about the circles you run in. I personally do not know a single Saginaw Bay hunter that want's an earlier open and close. In fact, there was just a thread wanting Sag Bay to stay open later yet that had a fair amount of support. I know last year a FP area association did not support an earlier opener and I'd gauge that as a barometer for what the earliest desired opener should be.

Lot's of considerations and I obviously do not have the answers or envy CWAC reps and the DNR.

I liked this years dates with the exception of the UP. UP opened too early IMO.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> I think it's all about the circles you run in. I personally do not know a single Saginaw Bay hunter that want's an earlier open and close. In fact, there was just a thread wanting Sag Bay to stay open later yet that had a fair amount of support. I know last year a FP area association did not support an earlier opener and I'd gauge that as a barometer for what the earliest desired opener should be.
> 
> Lot's of considerations and I obviously do not have the answers or envy CWAC reps and the DNR.
> 
> I liked this years dates with the exception of the UP. UP opened too early IMO.


You're right about the circles. Maybe it's my role in MDHA that means I get more calls, emails, pm's, etc. I'm learning to avoid the term "majority", but there are a substantial number of hunters on the bay, especially on the west side, who are very, very vocal about opening as early as possible to get those birds. They regularly lobby the MDHA state board, and they have years of detailed records showing bird movement from that side of the bay. There are some DNR records (granted...from the Nayanquing Pt refuge counts) which line up pretty consistently with what this groups says on that matter. Now having said that, I don't dispute what you said about a good number of hunters not in agreement with that. Like you said...probably the circles you run in. As far as the Fish Point side, yes, several people there have been vocal, and their views have varied from an earlier opener to a later opener. Again, not everyone will get everything they want...just not possible. But I think what was discussed at length last March at CWAC had a lot of good points, and good support.


----------



## LoBrass

Caddis nailed my next response. Risk management. 

I will respond in detail tonight. 

I must be getting old, it's a struggle to type on my phone. Lol!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chez29

just ducky said:


> Now EVEN IF we are reduced to a 30 day season :yikes:, and I'm a hunter in...let's say Midland. I'm likely in Zone 2. But I'm also likely within easy driving distance of Zone 3. And maybe I have relatives/friends in either the UP, or SW Michigan, where I can hunt too. Now look at the options I have...I could theoretically hunt from the first Saturday in September, well into November, IN A 30 DAY SEASON!!!!!


I know what your gettin at here but I guarantee if we have a 30 day season there is absolutely no way zone 1 would open first Sat of Sept.



PhilBernardi said:


> And I'll take a simpler conceptual notion: conservation of the resource is job number one.
> 
> If that means NOT hunting when birds are present, then that is what has to happen.
> 
> Every waterfowler's self-interest is fine. But it isn't when the aggregate thereof negatively affects policy and programs that are working positively for the "short" or "long" term interests of the resource.
> 
> Simple concepts, difficult practices.


I think this is one of the reasons the Jan split was done away with and I doubt if we see it back. The state probably doesnt want to say it publicly but I bet there are many that dont think we should be hunting these mallards when they are confined to very few areas.




TSS Caddis said:


> I liked this years dates with the exception of the UP. UP opened too early IMO.


We should always have seperate openers for each zone and the UP should always open first and I dont see the other zones pushing back 1 week so the last weekend of Sept works. Last year the date is the earliest it could be this year it will be the 29th or so. 

Another thing that will add to this equation is the push for a teal season in Michigan and what comes from Wisconsins late season "sea duck" season. I think the sea duck season is years out if it happens but I think there is a real good chance at a teal season in the next year or 2.
Both would provide ways to help those who want to hunt early and late without moving the regular dates around. I know I know thats being greedy just leave well enough alone.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i do agree with this. what i want to know from you phil is what specifically are you pointing out, local mallard decline?


I write the following without having looked at the breeding numbers for all ducks in MI over the last 10-20 years, and knowing that MI breeding mallards have been on the decline for the last 5-7 years.

I would prioritize MI mallards as the number one duck we need to work on to increase their numbers.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> I write the following without having looked at the breeding numbers for all ducks in MI over the last 10-20 years, and knowing that MI breeding mallards have been on the decline for the last 5-7 years.
> 
> I would prioritize MI mallards as the number one duck we need to work on to increase their numbers.


yeah i imagine that will be even hotter topic this time around at the meetings.


----------



## just ducky

Chez29 said:


> I know what your gettin at here but I guarantee if we have a 30 day season there is absolutely no way zone 1 would open first Sat of Sept....


I think you meant to say the LAST Sat in Sept., which is what I said. 

yeah obviously just an example. Okay...Zone 1 opens first Saturday in Oct, and so on through the 4 zones. Same outcome. point made.

Let's face it, a 30 day season will be tough...no question. But what's the probability of us getting a 30 day season in the next 5 years? What do you think Phil? :lol:


----------



## Mike L

So far this discussion is heading in the proper direction, I truly hope it stays that way. There's a number of issues that we will not be able to come to an agreement on. Whether to put the bay in zone 2 or keep it in zone 3 ! ....East verus the West.....Southern Mi...East versus the West. I see no viable compromise to be had.

Currently there is a study being done on the GLM's...(Great Lakes Mallards)
At the last CWAC meeting all members and guests were presented figures that show this. With those mallards being down 40% long term average, that's a Major, Major problem. Now ! Everyone here knows what they do when a species is low. They restrict the harvest of that species. Same as has been done in the past with Pintails, Bluebills etc. etc.

I see that same restriction with our Mallards coming in the "Very" near future. They "May" ? Do more than that, we might get a shorter season. At this point no one really knows for sure. In this whole discussion we must keep the resource as a large part of this process.

IMO ! Because of said resource and the open ended question of what's going to happen down the road ? I just feel we are potentially making a big mistake by doing anything right now. We have three zones with three openers, and everyone gets a split.

If you poll 10 different Duck Hunters from each area of the state you'd get 10 different answers. "Everyone has an opinion" We've got it pretty good right now just the way it is, if they restrict the mallard harvest ? Ok we shoot one or two less and hunting goes on. I vote to keep it just the way it is.


----------



## Retiredducker

Due to living as far south as possible, I would not feel we are benefitting much from simply a one week later opener. Fourth Sat would give us until fairly late in Dec without a split. That is what many of us would like to get to. Another benefit would be the opener itself. With no hunting, most of the birds (except bluewings) would still be around and in even larger numbers as they would be joined by some migrators by then. We could have twice as many birds for an opener as we have had lately. Michigan has always taken the conservative approach as in one hen mallard compared to most that allow two...that's fine but I guarantee you most high kill states for mallards (Missouri, Ark, Oklahoma, Nebraska, etc) definitley will be hunting when main flights are present.


----------



## just ducky

FullBody said:


> Good analogy...
> 
> Unless i was very certain a "Zone 4" wouldn't open until the 3rd week of Oct or later it would be a hard sell. Same thing I am hearing from all those I discuss this with here. "Yes, as long as it opens 3rd weekend of Oct or later"


Ya know if you guys are waiting for those kind of guarantees, then you'll never get it. You know that as well as I do. 

I know most of us say we like what we have now, but I know there are lots who would like to discuss creative options. That's all this is. So I'm sorry to say it this way, but put your collective heads in the sand, and don't complain about what we have now, OR ask for something different. Because this is a chance...maybe our only chance...at a creative change.


----------



## just ducky

KLR said:


> Consider yourself warned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to the USFW document regarding allowing additional zones (from July 2011)
> http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/N...inal EA Zones and Split Seasons July 2011.pdf
> 
> Pay special attention to the first paragraph on page 16...in light of the above comments.
> 
> 
> I'd say it's better than a 50:50 shot at reduced season length in the next 5 years.
> 
> A) the above document says the USFW won't hesitate to chop limits/dates for all birds based on mallard numbers and we know GLM's are down 40%, with no real explanation or proposed solution. The bird numbers are already under pressure and we are looking to increase that pressure with an additional zone.
> B) We've already seen the precautionary measure taken on Can's in 2009, based largely on faulty breeding counts in the spring - lesson being the Feds will error on the side of caution always and everytime (as they should).
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the ducks!!


I think those of us who stay informed know it's looking like we're heading for tighter regulations AT LEAST on mallards. And I'm agreeing with you that it's likely in the next 5 years we'll see a more restrictive season. How much more is anyone's guess. 

I just disagree that we should retreat back into our corners and be satisified with what we have. I think this is a golden opportunity that we may be letting slip by. JMO


----------



## KLR

just ducky said:


> I think those of us who stay informed know it's looking like we're heading for tighter regulations AT LEAST on mallards. And I'm agreeing with you that it's likely in the next 5 years we'll see a more restrictive season. How much more is anyone's guess.
> 
> I just disagree that we should retreat back into our corners and be satisified with what we have. I think this is a golden opportunity that we may be letting slip by. JMO


I agree.
But sometimes opportunity is a strong rope and a shaky-legged chair.


----------



## someone11

As a hunter of zone 1 for the past 4 years (and one more year next year) i'd like to put my 2 cents in. I hate the idea of starting last week in sept. I would MUCH rather hunt the end of oct through most of november. It seems like every year we wait and wait for birds to come and we have some of the best hunts late in the season. Maybe thats just my opinion...not sure, but thats how it has been for me. With that said I am STRONGLY for an early teal season for zone 1. Our opener this year was spectacular for teal, almost had our 2 man limit of teal. Plus if the early teal season was open during our goose season but not during our duck season, it would give us a chance at those teal buzzing the fields while we wait for the geese to show up.


----------



## just ducky

someone11 said:


> As a hunter of zone 1 for the past 4 years (and one more year next year) i'd like to put my 2 cents in. I hate the idea of starting last week in sept. I would MUCH rather hunt the end of oct through most of november. It seems like every year we wait and wait for birds to come and we have some of the best hunts late in the season. Maybe thats just my opinion...not sure, but thats how it has been for me. With that said I am STRONGLY for an early teal season for zone 1. Our opener this year was spectacular for teal, almost had our 2 man limit of teal. Plus if the early teal season was open during our goose season but not during our duck season, it would give us a chance at those teal buzzing the fields while we wait for the geese to show up.


hmmm....so then what are you saying is you want an early opener, then a split, then hunt later too? In other words, keep what we have, just adjust the dates? Just wasn't sure I understood.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> I think those of us who stay informed know it's looking like we're heading for tighter regulations AT LEAST on mallards. And I'm agreeing with you that it's likely in the next 5 years we'll see a more restrictive season. How much more is anyone's guess.
> 
> I just disagree that we should retreat back into our corners and be satisified with what we have. I think this is a golden opportunity that we may be letting slip by. JMO


I heard from someone earlier in the fall that hunter days has more impact on take than bag limits. Meaning that the average hunter take is something like 2 per day, so with that in mind most hunters bag limit's hardly ever come into play.

If the above is the case, I cringe that to address a park duck shortage, we all get stuck with a shorter season. So Fullbody, next year you need to kill more per day to make a smaller bag limit a more viable option for mallard management

I'd hope before they would shorten the season as a whole, they would entertain a different mallard season as they had for BB the other year and not punish everyone.


----------



## FullBody

KLR said:


> A) the above document says the USFW won't hesitate to chop limits/dates for all birds based on mallard numbers and we know GLM's are down 40%, with no real explanation or proposed solution. The bird numbers are already under pressure and we are looking to increase that pressure with an additional zone.
> B) We've already seen the precautionary measure taken on Can's in 2009, based largely on faulty breeding counts in the spring - lesson being the Feds will error on the side of caution always and everytime (as they should).
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the ducks!!


Valid insight. I would hope they would limit us on mallards per day before days per season...but who knows.


----------



## just ducky

KLR said:


> I agree.
> But sometimes opportunity is a strong rope and a shaky-legged chair.


Definitely risky. But then isn't life one big risk? :lol:

Hey this is all good talk guys. And as I said I'm trying just to get people from all parts to consider the discussion.

Tomorrow morning the MDHA state board meets for our winter meeting. One of the agenda items is this, and the state board will be discussing whether to take a position. Since MDHA represents hunters across the state, I'll be badgering everyone there with these same kinds of discussions, just to make sure they at least consider the idea. I go round and round in my own head as to whether it's worth the risk. But I feel the state board owes it to the MDHA members far and wide to consider it. In all reality, we'll probably walk away tommorrow with the same concern...is it worth the risk.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> I heard from someone earlier in the fall that hunter days has more impact on take than bag limits. Meaning that the average hunter take is something like 2 per day, so with that in mind most hunters bag limit's hardly ever come into play.
> 
> If the above is the case, I cringe that to address a park duck shortage, we all get stuck with a shorter season. So Fullbody, next year you need to kill more per day to make a smaller bag limit a more viable option for mallard management
> 
> I'd hope before they would shorten the season as a whole, they would entertain a different mallard season as they had for BB the other year and not punish everyone.


I would share that hope. But the document KLR's posted the link to seems pretty clear that the feds would take the other approach. I suspect we'll all find out in the next few years.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Where is Chez and his Sea Duck season proposal when you need it??!!! We need to cut the sinking mallard ship free before it drowns us all:lol:


----------



## FullBody

TSS Caddis said:


> I heard from someone earlier in the fall that hunter days has more impact on take than bag limits. Meaning that the average hunter take is something like 2 per day, so with that in mind most hunters bag limit's hardly ever come into play.
> 
> If the above is the case, I cringe that to address a park duck shortage, we all get stuck with a shorter season. So Fullbody, next year you need to kill more per day to make a smaller bag limit a more viable option for mallard management
> 
> I'd hope before they would shorten the season as a whole, they would entertain a different mallard season as they had for BB the other year and not punish everyone.


Most days this year I couldn't have taken any more G.  But I'm willing to do my part. :evil:


----------



## waterfowlhunter83

FullBody said:


> Valid insight. I would hope they would limit us on mallards per day before days per season...but who knows.


To paraphrase a DNR Biologist I talked to about the subject...limits don't really have an impact, it is season length.


----------



## someone11

just ducky said:


> hmmm....so then what are you saying is you want an early opener, then a split, then hunt later too? In other words, keep what we have, just adjust the dates? Just wasn't sure I understood.


I guess you could say it that way. But I was thinking more or less have a week of JUST teal season, no mallards or anything else. Its always hard to pick out the drakes the first week of the season for us because it is so early and the birds are maturing still. Then open the normal season mid of October or later and have no split, but yet still have it open for thanksgiving weekend.

This is assuming we go back to the 30 day season. If not I like the idea of opening end of sept, as long as we get the month of november to hunt.

But then again I remember hunting 4 years ago late november and most things were frozen up, so it also depends on the weather. Ugh...so hard to make a decision :yikes:


----------



## Dahmer

I'll put my 2 cents in. I hunt the bay as many know and I would rather hunt later into December. I would rather take the risk of a early freeze up then hunting ducks in early October in 60 to 80 degree weather. After opening weekend it plan sucks until the end of October in my area for ducks. The mallards didn't start showing up in numbers in the fields until mid November to the end of season. If we are going to change things I think boundry lines need to be redrawn. Zone 1 to include the UP and part of the NLP to around Houghton Lake, Zone 2 to include south of Houghton Lake to M-57, Zone 3 to include the rest of the state. This is a rough idea for boundry lines which would allow us to keep the split and looking for feedback.

As for GLM population, if there in that bad of a decline they need to restrict the harvest of mallards just like they do with Canvasbacks, Redheads, Bluebills, Wood Ducks, Pintails and Black Ducks. Mallard decline shouldn't dictate season lenghts if other species are doing fine.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Dahmer said:


> I'll put my 2 cents in. I hunt the bay as many know and I would rather hunt later into December. I would rather take the risk of a early freeze up then hunting ducks in early October in 60 to 80 degree weather. After opening weekend it plan sucks until the end of October in my area for ducks. The mallards didn't start showing up in numbers in the fields until mid November to the end of season. If we are going to change things I think boundry lines need to be redrawn. Zone 1 to include the UP and part of the NLP to around Houghton Lake, Zone 2 to include south of Houghton Lake to M-57, Zone 3 to include the rest of the state. This is a rough idea for boundry lines which would allow us to keep the split and looking for feedback.
> 
> As for GLM population, if there in that bad of a decline they need to restrict the harvest of mallards just like they do with Canvasbacks, Redheads, Bluebills, Wood Ducks, Pintails and Black Ducks. Mallard decline shouldn't dictate season lenghts if other species are doing fine.


----------



## KLR

FullBody said:


> Valid insight. I would hope they would limit us on mallards per day before days per season...but who knows.


I think the rationale is..."We are only paying attention to mallards with studies/banding, etc., & mallards/teal/widgeon/gaddies/shovelers/ etal. share the same habitat. Ergo, if mallard populations in a region are suffering, all species must be suffering, ergo reduce exposure/limits for all."

They are the "canary in the coal mine" - so to speak.




I guess I look at the Fed's role as the "30,000' view" & the DNR/NRC as the "day to day" manager's of the recources. 
A restricted mallard limit could come from the DNR/NRC (reduced bag, "season within a season", etc.) as we already see them being more restrictive than what current Fed regs allow (1 hen mallard vs. 2 hen mallard)...But if the Fed has to get involved, I see them swinging a big stick...they don't get license revenue, and they really don't give two shat's if we get to hunt or not. 
And that's why I question the wisdom of pursuing an extra zone, just because we can. 














Yes. I just used the word "Ergo" 3 times in one post.


----------



## tyler2009

If we have to lose the split to gain a 4th zone, I don't want the 4th zone. This extra zone would (for the most part) only benefit people living in the vicinity. This zone would be far enough south to allow these same hunters to hunt in a southern state (Indiana) for their split as well.

All I'm saying is leave the split, but make it in late december or early jan like in the past.


----------



## FullBody

Dahmer said:


> I'll put my 2 cents in. I hunt the bay as many know and I would rather hunt later into December. I would rather take the risk of a early freeze up then hunting ducks in early October in 60 to 80 degree weather. After opening weekend it plan sucks until the end of October in my area for ducks. The mallards didn't start showing up in numbers in the fields until mid November to the end of season. If we are going to change things I think boundry lines need to be redrawn. Zone 1 to include the UP and part of the NLP to around Houghton Lake, Zone 2 to include south of Houghton Lake to M-57, Zone 3 to include the rest of the state. This is a rough idea for boundry lines which would allow us to keep the split and looking for feedback.
> 
> As for GLM population, if there in that bad of a decline they need to restrict the harvest of mallards just like they do with Canvasbacks, Redheads, Bluebills, Wood Ducks, Pintails and Black Ducks. Mallard decline shouldn't dictate season lenghts if other species are doing fine.


This has been brought up before and still makes a lot of sense! 

Ergo...just wanted to try it.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

tyler2009 said:


> If we have to lose the split to gain a 4th zone, I don't want the 4th zone. This extra zone would (for the most part) only benefit people living in the vicinity. This zone would be far enough south to allow these same hunters to hunt in a southern state (Indiana) for their split as well.
> 
> All I'm saying is leave the split, but make it in late december or early jan like in the past.


confused by this one. don't want a later season (zone 4) but wants a later split?
hopefully your backup for this argument is fear of no split in a 30 day season??? otherwise your reasoning is confusing.



I think JD placed a very good argument vs. a 30 day season being that with 4 zones you can virtually have a 51 day season if your willing to hunt the zones. thats not a bad trade off and never really thought of it from that angle..


----------



## Chez29

just ducky said:


> Remember, let's all don't get hung up on actual dates or weekends even, but just consider the overall concept. In reality, in a 30 day season situations, even if we had 4 zones, some of them may end up opening on the same weekend. For instance what you said...closest Sat to Oct 15th for both zones 1 & 2 for example? Just no way to predict dates...that all has to wait until the feds give us our window in late summer.


 
I think you need to take in account possible dates. Its part of the risk management decision. For those guys in the SW who want a fourth zone, just remember in a 30 day season with no splits you could very well be lucky to see the last week of Nov for the end of the season let alone any days in December. The people most affected by shortened seasons will be the late season guys and to a lesser extent the early guys. Also I imagine there would be additional hunting pressure in a zone 4 that was open while the rest of the state was done hunting. Still think as a state we are better off with 3 zones with splits then 4 with none, even though it doesnt really affect my hunting personally either way.


----------



## Sander vitreus 01

This just seems more like a case of "fix it until it's broke." I actually enjoyed the "dilemma" of having to make sure things were in order before getting to hunt 3 seperate openers this year. Don't get me wrong having withdrawals right now in a bad way with mild weather and all, but it is what is..and was a great season, no complaints! I guess if push finally shoves and there is a 4th zone, I'll look to put off the withdrawals by venturing to that area of the state this time of year. Consider though I wont be the only one and I'd expect it will get crowded in a hurry with like minded others. Just putting that out there...be careful what you 4th zoners are really asking for...

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> confused by this one. don't want a later season (zone 4) but wants a later split?
> hopefully your backup for this argument is fear of no split in a 30 day season??? otherwise your reasoning is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> I think JD placed a very good argument vs. a 30 day season being that with 4 zones you can virtually have a 51 day season if your willing to hunt the zones. thats not a bad trade off and never really thought of it from that angle..


 
Just dont see the seasons being set up like that. I cant see the dates being almost the same with no split.

z1 oct15 
z2 oct 22
z3 oct 22
z4 oct 29

And it wouldnt surprise me if the state pushed for a week earlier even, given their not wanting any splits in October in a 30 day season I imagine they would push for the max number of October days as they could. 
Just too big of a chance in my book, when with a little tweaking of our zones we can accomplish about the same while still having the split in our pocket to use. Like I said in a shortened season the late season guys will take it on the chin without a split. JMO


----------



## kzoofisher

I wouldn't object to 4 zones if there were a guarantee of staggered starts. After all, if no split is possible two zones starting on the same weekend make them defacto one zone.

As far as dates go, it all depends on the weather and who can predict that. My favorite 30 days is early November to early December and I'm old enough to remember when the season was too short to reach that window. Hope it doesn't happen again.


----------



## spoonfed

What's wrong with leaving it a 60 day season with a split mallard season. Say 15 day early and 15 day later.it would give the hunter local birds with the teals and woodys, and northern mallards with the mig divers later in the season.I guess why shorten the the whole season and just not for mallards.adjust zones and opening dates according to bird numbers in each zone. I agree something needs to be done for mallard populations but let us enjoy a longer season.as for the bay I think it should stay in 3. Maybe I'm way off course here but a 30 day season is way to short no matter when it starts or what zone its in.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## just ducky

kzoofisher said:


> I wouldn't object to 4 zones if there were a guarantee of staggered starts. After all, if no split is possible two zones starting on the same weekend make them defacto one zone...


Agreed that it would kind of defeat the intent. But then again if we were given a 30 day option, and if we have 4 zones in place, and if two of the affected groups settle on the same dates, then so be it. Having watched the CWAC in action, I could see that happening.


----------



## Shlwego

The question regarding the GLM popuation really is this: Will the Feds shorten the season for the WHOLE Mississippi Flyway if the GLM population is in trouble, but the continental mallard population as a whole is NOT in trouble? Do they care that much? There are virtually *no fewer* mallards showing up at the bottom of the flyway this season, and the boys in Arkansas and Missouri and Louisiana can't tell a GLM mallard from a Saskatchewan or Dakota mallard - nor should they. They're not going to understand a shorter season or smaller bag limits if there are just as many ducks around as in previous years. I've heard that many of our GLMs wind up in the Carolinas, too, based on banding data. So do you impose limits on the Atlantic Flyway as well, given that they get MOST of their mallards from Canada's Atlantic provinces? It's a tough question. Because merely imposing restricted limits on mallards in Michigan and the other Great Lakes States is not really going to help "our" mallards unless those restrictions are made on the other states as well. 

Frankly, they've been seeing near record numbers of breeding mallards on the prairies, so the species is NOT in trouble at all - it just happens that "our" birds are not seeing the same increase in numbers. In fact it's just the opposite. But I seriously doubt that the Feds will restrict the season length for two whole flyways based strictly on the GLM population. They_ might_ restrict the bag limit, but even there I've got my doubts. 

So I think this talk of restrictive season lengths in the near future is a bit premature. If the prairies get wet springs, bird counts will remain high - REGARDLESS of how many mallards breed in the Great Lakes. If prairie populations are high the Adaptive Harvest Management plan will continue to prescribe "liberal" seasons and generous bag limits, because AHM is primarily based on duck factory numbers. We are going to have to deal with that fact.

I think if mallards are going to be increased in the Great Lakes, it's going to be up to Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario to figure out how to do it.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> Just dont see the seasons being set up like that. I cant see the dates being almost the same with no split.
> 
> z1 oct15
> z2 oct 22
> z3 oct 22
> z4 oct 29
> 
> And it wouldnt surprise me if the state pushed for a week earlier even, given their not wanting any splits in October in a 30 day season I imagine they would push for the max number of October days as they could.
> Just too big of a chance in my book, when with a little tweaking of our zones we can accomplish about the same while still having the split in our pocket to use. Like I said in a shortened season the late season guys will take it on the chin without a split. JMO


chez, on a 30 day season...why would you open on oct 15th. that would be like us opening on nov 8th...

you've said it yourself that you guys usually freeze up middle of november...so now you want to push into your ice as close to possible with a 30 day season?

z1 oct 7th (thats 2 weeks later than now)
z2 oct 15th
z3 oct 22
z4 oct 29

how does those dates not make sense on a 30day. your making my argument that the UP should be 1 zone all the way down til houghton lake for me.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> chez, on a 30 day season...why would you open on oct 15th. that would be like us opening on nov 8th...
> 
> you've said it yourself that you guys usually freeze up middle of november...so now you want to push into your ice as close to possible with a 30 day season?
> 
> z1 oct 7th (thats 2 weeks later than now)
> z2 oct 15th
> z3 oct 22
> z4 oct 29
> 
> how does those dates not make sense on a 30day. your making my argument that the UP should be 1 zone all the way down til houghton lake for me.


The western end of zone 1 ices up around the 20th the east end not so much. Just my idea of a good compromise between the two ends of the zone. Get into the area around the 15th and you can still catch a good GE and buffy push. I know the east end guys would be very unhappy with a Oct 7th start and no split. 
Plus Im a diver guy, if push comes to shove Ill take divers over puddlers any time. :evilsmile


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> The western end of zone 1 ices up around the 20th the east end not so much. Just my idea of a good compromise between the two ends of the zone. Get into the area around the 15th and you can still catch a good GE and buffy push. I know the east end guys would be very unhappy with a Oct 7th start and no split.
> Plus Im a diver guy, if push comes to shove Ill take divers over puddlers any time. :evilsmile


ok. and i want to point out i'm not loving the 4 zone thing either but just saying its very feasable. 

i personally could careless if we move anything but i also think it would be mistake to not take advantage of our ability to make some tweaks this year (5 year rule) specially some small zone line movement.


----------



## lang49

Dahmer said:


> Zone 1 to include the UP and part of the NLP to around Houghton Lake, Zone 2 to include south of Houghton Lake to M-57, Zone 3 to include the rest of the state. This is a rough idea for boundry lines which would allow us to keep the split and looking for feedback.


I hunt the all over zone 2 and just like you, I am looking for later dates. Putting the northern LP in the same zone as the western UP is a terrible idea.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

lang49 said:


> I hunt the all over zone 2 and just like you, I am looking for later dates. Putting the northern LP in the same zone as the western UP is a terrible idea.


under his idea you would be opening oct 1st most likely. the new zone 2 would open october 8th(ish) and z3 would open much later. under what he's saying nothing technically would change...you could even front load UP split to get more use (2 openers).

everyone really needs to look at the suggestions and think them through. lang you jumped to the first impression that you would get earlier hunting...when thats probably not true if you look at what would happen to each zone as a ramification.


----------



## LoBrass

Sorry it's taken so long to post gentlemen but I have had family arrive for Christmas from out of state and they are my priority.

I have read along with the posts as they were logged.

I'd like to just say that there are 3 things I have said from day one and they still all apply.
1. A different start date for every zone (applies to 2, 3 or 10 zones)

2. Use our split _if_ we have a split

3. Hunt ducks when ducks are here (_here_ being wherever _here_ is to you)

While the CWAC ship is being guided by myself I will ALWAYS push to follow these fundamental principles.

I have been accused of never looking at the positive. Frankly, when considering issues that have been "fixed" why should I continue to consider them? They are FIXED!! I ALWAYS quickly turn my focus to the problem areas. I have done this in every business venture I have undertaken, every home project and every other aspect of my life. I don't like to stand around and pat myself on the back. There is always a new hill to conquer. In regards to some people stating that we have it pretty good, we do!! But, pretty good isn't good enough. Not when their are some folks out there presenting data which suggests we are missing one of my "fundamental principles" which is "hunting ducks when ducks are here", at least for a region. 

This is where EVERYONE needs to take into consideration the situation in SW Michigan. While great seasons were had by some I think EVERYONE needs to consider that there is a region where some people have serious concerns which are backed by some data. When it comes to SW Michigan, in addition to Allegan's mallard peak being around December 25th we can add some banding data (Field-n-Feathers can interject some data-cue F-n-F) to back up their argument that they are NOT hunting the peak mallard migration for their region.

I have talked to a good number of people who are going to push for "no change". While I can understand their wanting to keep a good thing going, please do not put the "no change" stamp on every proposal before you take into consideration how this change may *or may not* affect your situation. In a GREAT NUMBER of these proposals the vast majority of the state will have virtually no change to _their_ hunting but will simply have no split. The split is a small price to pay for hitting the bigger issue of hunting when ducks are here and helping a region more closely hit their mark for migrating ducks.

BTW, I very much agree that when considering a 4th zone we need to be tacking on some likely dates. The entire reason for different zones is to stagger dates and therefore dates need to be included in the mix.

The Adaptive Harvest Management model has not sat well with me for some time and I have voiced my concerns before. The fact that our season dates and bag limits are dictated by birds which will never travel here seems a little goofy to me! In addition to season length, the bag limits for birds which may or may not be here is a serious concern. This year in particular had the redhead issue. We are in the midst of the largest redhead population ever recorded and we are still at a _2 _bird limit!! Come on guys, when will we have a harvest strategy for all species? And, when will we have a strategy which considers regional populations? AHM is not perfect and states like Michigan suffer from the broad blanket of AHM's focus on prairie mallards. CWAC will continue to press these issues in the face of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Remember my rants on our loud voice? This is where bypassing CWAC and taking something directly to the NRC could destroy a powerful voice. I urge ALL parties to follow the proper protocol and let CWAC deal with the NRC. It is truly in the best interest of our state's voice. I am not saying to keep your voice quiet. On the contrary, direct your arguments and concerns to the place where the citizens should be working-CWAC. The process will work if we do so.

As far as "Risk Management" is concerned I feel we have 2 main risks to concern ourselves with. Freeze-up and the possibility of restricted seasons. 

Regarding freeze-up I feel opportunity is lost with ice. While I readily recognize the PHENOMONAL hunting opportunites ice can bring I also understand very well that ice can and will determine the END of duck hunting in any given season. When birds leave due to freeze they will not be back. This is a risk I will always try to avoid for these reasons-1. lack of participation and 2. risk of season ending freezes.

As far as restricted seasons, I think you cats have addressed it pretty well with a few points not covered. First (back to AHM) we have NEVER SEEN A RESTRICTIVE SEASON UNDER AHM!! Just sayin'!! While this can change and likely will some day, we are on a pretty good roll and with 2011's fall rains we are quite likely to have GREAT water levels again this spring. I am confident we have already crossed one of 5 bridges (those bridges being years till the Zone configuration will _supposedly_ open up again). That being said, we are going to likely lose a significant amount of CRP type waterfowl production ground in the near future. Will this affect our populations? Can't say now but it is likely.

So, risk management is just that-_risk_ management. With any and all our work there is risk involved. All we can do is manage it the best we can and try to keep as many people happy as possible.

Keep it going guys. This has been a very positive discussion here today and I hope it continues. We have about 2 weeks to get proposals to Barb Avers and this is why I have begun this thread. Let's get the facts and data out there so we can find out who sits where and why. I can tell you that without some understanding by a few CWAC reps we will be in a 3 zone configuration for the next 5 years minimum. Is a change in configuration going to happen? We shall see:coolgleam.


----------



## lang49

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> under his idea you would be opening oct 1st most likely. the new zone 2 would open october 8th(ish) and z3 would open much later. under what he's saying nothing technically would change...you could even front load UP split to get more use (2 openers).
> 
> everyone really needs to look at the suggestions and think them through. lang you jumped to the first impression that you would get earlier hunting...when thats probably not true if you look at what would happen to each zone as a ramification.


 I dont even want to be in a position where I have to argue with UP hunters over season dates. Zone 2 dates in my opinion need to be later and there is no way that'll happen if NLP gets put in the same zone as the UP.

Secondly, a zone 1 extending from the keewinaw to Houghton lakes makes no sense! It's stupidly thought out zone configurations that create the bulk of the problems we have today.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

example under dahmers idea. 

z1: open sept 25th and 26th then close. re-open october 1st and run 58 days.

z2: open october 8th and 9th then close re-open october 15th and run 58 days

z3: open october 15th for 58 days then close, re-open for january 2 day split.

this retains 3 zones. 3 splits. zone 1 and 2 open on very similar dates with working splits. zone 3 can hunt late into december and not affect the sag bay guys. Sag bay dry fielders get a late run at the field mallards to boot.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

lang49 said:


> I dont even want to be in a position where I have to argue with UP hunters over season dates. Zone 2 dates in my opinion need to be later and there is no way that'll happen if NLP gets put in the same zone as the UP.
> 
> Secondly, a zone 1 extending from the keewinaw to Houghton lakes makes no sense! It's stupidly thought out zone configurations that create the bulk of the problems we have today.


ok look at my proposal above and tell me where that layout and dates hurt you compared to the past 10 seasons in z2. pick it apart.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ok. and i want to point out i'm not loving the 4 zone thing either but just saying its very feasable.
> 
> i personally could careless if we move anything but i also think it would be mistake to not take advantage of our ability to make some tweaks this year (5 year rule) specially some small zone line movement.


Im all for tweaking, with a little bit of give and take we should be able to work it out with 3 zones and keep splits. *The key is everyone needs to give a little, and that includes most importantly the state*. The state needs to recognize that some years and in some zones maybe every year there needs to be a split in October. Last year was a good example where they could have put zone 1 split in early October due to the early start, making a compromise between those who like the early shot at teal and woodducks by giving the east end diver/ late mallard guys all of November with no breaks. They have to be willing to listen on that I think.

On the plus side the state is really pushing for the teal season as well as increasing the limit on redheads. The teal season I think could help some of the season date conflicts.


----------



## lang49

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ok look at my proposal above and tell me where that layout and dates hurt you compared to the past 10 seasons in z2. pick it apart.


My goal is later opportunities in zone 2. It doesn't hurt but it does nothing to improve it either.


----------



## Chez29

lang49 said:


> I dont even want to be in a position where I have to argue with UP hunters over season dates. Zone 2 dates in my opinion need to be later and there is no way that'll happen if NLP gets put in the same zone as the UP.
> 
> Secondly, a zone 1 extending from the keewinaw to Houghton lakes makes no sense! It's stupidly thought out zone configurations that create the bulk of the problems we have today.


I dont see this configuration happening although I have argued that the eastern UP should be put into zone 2, Im sure they wouldnt fight later dates too much. I know the UP has to be 1 zone, goose dates etc. 

Just a point though zone 1 already extends from the the Keewinaw to roughly gaylord, if you check the latitude of Menominee its almost at gaylords level.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Sander vitreus 01 said:


> ....I guess if push finally shoves and there is a 4th zone, I'll look to put off the withdrawals by venturing to that area of the state this time of year. Consider though I wont be the only one and I'd expect it will get crowded in a hurry with like minded others. Just putting that out there...be careful what you 4th zoners are really asking for...


I say come on over. I'm sure the local businesses would appreciate the extra patrons. I'm not the least bit worried about having someone who doesn't live here, or hunt here regularly, coming over and spoiling my hunt.



LoBrass said:


> This is where EVERYONE needs to take into consideration the situation in SW Michigan. While great seasons were had by some I think EVERYONE needs to consider that there is a region where some people have serious concerns which are backed by some data. When it comes to SW Michigan, in addition to Allegan's mallard peak being around December 25th we can add some banding data (Field-n-Feathers can interject some data-cue F-n-F) to back up their argument that they are NOT hunting the peak mallard migration for their region.


I truly appreciate that you brought this up. However, I will not be posting up any further band info here on this forum. I have shared certain pieces of it with some members of this site, as well as the NRC last August. With that said, if people feel this information is useful, I would be more than happy to present it at the next CWAC meeting.


----------



## Swamp Boss

I heard this quote earlier "Fix it til it's broke"! Outside of a zone 4 for west siders I would say leave it alone.

Without having the weather playbook there is just no way you are ever going to make everyone happy and you are building a season on hunches.


----------



## Coldwater Charters

I'm on my phone so Ill keep it real short. Move zone 2 south to accomidate the bay. If we have to give up the split to have a zone 4 then Im against it. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## LoBrass

Coldwater Charters said:


> I'm on my phone so Ill keep it real short. Move zone 2 south to accomidate the bay. If we have to give up the split to have a zone 4 then Im against it.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Could you give the reasons why you would be against a zone 4? 

The framework will NOT allow splits if a state goes to 4 zones.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mudfoot

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> example under dahmers idea.
> 
> z1: open sept 25th and 26th then close. re-open october 1st and run 58 days.
> 
> z2: open october 8th and 9th then close re-open october 15th and run 58 days
> 
> z3: open october 15th for 58 days then close, re-open for january 2 day split.
> 
> this retains 3 zones. 3 splits. zone 1 and 2 open on very similar dates with working splits. zone 3 can hunt late into december and not affect the sag bay guys. Sag bay dry fielders get a late run at the field mallards to boot.


I like this very much. I know it's "pie in the sky" but I would even be ok with no splits, just run the seasons for the respective zones continuously and have a reduction in the bag limits and lengthen the season to 65 days.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

lang49 said:


> My goal is later opportunities in zone 2. It doesn't hurt but it does nothing to improve it either.


i get that. but you really, really are fighting an uphill battle for that in zone 2. for every 1 guy that wants a later zone 2, i can show you 20 that will say no way. you get that right?


----------



## Coldwater Charters

I just think the split is just too important to our area. Our normal jan split was some of the best duck hunting of the year. 2 keys, cold weather congesting them and making them feed more in dry fields and 3 weeks without getting shot at. You really only need a weekend after a split especially when's cold. The added pressure of hunting is enough to send most on there way south
Losing the split is not worth another zone imp. Moving zone 2 south however might work
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Coldwater Charters

If everyones all hopped up on shooting woodies and teal then open up the norther zones a week earlier. Then all the birds north will be here in zone 3 for our opener. Hunting pressure is a huge motivator for ducks to migrate

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## lang49

Speaking as a current zone 2 hunter, I would much rather have Saginaw bay annexed to zone 2 than be paired up with the UP hunters. This makes a lot more sense than incorporating existing zone 2 into a zone that includes the UP.


----------



## Chez29

lang49 said:


> I hunt the all over zone 2 and just like you, I am looking for later dates. Putting the northern LP in the same zone as the western UP is a terrible idea.


Could you flesh out why you want later dates for everyone, just so we know more why instead of a general I want later dates. I know the problem in zone 3 is mostly driven by mallard field hunters wanting later dates. Whats it for you late season divers, mallards? Just wondering.


----------



## TSS Caddis

lang49 said:


> This makes a lot more sense than incorporating existing zone 2 into a zone that includes the UP.


I agree. Wasn't it back in mid November that Brandon had everyone agreeing with him that the UP early open was best cuz all his birds were gone? Now the position is to lump it into zone 2 and go later yet?

Good luck getting western UP and northern Mi to agree on dates.


----------



## twoteal

Not all people want later dates. I would prefer they stay closer to what they where this year. Maybe one week later but close at the end of 60 days. This would allow for a fourth zone? Why not try that for a year, seems we've tryed everything else. CLOSE MALLARDS FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYS OR SET THE LIMIT AT 2, NO HENS??


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> I agree. Wasn't it back in mid November that Brandon had everyone agreeing with him that the UP early open was best cuz all his birds were gone? Now the position is to lump it into zone 2 and go later yet?
> 
> Good luck getting western UP and northern Mi to agree on dates.


so that 5 days is a deal breaker eh? open on sept 25/26 and reopen on oct1st.

the UP usually has 2 choices to open. Sept 25th or Oct 1st usually. Tell me how that doesn't satisfy both? this allows sept 25 opener for west, and gives 1 week later finish for the east. It also runs very traditional with northern lower MI dates. 

I want someone to put some serious holes in my suggested dates and zone1.


----------



## adam bomb

Keep Saginaw Bay in the latest open zone whatever you do. Just cause FP and NP get freeze up earliest doesnt mean that should be the barometer for our zoning of Saginaw Bay. These are shallow protected waters that cool off and freeze up quickly. There is TONS of opportunity on the bay for quality hunting on both the east and west side for those that choose to pursue it. I keep hearing about all this dry corn field talk in the thumb, so leave them in the later zone. What about us on the west side of the pond or those that want to hunt the big water for puddlers or divers? Where do you think these east side corn field mallards are coming from? THE BAY!!!

If it comes down to moving Saginaw Bay to zone two or staying how it is now, i vote to stay how it is now. Had a great year and to be closed any earlier woulda sucked. Even last year with the bitter cold there were still lots of ducks if you wanted to go chase them to the end....And this year, just like last, there are tons of birds around to the end despite the cold weather. And there ARE STILL TONS of ducks around right now. Ive been watching them everyday this week.


----------



## lang49

With the dates you proposed, the UP is fine. It's NWLP that gets screwed. We regularly close the season with lots of inland lakes unfrozen and tons of birds around- substantially more birds than are present on the opener in early October.

This is not a 1 year in 5 occurrence. Rather, I'd say this happens atleast 3 years out of 5 and perhaps 4 out of 5.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

lang49 said:


> With the dates you proposed, the UP is fine. It's NWLP that gets screwed. We regularly close the season with lots of inland lakes unfrozen and tons of birds around- substantially more birds than are present on the opener in early October.
> 
> This is not a 1 year in 5 occurrence. Rather, I'd say this happens atleast 3 years out of 5 and perhaps 4 out of 5.


it would close around thanksgiving. how is that different from the last 10 years, honest question, just curious? and lets clarify its the part of NLP that would be included into z1 we are talkn about.

some of z2 would adopt the present z3 dates and gain later finish.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> so that 5 days is a deal breaker eh? open on sept 25/26 and reopen on oct1st.
> 
> the UP usually has 2 choices to open. Sept 25th or Oct 1st usually. Tell me how that doesn't satisfy both? this allows sept 25 opener for west, and gives 1 week later finish for the east. It also runs very traditional with northern lower MI dates.
> 
> I want someone to put some serious holes in my suggested dates and zone1.


The biggest hole is the same as last year, the state wont allow it. Last year we had a season that I discussed with Bias in which the seaon opened for 7 days closed for 5 then ran til the 28th straight. The state shot it down and said no splits in Oct, assume they would say the same on end of Sep. Like I said in previous post, the state needs to allow that early split in years with earlier starts due to the way the calendar falls. And in zone 3 where an Oct split might extend the season into Dec to satisfy the field hunters instead of going to a 4 zone no split or grouping the UP and NLP.
I personally like more than 2 days to start and go with the first 7 days then take the split. You only have a limited time to hunt teal and wooducks in a large part of zone 1 and those 5 days can make a difference. 
I really think the early teal season, especially in zone 1, would be very helpful in these date argument. That would be the perfect world, have a teal season say around Sep 15, nice to have a shot at the 4000+ bluewings that went past WFPO, for a week reopen sat closest to Oct 1 run the season out. You could even throw a late season 2 day split at the end.


----------



## someone11

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> example under dahmers idea.
> 
> z1: open sept 25th and 26th then close. re-open october 1st and run 58 days.
> 
> z2: open october 8th and 9th then close re-open october 15th and run 58 days
> 
> z3: open october 15th for 58 days then close, re-open for january 2 day split.
> 
> this retains 3 zones. 3 splits. zone 1 and 2 open on very similar dates with working splits. zone 3 can hunt late into december and not affect the sag bay guys. Sag bay dry fielders get a late run at the field mallards to boot.


I also really like this idea, at least for zone. it would give us our nice early teal hunt with a chance for woodies, and also get us on some late season mallards and blacks. I dont know if I agree with putting NLP in with the UP but I dont hunt NLP too often so im not sure. As chez stated though a week to be open instead of 2 days would be nice.


----------



## lang49

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> it would close around thanksgiving. how is that different from the last 10 years, honest question, just curious? and lets clarify its the part of NLP that would be included into z1 we are talkn about.
> 
> some of z2 would adopt the present z3 dates and gain later finish.


It's not really any different than the last 10 years except for a December split. Just because we've been doing it for 10 years doesn't mean the dates are optimum. 

Edit: correct me if I'm wrong but the DNR said this year that October splits were off the table- and now we're going to redraw lines with the expectation that october splits are possible??


----------



## Trippin' Dipsies

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> example under dahmers idea.
> 
> z1: open sept 25th and 26th then close. re-open october 1st and run 58 days.
> 
> z2: open october 8th and 9th then close re-open october 15th and run 58 days
> 
> z3: open october 15th for 58 days then close, re-open for january 2 day split.
> 
> this retains 3 zones. 3 splits. zone 1 and 2 open on very similar dates with working splits. zone 3 can hunt late into december and not affect the sag bay guys. Sag bay dry fielders get a late run at the field mallards to boot.


As a guy who hunts the east side of the Bay and SE Michigan... I really like it. And after listening to JD and giving it some thought, as much as I would like to see a Zone #4 for lower SW/SE Michigan, losing the split option if times were to get tough (i.e., a 30 or 45 day season) would detrimental. 

And on a side note... if they're going to set restrictions on Bay, Tuscola, and Huron Counties for the earlier goose season, they need to include Sanilac County as well.


----------



## Kingcrapp

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> example under dahmers idea.
> 
> z1: open sept 25th and 26th then close. re-open october 1st and run 58 days.
> 
> z2: open october 8th and 9th then close re-open october 15th and run 58 days
> 
> z3: open october 15th for 58 days then close, re-open for january 2 day split.
> 
> this retains 3 zones. 3 splits. zone 1 and 2 open on very similar dates with working splits. zone 3 can hunt late into december and not affect the sag bay guys. Sag bay dry fielders get a late run at the field mallards to boot.


 Sounds good to me!!!!!


----------



## twoteal

Could the great lakes be there own zone??


----------



## FullBody

field-n-feathers said:


> As a very vocal person here in the SW...If a 4 zone structure was not on the table, I would fully support the above zone structure and season dates. The above proposal would give us more time into December, and a January 2 day. Excellent proposal.


Agreed. Bring it.


----------



## spartansfan

as a person that lives in SE michigan that hunts erie a lot and hunts FP 4 or 5 times a year. I would totally be for the reallignment. And honestly for both the places i would love an early split. It would do a ton for the mallards. They get blasted at FP in early october. and honestly the best hunting days i think there are in late oct. early nov. so closing mid october shouldnt be a huge complaint for the guys that hunt there a lot. And as for lake erie and the areas by my house ive seen tons of divers and mallards in the last week. granted im seeing mallards i dont normally see them this time of the year due to all the open water. and we have had a ton of rain down here so there is a ton of water in corn fields.

I'll actually be getting a 3 day OH license next week with the amount of divers around.


----------



## PhilBernardi

DNR gets their harvest data from multiple sources: 1) MI Waterfowl Survey that is sent out at end of season; 2) MU "kill cards"; 3) Fed hunter survey results; 4) Fed wing part survey results; 5) Band recovery data.

What I can't tell you is what datasets have more weight in their decision making. I suspect the MI based datasets do, but Avers, Robison, or someone like Frawley could answer more definitively.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Last year a proposal was put forth here that basically was to allow an individual to pick one 60 day date range or two 30 day date ranges for their hunting season (under a liberal AHM season). 

I think that this approach is one that ought to be consistantly drummed at CWAC meetings and else where in order to put pressure on the DNR, Flyway and USFWS to bend to (i.e., accept) this proposal for MI. 

We could potentially still have zones etc for control of migration and any dates would have to abide by those zones; in order words I would imagine zones having broad dates for allowed hunting.

I think this the best approach to allow individuals to determine when they want to hunt within a broad range of season dates for each zone (or the whole state).


----------



## just ducky

As far as the questions about why law enforcement opposed the idea last March, it really was unclear to myself, and many others who were at the meeting. But I think there is a lot more room for discussion to be had with the Law Enforcement division over the "enforceability" of the M-25 boundary. My read was that it was tabled and never got any more discussion...but could have. All I know is they kept saying "easily understandable and enforceable" lines. The DNR staff often like to draw lines along county boundaries. But I've had this discussion with them, and my personal view is a state highway, or a river or lake, is a *much* easier to understand AND enforce boundary than a county line, which is often an imaginary line through someone's back 40. Yes county lines are legal boundaries, but understandable? Not if I'm the farmer who owns the property that the line runs through. 

So let's not get overly hung-up on that aspect. It would have to be hashed out with Law Enforcement. But I think it's doable, and I trust the DNR is having some of those discussions internally.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Last year a proposal was put forth here that basically was to allow an individual to pick one 60 day date range or two 30 day date ranges for their hunting season (under a liberal AHM season).
> 
> I think that this approach is one that ought to be consistantly drummed at CWAC meetings and else where in order to put pressure on the DNR, Flyway and USFWS to bend to (i.e., accept) this proposal for MI.
> 
> We could potentially still have zones etc for control of migration and any dates would have to abide by those zones; in order words I would imagine zones having broad dates for allowed hunting.
> 
> I think this the best approach to allow individuals to determine when they want to hunt within a broad range of season dates for each zone (or the whole state).


Yeah Phil I think that was my idea, and it went to Robison and some others in the DNR, and sat. Their initial take was that it was too complex. But I made some strong arguments about how I thought it would actually be EASIER for hunters, and law enforcement. So I think it does have some merit for future discussion. But I'd hazard a guess the time isn't right for it right now.


----------



## carsonr2

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I think there is merit to you wanting the north/west side into a z2 or later zone. I think Linda G. made that argument on here a few years ago when we talked about it and shes from up there (T.C. maybe?). If i remember right her argument was rivers/streams held lots of late mallards. (hope i remember that right).



I would agree that the rivers and streams (moving water) hold birds, but it also has to do with the proximity to Lake Michigan. All along the Lake we are in a micro-climate that stays warmer than inland. The majority of our streams end in drowned river mouths in lakes before entering lake Michigan through our channels. These tend to stay open longer due to the moving water and slightly warmer temps

For example I was heading down to the Bay for the Zone 3 closer and was driving from Manistee across M-55 towards Cadillac on that Saturday morning about 3:30-4:00am. My car was showing a temperature of 25 degrees in Manistee and about 10-20 miles inland, when I got to Cadillac and points further inland it was showing 12 degrees. A change of 13 degrees along the same parallel, just 40 miles in distance. Also there wasn't any ice forming on the lakes along the coast, but inland there was enough ice on the smaller lakes to support a layer of snow.

I was steelhead fishing on Sunday and the rivers are holding good numbers of mallards right now, but so are all of the lakes since there isn't any ice to speak of.


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Yeah Phil I think that was my idea, and it went to Robison and some others in the DNR, and sat. Their initial take was that it was too complex. But I made some strong arguments about how I thought it would actually be EASIER for hunters, and law enforcement. So I think it does have some merit for future discussion. But I'd hazard a guess the time isn't right for it right now.


Well, my thought is that if John as Chair thought it was worth pursuing then he can take up the issue with other CWAC members outside of the 2 formal meetings with DNR. Fact is, any CWAC member can communicate with any other CWAC member during the year. The question becomes, does any member want to talk to another outside of the formal meeting structure? I would hope so.

My point is to have CWAC agree - outside of the formal meetings - to put that proposal forward, at every meeting, so that the DNR understands its import. 

Even if the DNR doesn't want to entertain the idea at this time, that's not important from the stand point of starting to let them know that CWAC wants this option. Nothing wrong with continually bringing it up at every meeting to hammer the point home.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Well, my thought is that if John as Chair thought it was worth pursuing then he can take up the issue with other CWAC members outside of the 2 formal meetings with DNR. Fact is, any CWAC member can communicate with any other CWAC member during the year. The question becomes, does any member want to talk to another outside of the formal meeting structure? I would hope so.
> 
> My point is to have CWAC agree - outside of the formal meetings - to put that proposal forward, at every meeting, so that the DNR understands its import.
> 
> Even if the DNR doesn't want to entertain the idea at this time, that's not important from the stand point of starting to let them know that CWAC wants this option. Nothing wrong with continually bringing it up at every meeting to hammer the point home.


Yeah I get it. If any of the CWAC members are interested in what I floated to the DNR, PM or EM me and I'll be glad to forward it. The main reason they said it would be "too complicated" was because they said since each hunter could choose their own dates and purchase their license that way, a Conservation Officer would have to physically check each hunter to make sure their license was for the dates they were actually hunting. Well duh! My response was they have to do that now for turkey hunting, and I'd guess there are more turkey hunters now than waterfowl hunters. I think it was a non-issue in this day and age of computerized licensing, and instant check capability in the field. But I would agree with you Phil...just takes CWAC to move it forward I guess...hint...hint...


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Yeah I get it. If any of the CWAC members are interested in what I floated to the DNR, PM or EM me and I'll be glad to forward it. The main reason they said it would be "too complicated" was because they said since each hunter could choose their own dates and purchase their license that way, a Conservation Officer would have to physically check each hunter to make sure their license was for the dates they were actually hunting. Well duh! My response was they have to do that now for turkey hunting, and I'd guess there are more turkey hunters now than waterfowl hunters. I think it was a non-issue in this day and age of computerized licensing, and instant check capability in the field. But I would agree with you Phil...just takes CWAC to move it forward I guess...hint...hint...


I may be misunderstanding your 2nd sentence there, but I would just forward your proposal and any related comments and observations to the CWAC members themselves with a request to entertain the idea. 

If John as Chair wants to pursue it (or others prompt him on it), he can take up the issue outside the formal meeting structure and get a consensus (if one can be had on this).

I wrote long ago that CWAC is what it's membership wants it to be, given each member's perspective and understanding of their individual and group relationship to the DNR.

I've always wanted them to be more proactive as a group. Whether they want to be so is up to them.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> I may be misunderstanding your 2nd sentence there, but I would just forward your proposal and any related comments and observations to the CWAC members themselves with a request to entertain the idea.
> 
> If John as Chair wants to pursue it (or others prompt him on it), he can take up the issue outside the formal meeting structure and get a consensus (if one can be had on this).
> 
> I wrote long ago that CWAC is what it's membership wants it to be, given each member's perspective and understanding of their individual and group relationship to the DNR.
> 
> I've always wanted them to be more proactive as a group. Whether they want to be so is up to them.


yes this is true but. they have to take suggestions that they think will have "traction" with the rest of the constituents. Remember its all volunteer time and if its an option that is gonna take a ton of work to iron out or even has a remote attempt to not garner any support or hard to implement...i can see them putting it to the wayside.

unfortunately an idea like that where you pick your days should be viable but it would be turning the current system upside down. some fear that. huge change. I like the idea, but i completely understand it not getting much traction with DNR or CWAC.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yes this is true but. they have to take suggestions that they think will have "traction" with the rest of the constituents. Remember its all volunteer time and if its an option that is gonna take a ton of work to iron out or even has a remote attempt to not garner any support or hard to implement...i can see them putting it to the wayside.
> 
> unfortunately an idea like that where you pick your days should be viable but it would be turning the current system upside down. some fear that. huge change. I like the idea, but i completely understand it not getting much traction with DNR or CWAC.


Some ideas take time. Think about some proposals from one or more of the States on the Flyway; it took a few years for the USFWS to finally come around and allow the states the options on zone changes to come to fruition. Trust me, they (the States) brought it up time and time again. How the hell do you think something gains traction? By being quiet? 

CWAC hasn't - to my knowledge - officially NOT accepted Dan's proposal. I bet CWAC as a group, whether at a formal CWAC meeting or off line, hasn't discussed Dan's proposal.


----------



## Duckman Racing

Taking into account some of the suggestions in this thread, and revising the zones to run along county lines where feasible, I came up with the following:












Also, after looking at this map I wonder if it would make sense to simply include all of the NLP into Zone 2, instead of having a handful of counties in the NELP included in Zone 1?

As someone who hunts mainly in Muskegon and Newaygo counties I think this would work very well, as long as the new Zone 2 had dates similar to what the Zone 3 dates were this year. The only thing I am afraid of with this arrangement is that I would be right on the border of Zone 2/3, and selfishly, I would hate to see the added pressure that would bring to the places that I hunt.


----------



## lang49

I don't know if anybody has determined if it is technically possible to have the UP and NLP in the same zone. I don't know for a fact but, the feds may prohibit this on account that it is not a continuous land mass. I really do not know but it would be wise to determine this in advance.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Duckman Racing said:


> Taking into account some of the suggestions in this thread, and revising the zones to run along county lines where feasible, I came up with the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, after looking at this map I wonder if it would make sense to simply include all of the NLP into Zone 2, instead of having a handful of counties in the NELP included in Zone 1?
> 
> As someone who hunts mainly in Muskegon and Newaygo counties I think this would work very well, as long as the new Zone 2 had dates similar to what the Zone 3 dates were this year. The only thing I am afraid of with this arrangement is that I would be right on the border of Zone 2/3, and selfishly, I would hate to see the added pressure that would bring to the places that I hunt.


exactly what i envisioned after lang made the suggestion. and yes i'm not sure about the contiguous land mass thing either. very interesting concept.


----------



## just ducky

Duckman Racing said:


> Taking into account some of the suggestions in this thread, and revising the zones to run along county lines where feasible, I came up with the following:


Just my own thinking based on listening to the Law Enforcement Division harp about any zone lines being "easily understood AND enforceable in court", but I think following county lines is way less enforceable than major highways or rivers/lakes. Think about farmer Brown who has a large chunk of property which straddles county lines. if the line runs through his back 40 somewhere How can he determine which side he's on? I know in some cases (like Deer management units) the DNR uses county lines, but I just think it's a mistake...maybe I'm wrong. I like the revised map, but I personally think we'd better think about using highways or waterways as our boundaries.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Some ideas take time. Think about some proposals from one or more of the States on the Flyway; it took a few years for the USFWS to finally come around and allow the states the options on zone changes to come to fruition. Trust me, they (the States) brought it up time and time again. How the hell do you think something gains traction? By being quiet?
> 
> CWAC hasn't - to my knowledge - officially NOT accepted Dan's proposal. I bet CWAC as a group, whether at a formal CWAC meeting or off line, hasn't discussed Dan's proposal.


I hear ya Phil. And I may just submit it to the chair and my own reps just for kicks. But personally I think they have enough on their plate right now...guess it should be their call though.


----------



## Duckman Racing

just ducky said:


> Just my own thinking based on listening to the Law Enforcement Division harp about any zone lines being "easily understood AND enforceable in court", but I think following county lines is way less enforceable than major highways or rivers/lakes. Think about farmer Brown who has a large chunk of property which straddles county lines. if the line runs through his back 40 somewhere How can he determine which side he's on? I know in some cases (like Deer management units) the DNR uses county lines, but I just think it's a mistake...maybe I'm wrong. I like the revised map, but I personally think we'd better think about using highways or waterways as our boundaries.


I dont necessarily disagree with you, but like you said, county lines are good enough to distinguish Deer and Turkey Managment Units, they should be good enough to distinguish the waterfowl zones.

If we had to use roads as the boundaries, then the Zone 2/3 line could be something like M20 from Lake Michigan to US-131 South, to I-96 East, to I69 East, to I75 North to M25 East, to the tip of the thumb. 

And Zone 1/2 dividing line could be I75 South from the bridge to M72 East to Lake Huron.

Those lines would result in pretty much the same zones as the map I posted.


----------



## just ducky

I think either way would work, it just depends on what the DNR & CWAC favor. And the Law Enforcement Division is in on that discussion as well. So I guess we let brighter minds than ours :evilsmile figure those details out.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

just ducky said:


> I think either way would work, it just depends on what the DNR & CWAC favor. And the Law Enforcement Division is in on that discussion as well. So I guess we let brighter minds than ours :evilsmile figure those details out.


to be honest i think DNR claiming 'hard to enforce' excuses is unrealistic anymore. as described before, turkey is way, way more complicated. or antlerless deer permits..my god. these others are a nightmare to enforce. ours are simple boundaries...whether it is roads or county lines. simple.


----------



## Trippin' Dipsies

I guess for simplicity and maybe to avoid problems, I (personally) wouldn't complain if Tuscola & Huron were both placed in Zone #2. Other the hand as JD stated and we keep it as proposed, I guess M-25 would be a recognizable cutoff in those counties. Just thinking out loud......


----------



## Shlwego

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> to be honest i think DNR claiming 'hard to enforce' excuses is unrealistic anymore. as described before, turkey is way, way more complicated. or antlerless deer permits..my god. these others are a nightmare to enforce. ours are simple boundaries...whether it is roads or county lines. simple.


I agree. With today's portable GPS devices, determining which zone someone is hunting in would not be a nightmare at all. Even JD's "Farmer Brown" in his back 40 on a county line should be able to know which zone he's in. You can't tell me that CO's don't have GPS capablilty..... But just for ease of "enforcement," I like the idea of using roads or bodies of water as zone boundary lines.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shlwego said:


> I agree. With today's portable GPS devices, determining which zone someone is hunting in would not be a nightmare at all.


That's for sure. I have used GPS multiple times on large tracks of hardwoods when deer hunting to make sure I am not on someone else's property. I understand the position of enforcement and making it easy. However, at some point we need to realize that "you can't fix stupid".


----------



## Mike L

Just thinking about the boundary lines ? How would they extend into the Bay for the proposed new zone 2 ? That 45 degree line of M-25 just doesn't look right, extending into the Bay the way it does. Are the top dividing line and bottom going to intersect ?

I don't think this would be an issue, but ?


----------



## just ducky

Shlwego said:


> I agree. With today's portable GPS devices, determining which zone someone is hunting in would not be a nightmare at all. Even JD's "Farmer Brown" in his back 40 on a county line should be able to know which zone he's in. You can't tell me that CO's don't have GPS capablilty..... But just for ease of "enforcement," I like the idea of using roads or bodies of water as zone boundary lines.


I have to say I agree in theory. BUT....I know way too many hunters who still don't have cell phones, let alone GPS', and all the other gadgetry, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Sure the CO's have GPS' and cell phone capability, and people who use this forum probably do, but there are a heck of a lot of hunters who may not. In most cases this probably isn't an issue. But it could be.


----------



## just ducky

Mike L said:


> Just thinking about the boundary lines ? How would they extend into the Bay for the proposed new zone 2 ? That 45 degree line of M-25 just doesn't look right, extending into the Bay the way it does. Are the top dividing line and bottom going to intersect ?
> 
> I don't think this would be an issue, but ?


Yeah I know...my thought is probably follow M-25 to say Port Austin, then maybe head directly northeast to the international boundary? I agree with you that I don't think it would be an issue out there, and I guess the DNR & CWAC would work that out.


----------



## Blacklab77

Now I know this is kinda off the wall suggestion to this whole debate but Im going to bring it up. Im a sag bay west side hunter, been so for close to 20 years now, got started with Grandpa and Dad. Now doing it solo till my son is of the age. Only being 35 years old I just started to come into the boat last 4 years, decoy trailer, and still havent ventured into the layout for the bay yet. Never even done layout hunting in the last 16 years, when grandpa died so did that type of hunting. 
With all that being said, The dates for zone two running into more than 1 week into December would 7 out of 10 years would be lost to Younger hunters for sure, and any other hunter that doesnt have the gear to get out onto the bay. IE Layouts and Boats. Even this year which was a much much much milder year then most we got 1/8 to ½ ice out 650yards plus, In many areas the Dec 4 weekend. Now Im not saying all but I would say 60 to 70% of the west side marshes. Closer you got to Bay City the better and the closer you got to Tawas the thinner and close to shore the ice was the better the likelihood you could get hunting in. 
And before someone says if you had that much ice how would you get boats out, the channels are deeper and dont freeze due to wind moving the water in and out. Also several of the marinas break ice to keep ways for the duck hunters and late walleye guys to get out. (WINK)
Now like its been mentioned we need to compromise and I understand that and would like to help guys go later into Dec. But if you front spilt the westsiders of the bay you basically take 2 weeks of hunting away from Westside bay guys that dont have the major gear to get out onto the bay 7 seasons out of 10, 1 for the spilt and 1 due to ice if the dates run much past the first week of Dec. 
I think its been said if the early teal season was a go. I think the front split would be a much easier pill to swallow especially for the west siders of the bay.
Just my two Cents.
Blacklab77

PS I hunt the A2 and St Clair Area as well so for me any dates between, oct 1 and Jan 15 If there's Ducks/Geese around I going to find a way to shoot at them. I may not kill'em but Damn sure going to try.


----------



## just ducky

Blacklab77 said:


> Now I know this is kinda off the wall suggestion to this whole debate but Im going to bring it up. Im a sag bay west side hunter, been so for close to 20 years now, got started with Grandpa and Dad. Now doing it solo till my son is of the age. Only being 35 years old I just started to come into the boat last 4 years, decoy trailer, and still havent ventured into the layout for the bay yet. Never even done layout hunting in the last 16 years, when grandpa died so did that type of hunting.
> With all that being said, The dates for zone two running into more than 1 week into December would 7 out of 10 years would be lost to Younger hunters for sure, and any other hunter that doesnt have the gear to get out onto the bay. IE Layouts and Boats. Even this year which was a much much much milder year then most we got 1/8 to ½ ice out 650yards plus, In many areas the Dec 4 weekend. Now Im not saying all but I would say 60 to 70% of the west side marshes. Closer you got to Bay City the better and the closer you got to Tawas the thinner and close to shore the ice was the better the likelihood you could get hunting in.
> And before someone says if you had that much ice how would you get boats out, the channels are deeper and dont freeze due to wind moving the water in and out. Also several of the marinas break ice to keep ways for the duck hunters and late walleye guys to get out. (WINK)
> Now like its been mentioned we need to compromise and I understand that and would like to help guys go later into Dec. But if you front spilt the westsiders of the bay you basically take 2 weeks of hunting away from Westside bay guys that dont have the major gear to get out onto the bay 7 seasons out of 10, 1 for the spilt and 1 due to ice if the dates run much past the first week of Dec.
> I think its been said if the early teal season was a go. I think the front split would be a much easier pill to swallow especially for the west siders of the bay.
> Just my two Cents.
> Blacklab77
> 
> PS I hunt the A2 and St Clair Area as well so for me any dates between, oct 1 and Jan 15 If there's Ducks/Geese around I going to find a way to shoot at them. I may not kill'em but Damn sure going to try.


This is all good discussion, and I get what you're saying about a front-loaded split potentially hurting the west side of the bay...I've heard it often from your neck of the woods. It is an issue to be considered, and I appreciate the fact you know that we all need to compromise. This may be one of those times. But me personally I'm just not getting into much debate on this board about splits, where they should fall and for how long. I just don't think it's productive this early. But that's just me...you guys can have at it.


----------



## maddiedog

It is a big problem trying to satisfy everyone. My buddies hit the wood ducks hard the first week of season in zone 2. A later start would kill them. An earlier start would be better for them. Most lakes are froze by thanksgiving so it doesn't help them either. As for me, I hunt all over and just adapt to conditions.


----------



## drake14

Some quotes from larry the cable guy song "I BELIEVE" I Believe any changes to the current system that would affect our 60 days we would regret. without the ability to predict the weather it gives us more flexibility to scout and hunt. Making drastic changes that could benefit some but would affect all(losing the 60 days ) Im not in favor. I Believe our hunting licence gives us the ability to hunt the entire state of michigan , not just a paticular area, county, species (only mallard,or only divers...)style(field,marsh, water, open water). I believe once you start limiting your style options the odds of sucess will go down and people start complaining for changes. I believe the changes should start with the hunter methods not the entire state. I beleive the sw does have bird showing up in dec. but there are other areas in the state that might seem slow until december. Example Mackinaw bridge. On the east side of the bridge in oct and nov there are hundreds to thousands of birds and on the south west side zero. And during dec jan you do see some birds on the west side of the bridge. So do you think we need to make a zone 5 for that area? The are thousands of birds here in oct nov, you need to scout and find them. I believe waiting for the birds to arrive or waiting for things to happen will always lead to disappointment, but scouting hunting making things happen will always lead to greater rewards.


----------



## field-n-feathers

drake14 said:


> ....I believe once you start limiting your style options the odds of sucess will go down and people start complaining for changes. I believe the changes should start with the hunter methods not the entire state.


You are completely entitled to your opinion.

I could say the same to those that complain about being froze out in December.....Adapt, change up your style. The bottom line is that's not productive. There are plenty of options on the table that can and should benefit everyone's "style" of hunting.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

drake, i believe FnF just gotcha with your own logic.

just because you can adapt or everything is fine in your territory doesn't mean it is in other areas or zones. 

I do see both sides. I fall in the side that says don't change a thing (my area is fine with current dates/zones). but i totally understand why some things need to be changed.


----------



## LoBrass

Lots to digest here.

Many comments need to be aired by myself and I will not try to add multiple quotes but will try to go back and answer as many implied requests for responses.

Phil, I agree that CWAC has been an underutilized voice for improving our waterfowling opportunities and I have been changing the status quo since I sat in the Chairman's seat. 

We (CWAC members and I) talk before every meeting and I try to talk to specific members more often when and where necessary. I believe a committee must talk often and I try to have "the meetings before the meeting" with every member. These are, BTW, some of the "change" that I was eluding to in earlier post regarding change. Dan's proposal (or a formal proposal similar to this) will be discussed with the committee-you can bet on it. I would like to see someone take this and formally submit it-that would be NOW!!

This forum has created some great ideas and concepts which should be easy to look at realistically. I will say that FPWA has told me in no uncertain terms that they want "NO CHANGE" regarding placing Saginaw Bay into zone 2. I have been told that their organization will take their request to the NRC if necessary to keep it the way it is (I do NOT recommend). They have asked what data supports a change and I have been unable to give him (Ron) a solid and definitive answer as to "why" other than "opinion". It should be pointed out that the CWAC committee itself has seemed far more open to the concept. 

As someone who was born in Saginaw and hunted the area extensively I can see no negative. Living close to that line in the past provided wonderful opportunity to bounce back and forth and extend my season.

My belief is that the currently discussed proposal could work on many, MANY levels. I believe the lines should be refined furthur to roads or water bodies to improve definition of boundries. Keeping the splits has always been a priority and this preserves that.

I don't believe there is any formal restriction on moving the zone 1/2 line away from Big Mac. Don't think it is that inviting from the DNR stand point but hey, I don't think the law prevents it.

I do not believe Law Division will have any long term issues with any Waterfowl Zone Boundry change. The first year of change WILL see issues but they will be worked out and then you move on.

As I have said in the past, I will do my very best to talk often with the committee to try to get these issues worked out prior to a meeting. The most effective committees get the work done ahead of time. Hopefully you all know that this is why I wanted to start this thread so quickly after season. Let's get working to make our situation better and feel we have effectively worked out as many possible scenarios as possible. 

Also, FORMAL PROPOSALS NEED TO BE IN BARB AVERS HANDS BY JANUARY 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That deadline is important as the incoming proposals will be a main source of information for discussion(and subsequently consideration) by the DNR and CWAC. Someone should take a little time to draft a VERY REFINED formal proposal based on the recent discussion. I think it is very close and I would like very much for this to get formal consideration.


----------



## just ducky

LoBrass said:


> ...I will say that FPWA has told me in no uncertain terms that they want "NO CHANGE" regarding placing Saginaw Bay into zone 2. I have been told that their organization will take their request to the NRC if necessary to keep it the way it is (I do NOT recommend). They have asked what data supports a change and I have been unable to give him (Ron) a solid and definitive answer as to "why" other than "opinion". It should be pointed out that the CWAC committee itself has seemed far more open to the concept...


This baffles me when a lot of the input I've gotten from their members is that moving the whole bay into zone 2 makes all kinds of sense. I would suggest you ask Ron what data supports KEEPING the bay the way it is? Or is it just emotion on his part? This is a really disappointing position for them to be taking IMO. But I'm hopeful that one group disagreeing like this does not mean the entire idea is off the table.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> I would suggest you ask Ron what data supports KEEPING the bay the way it is?


I know what your saying, but he is not the one asking for change. When moving away from a "known", IMO, burden falls on those wanting change to show why it is needed and what the impact will be to everyone. 

Any positive change should be easy to provide more than enough information to support it.


----------



## LoBrass

TSS Caddis said:


> When moving away from a "known", IMO, burden falls on those wanting change to show why it is needed and what the impact will be to everyone.
> 
> Any positive change should be easy to provide more than enough information to support it.


Agree.

I should say also that I really appreciate Ron's calling me and talking to me directly about this. He basically said "tell me why so we can discuss it prior to deadlines". This conversation happened a couple weeks ago and I believe it is an opportunity to share information and views. After the conversation I made it known to Ron that we would talk again-and we will.

My phone time will be escalating in the coming months.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One other point I wanted to comment on and did not back a bunch of pages ago. The issue was brought up about late season goose hunting state wide. Someone chimmed about hunting the birds till the last ones are basically killed off. 

Your point was taken and I can competely relate. I have had similar conversations with DNR staff relating to ducks. Do we really want to kill the last one left in a region or shoot at it as it leaves?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Just so everyone knows, "dilema" is spelled "dilemma". Sometimes I need a little :help:. Surprised someone didn't jump my *#! on that. HA!! you missed your chance:coolgleam)


----------



## Chez29

field-n-feathers said:


> You are completely entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I could say the same to those that complain about being froze out in December.....Adapt, change up your style. The bottom line is that's not productive. There are plenty of options on the table that can and should benefit everyone's "style" of hunting.





Shiawassee_Kid said:


> drake, i believe FnF just gotcha with your own logic.
> 
> just because you can adapt or everything is fine in your territory doesn't mean it is in other areas or zones.
> 
> I do see both sides. I fall in the side that says don't change a thing (my area is fine with current dates/zones). but i totally understand why some things need to be changed.


Here is my take on this. This whole process was started by those who field hunt mallards in zone 3, mostly those in the sw part of the zone. Shouldnt the solution to this involve those in that zone? Shouldnt the people making compromises be those in that zone? Why are we asking the entire state to make compromises in either no splits in restriced years or splits during October when all hunting styles are available versus late season when options and places are limited? If there is a problem in that zone let that zone make the compromises not the whole state.


----------



## lang49

Chez29 said:


> Here is my take on this. This whole process was started by those who field hunt mallards in zone 3, mostly those in the sw part of the zone. Shouldnt the solution to this involve those in that zone? Shouldnt the people making compromises be those in that zone? Why are we asking the entire state to make compromises in either no splits in restriced years or splits during October when all hunting styles are available versus late season when options and places are limited? If there is a problem in that zone let that zone make the compromises not the whole state.


I disagree in that we aren't merely trying to fix a problem in SW Michigan. There are issues with season alignment in other parts of the state that can and should be addressed.


----------



## Chez29

lang49 said:


> I disagree in that we aren't merely trying to fix a problem in SW Michigan. There are issues with season alignment in other parts of the state that can and should be addressed.


Those issues should be addressed in those zones and the compromises needed to make it better should apply to those areas not the state as a whole. It is possible to make zone adjustments and splits at different times or lengths without involving the entire state.


----------



## vezben

Chez29 said:


> Here is my take on this. This whole process was started by those who field hunt mallards in zone 3, mostly those in the sw part of the zone. Shouldnt the solution to this involve those in that zone? Shouldnt the people making compromises be those in that zone? Why are we asking the entire state to make compromises in either no splits in restriced years or splits during October when all hunting styles are available versus late season when options and places are limited? If there is a problem in that zone let that zone make the compromises not the whole state.


By compromise you apparently mean shut up and deal with the status quo? We've been doing that. The problem is that Zone 3 is so large and diverse and the SW corner is a pretty quiet voice compared to the Saginaw Bay area and these two regions are as different as apples and oranges when it comes to hunting styles. I guess we could leave the current zone boundaries and just have wide yearly swings in season dates/splits. Odd years we could have early openers and an early split, even years late openers and the January split.

As for another SW voice (echoed by my regular crew of six), if preservation of the split is a primary objective for the majority and essentially trumps a Zone 4 then I like the mapped proposal floating through this thread along with the 3rd weekend of October opener for down here. Still not quite as late as I'd like it since we'll more often open in the teens instead of the twenties but I'm still willing to compromise "late" to get at least a bit "later".


----------



## just ducky

Wow...I almost believe I see the fog clearing! :yikes: Seems like there are some logical statements being made, with some sound reasoning behind them! :SHOCKED:

AM I ON THE RIGHT BOARD???? :evilsmile

I spent some time last night on the North Dakota game and fish website, which I like to do once in a while because they have some really neat video clips on topics ranging from ducks, to antelope, to ice fishing, to whatever. But it's interesting that right on their website they have a link for "tentative 2012 season opening dates". Obviously for waterfowl they have the same situation of waiting until the feds give them their framework to make the final dates, but they already list what they assume will be their opening dates for 2012. And the first line of the page says "To _*help North Dakota hunters make vacation plans and lodging reservations for hunting seasons" *_...gee, what a novel idea :evilsmile

http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/news/2011/11/111107.html


----------



## FullBody

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> this only solidifies my position that you can not have saginaw bay and SW michigan in the same zone.
> 
> DIVORCE them from one another please.
> 
> its 3-4hrs away, 2 different climates yet they have the same seasons. no one is saying to change the bay opening and closing dates...this is what i don't get. move the bay into z2 and guarantee them some dates that will make them happy. this completely free's up z3 to do whatever they ******* want.


I could hug you right now this makes so much sense. Is that weird? :lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

FullBody said:


> I could hug you right now this makes so much sense. Is that weird? :lol:


Playing devil's advocate, could the same be said about the existing zone 2 counties that would be lumped in with Sag. Bay? Too different, 2 hours away, so why in the same zone? Don't know, just asking.


----------



## field-n-feathers

FullBody said:


> I could hug you right now this makes so much sense. Is that weird? :lol:


LOL!


----------



## just ducky

FullBody said:


> I could hug you right now this makes so much sense. Is that weird? :lol:


Just took this shot of Saginaw Bay 











Hallelujah and AMEN!!! :evilsmile


----------



## FullBody

TSS Caddis said:


> Playing devil's advocate, could the same be said about the existing zone 2 counties that would be lumped in with Sag. Bay? Too different, 2 hours away, so why in the same zone? Don't know, just asking.


Probably could be said. However...the dates that each area(Bay and Z2) seem to be looking for fall in line with eachother MUCH more than what SW is looking for.


----------



## carsonr2

TSS Caddis said:


> Playing devil's advocate, could the same be said about the existing zone 2 counties that would be lumped in with Sag. Bay? Too different, 2 hours away, so why in the same zone? Don't know, just asking.



I could support the dates that Zone 3 had this year if that were to be the average span that would be given to Zone 2 if the Bay were included in coming years.

There is enough variation in types of areas to hunt that I would still be able to find *plenty* of areas even if we have a deep freeze come Thanksgiving. There are so many rivers and large lakes that would still be huntable even if the smaller waters are froze over.


----------



## DEDGOOSE

TSS Caddis said:


> Playing devil's advocate, could the same be said about the existing zone 2 counties that would be lumped in with Sag. Bay? Too different, 2 hours away, so why in the same zone? Don't know, just asking.


Confused as well if we are still going by the map 3-4 pages ago.. 4 hours between Emmet and Kent County.. Or how about somebody that hunts in Lake Linden or Ironwood being lumped in with somebody in Kalkaska.. I guess the distance is what counts because their is surely no difference in climate between Lake Linden or Ironwood and Kalkaska.


----------



## lang49

DEDGOOSE said:


> I guess the distance is what counts because their is surely no difference in climate between Lake Linden or Ironwood and Kalkaska.


I assure you there is a difference in the climate of Lake Linden and Kalkaska.


----------



## PhilBernardi

lang49 said:


> I assure you there is a difference in the climate of Lake Linden and Kalkaska.


And the primary lake effect areas on the west side of the state are not like areas in Mid-Michigan (i.e., Eaton, Ingham, Clinton, Jackson, Livingston). Both areas are in the current South Zone.

Just saying....


----------



## just ducky

And there's a huge difference in climate between Ironwood and Munuscong Bay but they're currently both in zone 1. While agree in theory, where do we draw the line (literally)? 

This argument is like the Eveready Bunny...just keeps going, and going, and.....


----------



## DEDGOOSE

just ducky said:


> And there's a huge difference in climate between Ironwood and Munuscong Bay but they're currently both in zone 1. While agree in theory, where do we draw the line (literally)?


Maybe 41 starting in Gladstone North until it reaches the lake shore


----------



## adam bomb

just ducky said:


> And there's a huge difference in climate between Ironwood and Munuscong Bay but they're currently both in zone 1. While agree in theory, where do we draw the line (literally)?
> 
> This argument is like the Eveready Bunny...just keeps going, and going, and.....


Eveready???...Energizer...Come on Dan!!!:lol:

OK, so if the zone realignment happens, what does this mean for goose hunters? I am currently in zone 3 and have great opportunity. That said, the zone 2 line is very close to me. And as it is, it currently buries a TON of canada geese during both the regular season and late seasons when zone 2 closes. So, to push the zone 2 line further south, provided goose hunters have to use this redrawn line, will really get the bone around the Bay area, particularly on the west side. Im not against traveling to shoot waterfowl, but when the resource is so plentiful i dont see why that opportunity shouldnt be afforded. If its been previously discussed in the 15 pages of calamity please forgive me.

Also, i live and hunt ducks near saginaw bay in both the managed areas and on the bay itself. Every year after duck season there are great amounts of birds to hunt on the bay including this year. So, again, please dont base your decision on managed areas and participation at them towards the end of season in regards to a zone realignment. These are shallow protected areas that freeze up rapidly. And with a little ice comes laziness and people quit going. Pisses me off that laziness takes presidents over those that still wanna participate. And thats exactly what your participation theory comes down to.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> And there's a huge difference in climate between Ironwood and Munuscong Bay but they're currently both in zone 1. While agree in theory, where do we draw the line (literally)?
> 
> This argument is like the Eveready Bunny...just keeps going, and going, and.....


Ironwood logically should reside in Wisconsin and be there problem. Maybe we could also turn southern Michigan over to Indiana. Probably should address state boundaries before we address zone boundaries.


----------



## TSS Caddis

adam bomb said:


> Pisses me off that laziness takes presidents over those that still wanna participate. And thats exactly what your participation theory comes down to.


Holy ****, you guys even got Adam worked up:lol:


----------



## DEDGOOSE

adam bomb said:


> Eveready???...Energizer...Come on Dan!!!:lol:
> 
> OK, so if the zone realignment happens, what does this mean for goose hunters? I am currently in zone 3 and have great opportunity. That said, the zone 2 line is very close to me. And as it is, it currently buries a TON of canada geese during both the regular season and late seasons when zone 2 closes. So, to push the zone 2 line further south, provided goose hunters have to use this redrawn line, will really get the bone around the Bay area, particularly on the west side.
> 
> .


 Goose hunting does not matter, simply an after thought as we are a small minority.. I am sure Much of the NL goose hunters will love being done before November.


----------



## just ducky

adam bomb said:


> Eveready???...Energizer...Come on Dan!!!:lol:


you say potato...I say potato :evilsmile



adam bomb said:


> OK, so if the zone realignment happens, what does this mean for goose hunters? I am currently in zone 3 and have great opportunity. That said, the zone 2 line is very close to me. And as it is, it currently buries a TON of canada geese during both the regular season and late seasons when zone 2 closes. So, to push the zone 2 line further south, provided goose hunters have to use this redrawn line, will really get the bone around the Bay area, particularly on the west side. Im not against traveling to shoot waterfowl, but when the resource is so plentiful i dont see why that opportunity shouldnt be afforded. If its been previously discussed in the 15 pages of calamity please forgive me.


Someone else will have to chime in, because most know my passion for trash chickens :evilsmile Don't give a rip. But I've heard there is discussion happening about blowing up the current goose unit arrangement and making it way simpler, like statewide dates? little help anyone? Beuller? Beuller?



adam bomb said:


> Also, i live and hunt ducks near saginaw bay in both the managed areas and on the bay itself. Every year after duck season there are great amounts of birds to hunt on the bay including this year. So, again, please dont base your decision on managed areas and participation at them towards the end of season in regards to a zone realignment. These are shallow protected areas that freeze up rapidly. And with a little ice comes laziness and people quit going. Pisses me off that laziness takes presidents over those that still wanna participate. And thats exactly what your participation theory comes down to.


It's not "my" theory. It's what the DNR preaches constantly no matter what activity we're talking about...hunting, fishing, camping, etc. As I responded to Dahmer earlier, how many people utilize the hunting on the bay once there is significant shore ice? I'd guess not many. And as I said, guides on the bay have come to CWAC and said their business about stops once that happens. Does it mean birds are gone? Nope...you guys verify they aren't. But if very few are utilizing the resource, do you penalize someone else on the other end to allow just a handful of "ice breakers"? I don't know the answer, and we've beaten this to death. BIG PICTURE PEOPLE...That's what the DNR preaches. What would appeal to the masses, and thus provide them the most revenue.

Don't shoot the messenger...but this is the reality that we've discussed, and discussed, and discussed (cue the bunny)


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Ironwood logically should reside in Wisconsin and be there problem. Maybe we could also turn southern Michigan over to Indiana. Probably should address state boundaries before we address zone boundaries.


True story...I once heard a legislator say "let's declare war on Canada, back up to Brighton and hold our position!" Seriously he said it! I kind of thought it was a good idea myself.

Yeah...state boundaries...let's get input on that :evilsmile


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> What would appeal to the masses, and thus provide them the most revenue.


So because participation drops on Sag Bay it should not go later?


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> So because participation drops on Sag Bay it should not go later?


Your killing me here Gene. I get what you're saying, but I'm on life support here...


----------



## PhilBernardi

Y'all need to take a break and go buy some Pure Michigan Hunt applications. 

This thread is


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

had everyone in a little bit of agreement for a sec....then someone comes in and starts talking GOOSE seasons...

i think there should be a separate goose forum for you guys, lol. i hate the damn things. just open the season in September and close it January 31st. state wide. there, that was easy.


----------



## DEDGOOSE

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> had everyone in a little bit of agreement for a sec....then someone comes in and starts talking GOOSE seasons...
> 
> i think there should be a separate goose forum for you guys, lol. i hate the damn things. just open the season in September and close it January 31st. state wide. there, that was easy.


I agree and could care less about stupid field mallards.. The dumbest of all waterfowl which started this debate to begin with.. 

I would be all for your season dates on geese lets get it started..


----------



## adam bomb

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> had everyone in a little bit of agreement for a sec....then someone comes in and starts talking GOOSE seasons...
> 
> i think there should be a separate goose forum for you guys, lol. i hate the damn things. just open the season in September and close it January 31st. state wide. there, that was easy.


I second that motion Kid!!! 

As far as the ducks, its just really frustrating that opportunity *is* abundant and that people are just too lazy to utilize it...and those that really wanna waterfowl get the shaft....Thats just hard to swallow.


----------



## LoBrass

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> had everyone in a little bit of agreement for a sec....then someone comes in and starts talking GOOSE seasons...
> 
> i think there should be a separate goose forum for you guys, lol. i hate the damn things. *just open the season in September and close it January 31st. state wide. there, that was easy*.


Agree.

Getting a 107 day regular goose season is on the table, IMO. I believe this state recently discovered that there are more goose hunter than duck hunters. Just sayin' you "trash chicken" H8er's ought be lookin over your shoulder when it comes to the REAL giant of the Michigan waterfowling world:yikes:!! There are those of us out here that do not particularly care to have goose and duck overlap. IMO, we could REALLY have legal waterfowling days jump by purposefully NOT having overlap. Just give me something to hunt.

Trust me, there is a good long list of "items" on the table.


----------



## adam bomb

DEDGOOSE said:


> Goose hunting does not matter, simply an after thought as we are a small minority.. I am sure Much of the NL goose hunters will love being done before November.


I hear ya bro...Thats why i said what i said. I beat my head off the wall as it is looking at oodles of geese in a no kill zone that just sit there until the snow gets too deep and they have to push south. I know of three major water sources that are absolutely teeming with them. Two of which are in areas totally off limits come late season. And to the think a third could fall into that without a zoning intervention for geese is really quite alarming.

So to hear rumblings of a statewide unit is pretty relieving...Would love to see that....Could you imagine a one zone duck unit too!!!:chillin:


----------



## DEDGOOSE

adam bomb said:


> So to hear rumblings of a statewide unit is pretty relieving...Would love to see that....Could you imagine a one zone duck unit too!!!:chillin:


I would love that as well.. Start first weekend in Oct or last weekend in Sep and maybe even have a split.. This past Zone 3 split would be great, I think all three previous zones could have made some sort of use out of it if you were willing..


----------



## Water_Hazard

I think this years dates were a good balance of teal/woodduck hunting and freeze up hunting. The weather is going to be different every year. Some years the freeze up hunters will have it better, and other years the warmer weather hunters will have it better. Set the dates and LEAVE IT ALONE. Waterfowling has been going on for alot of years in Michigan. Every year is different as far as weather. There is no need to sit here and "fine tune" the dates every year. Set the dates to a given Saturday for each zone. If we have a 60 day season the dates will be this. If we have a 45 day season the dates will be that. x day split for a 60 day season, x day split for 45, and x days split for 30. This Saturday for the 60 day season split, this for 45 and so on.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> moving z1/z2 boundry south of the bridge is a very very small compromise from your zone.


My dislike of this idea stems from the fact that zone 1 already spans 326 miles east to west and 165 miles north to south. This would potentially move it to 222 miles north to south. Thats alot of area to cover with alot of diverse conditions to be lumped in one zone. For comparison the furthest east west distance in the LP is about 207 miles and north south its 288 miles, so your looking at a zone that is over 100 miles wider and just 60 miles less NS then the entire LP. 



adam bomb said:


> As far as the ducks, its just really frustrating that opportunity *is* abundant and that people are just too lazy to utilize it...and those that really wanna waterfowl get the shaft....Thats just hard to swallow.


Calling people lazy is unfair. Many people who are diehard waterfowlers dont have the ability to hunt all the different areas and styles. Some may have jobs that don't provide the time off to do it, others may not have the money to afford a spread of field decoys, a marsh rig, a diver rig, tender boats, layout boats etc. Just because someone is limited to hunting one style or area doesnt mean they are lazy or less wanting to hunt than others. Just a pet peeve of mine.



adam bomb said:


> Could you imagine a one zone duck unit too!!!:chillin:


A statewide 74 day season would be interesting. Oct 1 to Dec 13 if I figure right, although I dont know if the late season guys would be content with that nor some of the early guys for that matter. You could have a 100 days season and someone would probably still be unhappy. Just pie in the sky thoughts but interesting none the less.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> My dislike of this idea stems from the fact that zone 1 already spans 326 miles east to west and 165 miles north to south. This would potentially move it to 222 miles north to south. Thats alot of area to cover with alot of diverse conditions to be lumped in one zone. For comparison the furthest east west distance in the LP is about 207 miles and north south its 288 miles, so your looking at a zone that is over 100 miles wider and just 60 miles less NS then the entire LP.


if we are gonna talk east/west dimensions. we will never ever get anywhere. 

priorities:

1. participation
2. hunter days in the field (marsh/field/pond)
3. satisfaction to the most hunters possible

in my suggested map
z1 would be roughly 125 miles North/south (not counting tip of keweenaw peninsula)
z2 would be roughly 120 miles North/south
z3 would be roughly 110 miles North/south

where is the biggest effect of change on participation? saginaw bay or LSC
who will benefit if bay goes to z2 and gets locked/preferred dates? saginaw bay
who will benefit if z3 gets later dates? LSC and SW michigan

who will least benefit or suffer because of those zone lines moving south? from what i gather here z1. tell me why? explain how those 3 priorities will be affected with the suggested split and dates i stated earlier. (for the record) z1 would open for 2 days in end of september. then reopen first weekend in october. in essence you stand to lose 5 days of weekday hunting but you gain a useable split and possibly later diver hunting.

otherwise, leave it all alone and nail the openers down permanently like water_hazard said.


----------



## anon2192012

I don't like the idea of nailing down permanent dates without some type of change happening. That would mean that sw MI would forever be screwed and never have a chance for a later season.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Huntermax-4 said:


> I don't like the idea of nailing down permanent dates without some type of change happening. That would mean that sw MI would forever be screwed and never have a chance for a later season.....
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


you mean like that late 2 day january hunt for 14 years...??? lol.


----------



## just ducky

adam bomb said:


> ..Could you imagine a one zone duck unit too!!!:chillin:


Well crazy as it sounds, that's kind of what I proposed to the DNR and CWAC to consider. :yikes: Follow me into our future time machine in a world far, far away for a second please :evilsmile ....

The feds give us a window for opening/closing dates, which I think this year was no earlier than the last Sat in September, and no later than the first Sunday in January....or whatever...doesn't matter. And within that window, they allowed us 60 days total to hunt ducks, and allowed one split per zone. Ya with me so far? 

Okay so let's assume we were given the same framework in 2012. Picture me going on-line to purchase my waterfowl license. Picture the DNR licensing system telling me to select a total of 60 days to hunt within that "window" of September to January. Picture a drop down calendar coming up that lets me select dates with a click of the mouse, and if I exceed my 60 day total, it gives me an error. Picture me selecting October 1st through October 20th, and November 19th through December 28th for my 60 total days. You'll notice I've PICKED MY OWN SPLIT!!! The system asks me to verify that these are the dates I want, and I click "yes". I click on "finish", and viola...I print my license. The technology exists...some states have similar on-line systems now. 

Some would argue (maybe even the feds) that everyone could theoretically select the same dates, leading to more pressure over those dates. But c'mon...what's the chances of that happening? We can't even agree that the sun rises in the east. And afterall, all 50k + waterfowlers could all decide to hunt the UP opener right now? Does that happen? Not!

Yes, this would take selling this to the feds. But if we're dreaming about what we'd like to see, this would be my dream. Okay...turn off the time machine now...back to reality.


----------



## twoteal

With the number of people that still shoot lead every year I could see a problem with some hunting during their split and just taking the chance and probably getting away with it due to the lack of C.O.'s. Come to think of it I didn't see one at all this year. 

I know you can't legislate for the stupid but we are talking about the feds, they may take this into consideration more than ya think.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> if we are gonna talk east/west dimensions. we will never ever get anywhere.
> 
> priorities:
> 
> 1. participation
> 2. hunter days in the field (marsh/field/pond)
> 3. satisfaction to the most hunters possible
> 
> in my suggested map
> z1 would be roughly 125 miles North/south (not counting tip of keweenaw peninsula)
> z2 would be roughly 120 miles North/south
> z3 would be roughly 110 miles North/south
> 
> where is the biggest effect of change on participation? saginaw bay or LSC
> who will benefit if bay goes to z2 and gets locked/preferred dates? saginaw bay
> who will benefit if z3 gets later dates? LSC and SW michigan
> 
> who will least benefit or suffer because of those zone lines moving south? from what i gather here z1. tell me why? explain how those 3 priorities will be affected with the suggested split and dates i stated earlier. (for the record) z1 would open for 2 days in end of september. then reopen first weekend in october. in essence you stand to lose 5 days of weekday hunting but you gain a useable split and possibly later diver hunting.
> 
> otherwise, leave it all alone and nail the openers down permanently like water_hazard said.


Not sure how you managed to shrink zone 1 by pushing the zone into the northern lower? Unless you chopped off the area south of Escanaba also. Still see no need to involve zone 1 in this. Problem could be mostly settled by a better split in zone 3 and/or moving bay or part of it to zone 2. Maybe go back to a split zone with the west shore in zone 2 and the east side in zone 3. Use Ohios Erie marsh idea, x amount of yards of shore on west side is zone 2 if you are more than x yards out into middle of bay you are in zone 3, that way you keep the middle of bay open longer for late season guys.



just ducky said:


> Well crazy as it sounds, that's kind of what I proposed to the DNR and CWAC to consider. :yikes: Follow me into our future time machine in a world far, far away for a second please :evilsmile ....
> 
> The feds give us a window for opening/closing dates, which I think this year was no earlier than the last Sat in September, and no later than the first Sunday in January....or whatever...doesn't matter. And within that window, they allowed us 60 days total to hunt ducks, and allowed one split per zone. Ya with me so far?
> 
> Okay so let's assume we were given the same framework in 2012. Picture me going on-line to purchase my waterfowl license. Picture the DNR licensing system telling me to select a total of 60 days to hunt within that "window" of September to January. Picture a drop down calendar coming up that lets me select dates with a click of the mouse, and if I exceed my 60 day total, it gives me an error. Picture me selecting October 1st through October 20th, and November 19th through December 28th for my 60 total days. You'll notice I've PICKED MY OWN SPLIT!!! The system asks me to verify that these are the dates I want, and I click "yes". I click on "finish", and viola...I print my license. The technology exists...some states have similar on-line systems now.
> 
> Some would argue (maybe even the feds) that everyone could theoretically select the same dates, leading to more pressure over those dates. But c'mon...what's the chances of that happening? We can't even agree that the sun rises in the east. And afterall, all 50k + waterfowlers could all decide to hunt the UP opener right now? Does that happen? Not!
> 
> Yes, this would take selling this to the feds. But if we're dreaming about what we'd like to see, this would be my dream. Okay...turn off the time machine now...back to reality.


That would be nice. Probably wont be reality but great idea.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> Not sure how you managed to shrink zone 1 by pushing the zone into the northern lower? Unless you chopped off the area south of Escanaba also. Still see no need to involve zone 1 in this.


even better yet, theres your southern border for z1 draw a line straight across. from tip of keweenaw to that UP southern border is 160 mi. perfect.


----------



## just ducky

twoteal said:


> With the number of people that still shoot lead every year I could see a problem with some hunting during their split and just taking the chance and probably getting away with it due to the lack of C.O.'s. Come to think of it I didn't see one at all this year.
> 
> I know you can't legislate for the stupid but we are talking about the feds, they may take this into consideration more than ya think.


One of the things the DNR has said unofficially is this would be "too complicated", and "hard to enforce". Yes, it would take a CO physically checking your license. But then how do they do it now with turkey hunting for example? There are many different "slots" in the turkey season, and you select your time period when you apply for a license. But what's to stop me right now from hunting the entire turkey season start to finish? Or what's to stop me from bow hunting without a license? Only a CO checking me in the field, or my personal ethics. 

Let's face it, most licenses now are an "honor system" because the chances of getting checked are slim. Criminals will be criminals, whether the law says they can or not. 

But yeah, I know the chances of federal and/or state government bureaucrats thinking this creatively is zero. But I can dream :gaga:


----------



## field-n-feathers

One thing is for sure, a "you pick your 60" would sure cut down on zone layout and season date talks. I agree, the argument about it being hard to enforce is extremely weak. As stated there are other more complicated rules on the books which, IMHO, are still being enforced appropriately.


----------



## anon2192012

Is this a proposal that CWAC could/would propose? I think you would be hard pressed to find a waterfowler out there that would not get behind this type of proposal. Seeings how there is not as much complaining about goose season dates, they could set them as they usually do and then we could choose as much or as little overlap as we like.

Plus, managed areas could set there 60 days however they see fit and would not have to be open the entire season.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## adam bomb

Chez29 said:


> Calling people lazy is unfair. Many people who are diehard waterfowlers dont have the ability to hunt all the different areas and styles. Some may have jobs that don't provide the time off to do it, others may not have the money to afford a spread of field decoys, a marsh rig, a diver rig, tender boats, layout boats etc. Just because someone is limited to hunting one style or area doesnt mean they are lazy or less wanting to hunt than others. Just a pet peeve of mine.


I don't think its unfair to call people lazy as i see allot of people taper off their hunting when the weather turns cold or when we get ice. Hell even mid season storms deter some. People just don't wanna go stand in icy cold water or bust ice. It doesn't require special equipment, it just requires you to work harder. I hunt the same spots, use the same equipment, It just takes longer to get out, set up, and the elements are more demanding both physically and mentally. I hear the comments all the time, im not going out in that crap to shoot a duck. Well, then if that's not laziness, i don't know what is. So, just because others dont wanna go out and enjoy the sport that I LOVE TO PARTICIPATE IN, i have to compromise for the fair weather folks. Unfortunately that will always be the way of it and i find it unfair to me and others like me.


----------



## Mike L

adam bomb said:


> I don't think its unfair to call people lazy as i see allot of people taper off their hunting when the weather turns cold or when we get ice. Hell even mid season storms deter some. People just don't wanna go stand in icy cold water or bust ice. It doesn't require special equipment, it just requires you to work harder. I hunt the same spots, use the same equipment, It just takes longer to get out, set up, and the elements are more demanding both physically and mentally. I hear the comments all the time, im not going out in that crap to shoot a duck. Well, then if that's not laziness, i don't know what is. So, just because others dont wanna go out and enjoy the sport that I LOVE TO PARTICIPATE IN, i have to compromise for the fair weather folks. Unfortunately that will always be the way of it and i find it unfair to me and others like me.


Yep ! Your spot on adam.....It's the die hard, true duck men that's getting the purple one ! Because the DNR thinks more of the all mighty dollar than the guys who have kept this sport going for so many years. They want more "Early" people to "Participate" which means $$$ ! It's sad, but very true IMO


----------



## twoteal

Mike L said:


> Yep ! Your spot on adam.....It's the die hard, true duck men that's getting the purple one ! Because the DNR thinks more of the all mighty dollar than the guys who have kept this sport going for so many years. They want more "Early" people to "Participate" which means $$$ ! It's sad, but very true IMO


I think we loose more to the deer hunters among us than we do to the "lazy". Who knows they are more then likely one and the same. 

I only duck hunt, I spend alot of time building blinds when its damn near 100 degrees, cuttin catails the works. Any one who does this knows what I am talking about. busting ice is not hard at all, I prefer the earlier season cause I love the teal and woodies. plain and simple give me the teal and woodrows till the big push happens and I will gladly watch the stragglers go buy. I don't need "non-pressured" birds so I can give a **** less about the split.


----------



## just ducky

Huntermax-4 said:


> Is this a proposal that CWAC could/would propose? I think you would be hard pressed to find a waterfowler out there that would not get behind this type of proposal. Seeings how there is not as much complaining about goose season dates, they could set them as they usually do and then we could choose as much or as little overlap as we like.
> 
> Plus, managed areas could set there 60 days however they see fit and would not have to be open the entire season.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Like I said, I've planted the seed with the DNR & CWAC. Now it's up to them to decide what to do with it. I'd be shocked if something so creative (and so scary to the DNR) made it very far. But as I said I can dream


----------



## just ducky

adam bomb said:


> ...Unfortunately that will always be the way of it and i find it unfair to me and others like me.


As my first boss told me years ago "son, life is not fair, and whoever told you it was lied!"

I'm gonna have to start cutting and pasting this statement because I've used it so much...we all have to compromise. Everyone will get some of what they want, but no one will get everything they want.

Compromise is nothing new...been doing it for years. Example...most people know I could give a rip about geese (aka "trash chickens"). I have been compromising for years when they first began the early goose season in September how long ago? Maybe 20 years now? There is a local public marsh near me that used to hold thousands of teal and woodies through summer and into fall. Part of my pre-season scouting back then was to take the canoe into this marsh Labor Day weekend and take pictures of the birds...literally thousands and thousands of them. That would get my juices going for duck season to open, and when it did, we had phenomenal shooting for the first week. Well guess what? Once they started the September trash chicken season, people started hunting this marsh hard, and they pushed all but a handful of the teal and woodies out. It's never been the same since. Is that fair to me? Hell no. I've resented that change ever since it happened. But have I continued to whine about it? Hell no, because I can't change it. It was the DNR trying to appease people and provide more opportunity for those who chase trash chickens. But it certainly screwed our opening day hunting. 

1) life isn't fair
2) whoever you told you it was lied
3) everyone has to compromise


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon

Wow,
I stopped reading the thread when it changed from 4 zones to moving the bay around. I checked back in around 7 pages later and now Zone 1 is getting moved into the lower yet there has been no support from a UP resident in doing so. Not sure what the reasoning is behind it.

I am sure it fits someones idea of a good season but all it will do it put pressure on the CWAC to move to later opening dates for Z1. If you want to redraw zones in the UP cut the soo and drummond Isl. off and put it into the new Z2. Otherwise leave us out of the bay debates.


----------



## Chez29

Dont you know Brandon we all need to compromise so the Bay can get what it wants. :evilsmile


----------



## KLR

Chez29 said:


> Dont you know Brandon we all need to compromise so the Bay can get what it wants. :evilsmile


Yeah, except the bay guys aren't the ones begging for changes.


----------



## drake14

quote from Adam "So, just because others dont wanna go out and enjoy the sport that I LOVE TO PARTICIPATE IN, i have to compromise for the fair weather folk"

Adam I feel your pain. I really enjoy hunting teal and woodies in the early season but I also really like late season divers especially golden eye.I believe the bay holds the majority of golden eye and they typically are one of the last birds to show up. Moving the bay to zone 2 would decrease our odds of hunting this species in the late season. I feel you can hunt mallards anywhere in the state threw out the season but golden eye only a short window . I also enjoy the challenge of the cold weather elements!


----------



## adam bomb

KLR said:


> Yeah, except the bay guys aren't the ones begging for changes.


Exactly


----------



## Air Traffic Control

This thread is pretty long and i didn't see this question anywhere else. Why did zone 1 only get a 54 day season. How about discussing this, z2 and z3 guys would be furious about losing 6 days

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## LoBrass

Every zone got 60 days.

Merry Christmas!!


----------



## TSS Caddis

Air Traffic Control said:


> This thread is pretty long and i didn't see this question anywhere else. Why did zone 1 only get a 54 day season. How about discussing this, z2 and z3 guys would be furious about losing 6 days
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


It was sweet hunting 66 days on Saginaw Bay this year.


----------



## decoy706

:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Water_Hazard

drake14 said:


> Adam I feel your pain. I really enjoy hunting teal and woodies in the early season but I also really like late season divers especially golden eye.I believe the bay holds the majority of golden eye and they typically are one of the last birds to show up. Moving the bay to zone 2 would decrease our odds of hunting this species in the late season. I feel you can hunt mallards anywhere in the state threw out the season but golden eye only a short window!


Shot and seen quite a few goldeneye on the last week and a half of this years season. Also shot alot of teal and wood ducks on the first week and a half of season. Seems like the compromise is already there. When the weather gets colder earlier, the goldeneye hunters will have more of a window, and on the milder years, the teal and woodduck hunters will have more of an opportunity. You are not going to predict the weather. The dates right now could cater to either type of hunter depending on the weather for the year.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Just an FYI...This is the letter from Fish Point regarding zone restructure.

http://www.fishpoint-mi.com/resources/fishpointletter2011.pdf


----------



## LoBrass

field-n-feathers said:


> Just an FYI...This is the letter from Fish Point regarding zone restructure.
> 
> http://www.fishpoint-mi.com/resources/fishpointletter2011.pdf


Thanks for this information.

This will spark some interesting conversation. (Where's my map?)


----------



## just ducky

LoBrass said:


> Thanks for this information.
> 
> This will spark some interesting conversation. (Where's my map?)


Many of us have seen it. Whether I agree with their reasoning or not is irrelevant, because they are entitled to their opinion, and I have mine. I know for a fact that many bay hunters, including some CWAC reps, are VERY opposed to this plan. So good luck guys.

As someone who hunts fairly often in the bay at Sebewaing and out around Fish Point, my only concern with what they are proposing is the location of the northernmost line, which apparently corresponds with the GMU boundary, and appears to be an imaginary east-west line right out there in the bay...talk about an enforcement issue :yikes: I'm fairly certain I hunted on each side of that line more than once this year in boats and in blinds owned by Fish Point Lodge. But how do I know for sure? Are they going to place some kind of buoys out in the bay to show where that imaginary line is? Are they going to paint a line in the water out there? yeah I know it's the line from the goose management unit, but that doesn't answer my question. And don't anyone say they'll have gps coordinates, because some of my buddies don't own GPS', and they aren't about to buy one either. That to me is a very impractical separation line.


----------



## adam bomb

field-n-feathers said:


> Just an FYI...This is the letter from Fish Point regarding zone restructure.
> 
> http://www.fishpoint-mi.com/resources/fishpointletter2011.pdf


Talk about a special interest there. Just extend the line up to include FP so we can hunt later, but put the rest of the bay in zone 2 where all the birds are coming from.:lol: Basically, have free reign on unmolested birds. Great proposal for Fish Point.


----------



## Chez29

How would a zone boundary similar to Ohio's marsh zone where the zone extends out 200 yards from shore work in this area. Meaning instead of some imaginary line thru the middle of the bay that zone 2 would extend 200 yards, or whatever distance would work, out into the bay and the rest of the bay was zone 3. Just wondering.


----------



## just ducky

Chez29 said:


> How would a zone boundary similar to Ohio's marsh zone where the zone extends out 200 yards from shore work in this area. Meaning instead of some imaginary line thru the middle of the bay that zone 2 would extend 200 yards, or whatever distance would work, out into the bay and the rest of the bay was zone 3. Just wondering.


A line could be drawn anywhere the DNR/NRC felt necessary. Could be 200 yds from "shore" I guess. But my point was the DNR Law Enforcement staff typically scream about the "enforceability" of any zone line that is created. So how is this line enforceable unless there are buoys or something out there to tell me which side I'm on?


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> But here is the question, are those numbers dropping due to the cold and frozen, or is it the fact that the timing coincides with deer season:yikes: and the fact that some of the birds may be acting stale and tough until the cold and snow brings in new birds again.


all of the above. at least it's true of my crew of regular hunters.




goosemanrdk said:


> And if word of mouth "brings out the masses." They must not be putting their stuff away, but rather shifting there efforts into something else(deer season), until it becomes "worth the effort" again.


Correct. When I said "putting their gear away", I didn't really mean that literally. Yeah, most that have boats and gear probably don't put it all away for good until it's DEFINITELY over. I know that's the way my crew flies. I think a lot of it is shifting priorities...again, what's it worth to you? If a guy can spend a few hours and maybe shoot a deer in the late doe season, vs. spend a few hours breaking some ice and maybe getting a couple ducks, they make a choice. I admit I'm in that category, because I happen to have access to a ton of private property with deer up the ying yang. I'm sure I'm not alone.  If I lived in North Dakota, and with my love of ditch chicken hunting, I'd be switching my priorities out there too based on the weather in late season. Too much ice and no birds...chase the ditch chickens. If we get too much ice here, I'm itching to get out ice fishing. So it's all about priorities.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> all of the above. at least it's true of my crew of regular hunters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a guy can spend a few hours and maybe shoot a deer in the late doe season, vs. spend a few hours breaking some ice and maybe getting a couple ducks, they make a choice. I admit I'm in that category, because I happen to have access to a ton of private property with deer up the ying yang. I'm sure I'm not alone. .


Now here is my $100 question, and I know some of you will HATE!!!! me for bringing it up, but going along with what you mentioned above and applying that it is probably pretty common across the board. 
Who is the biggest minority? Hunters who chase waterfowl during the 15day firearm deer season, or the late season diehards that want to bust ice.


----------



## PhilBernardi

goosemanrdk said:


> But here is the question, are those numbers dropping due to the cold and frozen, or is it the fact that the timing coincides with deer season:yikes: and the fact that some of the birds may be acting stale and tough until the cold and snow brings in new birds again.
> 
> And if word of mouth "brings out the masses." They must not be putting their stuff away, but rather shifting there efforts into something else(deer season), until it becomes "worth the effort" again.


When you pose a question like this keep in mind that these two hunting seasons have overlapped for decades and weather has always played a part in decision making. 

The cost of entry into this sport is not cheap compared to others. This state has taken a huge hit in the last 10 years concerning the employed and in wages made. 

Too say nothing of all the other time sappers (many having been around for a long time and many fairly new to the scene) and the declining MI-based mallard population, it's no wonder to me as to why waterfowler numbers have declined.

Much work is to be done in parallel, consistently, and repeatedly for the sport to continue to survive and thrive.

Keep your nose to the grindstone with volunteering; bringing out new hunters; bringing out new waterfowl volunteers; etc.; and this will continue to be an exciting and fulfilling sport.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> Now here is my $100 question, and I know some of you will HATE!!!! me for bringing it up, but going along with what you mentioned above and applying that it is probably pretty common across the board.
> Who is the biggest minority? Hunters who chase waterfowl during the 15day firearm deer season, or the late season diehards that want to bust ice.


There's another good survey question. I'm guessing it would be those ice-busting die hards, but it's just my guess.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> ...The cost of entry into this sport is not cheap compared to others. This state has taken a huge hit in the last 10 years concerning the employed and in wages made....


this is a really good point, and one we lose sight of. We spend a lot of money to enjoy this sport when you consider all the gear. And now you consider late season ice-busting conditions, and the potential for substantial boats and extra gear. :yikes:

Compare that with someone going out late season antlerless deer hunting, rabbit hunting, ice fishing, or whatever...it's a lot less expensive. One could argue it's always been more expensive, which is true. But our economy here, and our unemployment rate, has not always been where it is now. So Phil makes a very good point. This economy is definitely hurting out numbers of waterfowlers.

Would this all be different if our economy were flourishing, the auto jobs had not largely dried up, the young adults were not fleeing our state in record numbers, AND the cost of gas was not skyrocketing? Hmmmm


----------



## LoBrass

just ducky said:


> *I guess I've just heard so many different sides of this discussion that I'm tired of it all, and I would rather the DNR show some true leadership and just say pick version "X", "Y" or "Z" and be done with it.*


I have had this discussion with more than one DNR employee. They are the professionals and they need to be responsible for some of these decisions.

Bud, it's been going on for months, where have you been?

And Dahmer, it is a political society that we live in. This process is actually very political and rightly so.

And, while 75% seems too high of a percentage for agreement on issues at CWAC votes, 3/4 makes it the great stabilizer.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> And now you consider late season ice-busting conditions, and the potential for substantial boats and extra gear. :yikes:


Extra gear to hunt in December? Do you mean testicles?


----------



## KLR

It's true, you do need a large rig to hunt late season. 

Having lots of decoys and a big boat is helpful too.


----------



## field-n-feathers

LoBrass said:


> .....And, while 75% seems too high of a percentage for agreement on issues at CWAC votes, 3/4 makes it the great stabilizer.


John,

I would agree that needing a 75% vote is a great stabilizer in many instances. However, the current system is far from perfect. The most recent proof of this being last years CWAC final vote on season dates. 

A few things have already been touched on, but I'll bring them back to the front.

At the NRC meeting in August, the season dates that were presented to the NRC Board were originally described as unanimous. I pointed out that this, in fact, was not the case at all. Yes, it was voted in by a majority....but not unanimously. It was also pointed out that an entire region of this state voted "NO" on the current proposal and felt that our opinion was not represented at all in the current season date proposal.......because it wasn't.

I point this out, because I'm sincerely hoping that this will NOT continue happening. People have stated the "politics" of this process. Well, just imagine for a minute that you are going to vote on an issue that you and others that share your views feel is extremely important. You voice your concerns and make your vote, only to realize your vote means absolutely nothing. 

Politics? I'd say so.


----------



## field-n-feathers

TSS Caddis said:


> Extra gear to hunt in December? Do you mean testicles?


:lol::lol:


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Extra gear to hunt in December? Do you mean testicles?


What are you trying to tell us Gene? :lol:


----------



## just ducky

KLR said:


> It's true, you do need a large rig to hunt late season.
> 
> Having lots of decoys and a big boat is helpful too.


Like the classic line from the old movie "Jaws"...."*We're gonna need a bigger boat!"*

And apparently some pretty big cahonies according to Caddis :evilsmile


----------



## PhilBernardi

What I learned today was that matters of natural resource conservation are intertwined with politics. 


Glad I come to this site.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> What I learned today was that matters of natural resource conservation are intertwined with politics....


Another understatement of the year. :yikes:

Or as my buddy loves to say*..."your grasp of the obvious is uncanny*!"


----------



## T.J.

TSS Caddis said:


> Extra gear to hunt in December? Do you mean testicles?


:lol::lol::lol:well played


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Another understatement of the year. :yikes:
> 
> Or as my buddy loves to say*..."your grasp of the obvious is uncanny*!"


:lol: 

Thank you, Sir

:lol:


----------



## LoBrass

field-n-feathers said:


> *John,*
> 
> *I would agree that needing a 75% vote is a great stabilizer in many instances. However, the current system is far from perfect. The most recent proof of this being last years CWAC final vote on season dates. *


Each and every "no" vote on a motion which passes still constitutes representation.

The CWAC is a representation of constituents from across the state. And, the final vote was precisely what the majority wanted. I am sorry that the end result was not "perfect". Rarely will an end result ever be.

But to say the system is broke when it simply didn't give some hunters exactly what they wanted is misleading. Your region is decidedly unique and we would all like to give it a season which most closely reflects the migration patterns. You have to realize though that not everyone believes what you do about your region. Trust me, I've heard from a good number of them that have said they feel the season was right.

The "unanimous" vote was the vote for the UP season date only. Barb may have mis-spoke about a unanimous vote on the southern zone. I remember the error and I believe it was clarified.

Would you rather have less representation? (My wife would be thrilled!!)


----------



## LoBrass

PhilBernardi said:


> What I learned today was that matters of natural resource conservation are intertwined with politics.
> 
> 
> Glad I come to this site.


You DID NOT learn that _today_!!


----------



## field-n-feathers

John, I wasn't trying to single you or anyone out. Using the term "not represented" was not the right use of words. Our opinion was in fact "represented", but does not make any difference in the scheme of things.


----------



## Quackaddicted

field-n-feathers said:


> John, I wasn't trying to single you or anyone out. Using the term "not represented" was not the right use of words. Our opinion was in fact "represented", but does not make any difference in the scheme of things.


 
Not sure I understand the logic behind a minority opinion overriding the majority.

Bud


----------

