# Cwac info update



## SBE II

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> Nope not at all. I just don't wade in advocating one sides position or the other nor to I try and mediate those discussions. I hunted the late season last year in Z3 with a close friend and actually have some experience with the hunting in that zone having grown up down there.
> 
> My main goal in conversations with hunters in other zones or in reading discussions between those hunters is to be educated on the issues facing the hunters in other zones so when it comes time to vote on season dates or other items that will effect those hunters I have a firm grasp of how my vote will effect those hunters.
> 
> In addition to that though my first responsibility as I see it is to represent the group I was appointed to represent and therefore I need to be intimately familiar with the nuances of those issues as they relate the the western UP. So if a discussion on the UP arises and I am aware of it you can be sure that I will be participating in that discussion as much as possible so that I can fulfill that responsibility to the best of my abilities. I am actively seeking out hunters in my area through DU and other organizations as well as personal networks to gather as much input as possible. I take my appointment to the CWAC very seriously.


That's good to hear and by right you should be because thats number 10 on your list of duties....It was sad to see the minutes last year where one representative indicated, "Didn't hunt." Not sure how thats conducive to the whole state. I just wish the DNR did more on aiding on the awareness of the CWAC, because unless a rep goes and seeks information like you're doing than to me it's pointless. Suppose I should construct that email about the minutes from the last meeting being posted...


----------



## Bellyup

SBE II said:


> That's good to hear and by right you should be because thats number 10 on your list of duties....It was sad to see the minutes last year where one representative indicated, "Didn't hunt." Not sure how thats conducive to the whole state. I just wish the DNR did more on aiding on the awareness of the CWAC, because unless a rep goes and seeks information like you're doing than to me it's pointless. Suppose I should construct that email about the minutes from the last meeting being posted...


SBE,

I can assure you in my upmost confidence, that Brandon sets an example of how things can be done. I have seen it first hand. Nothing but respect from me to him.


----------



## SBE II

Bellyup said:


> SBE,
> 
> I can assure you in my upmost confidence, that Brandon sets an example of how things can be done. I have seen it first hand. Nothing but respect from me to him.


Good to hear, I see in their rules where they only can speak of the area that they hunt in or represent..not sure how this map correlates to zone discussion. I also emailed Don asking to post the minutes.


----------



## Shlwego

SBE II said:


> That's good to hear and by right you should be because thats number 10 on your list of duties....It was sad to see the minutes last year where one representative indicated, "Didn't hunt." Not sure how thats conducive to the whole state. I just wish the DNR did more on aiding on the awareness of the CWAC, because unless a rep goes and seeks information like you're doing than to me it's pointless. Suppose I should construct that email about the minutes from the last meeting being posted...


 
Just playing devil's advocate here (and stirring the pot), but.... The fact that someone "didn't hunt" does not necessarily mean that that person does not understand the issues, and really has no bearing on how well they represent their area. I have no idea who that person is, but conceivably it might be an older gentleman who has hunted the area his whole life and is just not phisically able to hunt anymore. I'd trust someone like that to make a good decision. Whether or not a particluar memeber did or did not hunt really makes no difference at all. What matters is whether they understand the issues relevant to waterfowl hunting and hunters in the area they represent and that they seek out and receive input from the people/organizations that they represent and vote accordingly.


----------



## SBE II

Shlwego said:


> Just playing devil's advocate here (and stirring the pot), but.... The fact that someone "didn't hunt" does not necessarily mean that that person does not understand the issues, and really has no bearing on how well they represent their area. I have no idea who that person is, but conceivably it might be an older gentleman who has hunted the area his whole life and is just not phisically able to hunt anymore. I'd trust someone like that to make a good decision. Whether or not a particluar memeber did or did not hunt really makes no difference at all. What matters is whether they understand the issues relevant to waterfowl hunting and hunters in the area they represent and that they seek out and receive input from the people/organizations that they represent and vote accordingly.


Nothing wrong with positive discussion and criticism. I see validity in your statement. The problem I see within the minutes is this person has the right to cast vote, still a member, and a organization member as well. With this said, one could have said, 'Didn't hunt, but the reports I received indicated...." The first 4 questions of the CWAC application pertain to that individual and waterfowl hunting.

As a side note I sent Mr. Avers an email requesting to post the March 2013 minutes on 5/21 at 2:03 CST I haven't received a reply yet and once I do, I will surely let everyone know.


----------



## Quackaddicted

As a point of order, the minutes are only a draft until approved by a vote of the committee at the next meeting. To release them is premature.


----------



## SBE II

Quackaddicted said:


> As a point of order, the minutes are only a draft until approved by a vote of the committee at the next meeting. To release them is premature.


Huh? A minute is consider a summary of points in a discussion...how do you guys notify the general public of what's being discussed? What's the point of having minutes if you don't publish them?

Poor communication IMO and that's outside looking in. How's it premature if your meeting in August will be about voting on season dates? Shouldn't people know well BEFORE to get information to CWAC? Something isn't adding up here.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon

SBE II said:


> Huh? A minute is consider a summary of points in a discussion...how do you guys notify the general public of what's being discussed? What's the point of having minutes if you don't publish them?
> 
> Poor communication IMO and that's outside looking in. How's it premature if your meeting in August will be about voting on season dates? Shouldn't people know well BEFORE to get information to CWAC? Something isn't adding up here.


Roberts rules of order. I don't know of any appointed or elected board that doesn't use them. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=roberts+rules+of+order


----------



## TSS Caddis

We do the same thing in our HOA. First order of business is to approve previous minutes.

Although it would be a lot better for all parties if the draft was emailed to all participants shortly after the meeting for approval and publication.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> We do the same thing in our HOA. First order of business is to approve previous minutes.
> 
> Although it would be a lot better for all parties if the draft was emailed to all participants shortly after the meeting for approval and publication.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


Agree with second statement, but when dealing with a general publics input and knowing the next meeting will be to vote on season dates how's this beneficial to the general public?


----------



## Shoveler

> As a point of order, the minutes are only a draft until approved by a vote of the committee at the next meeting. To release them is premature.



The question is does CWAC have to follow the Open Meetings Act, OPEN MEETINGS ACT Act 267 of 1976. There are a number of requirements.

http://http://michigan.gov/documents/mcl-act-267-of-1976_158990_7.pdf

15.269 Minutes.
Sec. 9. (1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members
present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for
which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public
body shall make any corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes
refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before the next subsequent meeting after
correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original entry and the correction.
(2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body shall make the minutes
available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section 4. The public body shall make
copies of the minutes available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.
(3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within 8 business days after
the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make approved minutes available for public
Rendered Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Page 4 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2006
inspection within 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.
(4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally identifiable information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general
education provisions act, 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974.
History:*1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977;&#63719;Am. 1982, Act 130, Imd. Eff. Apr. 20, 1982;&#63719;Am. 2004, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Aug. 11,
2004.

&#63193; Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov


----------



## SBE II

8 days...yea definitely been well beyond that..thanks for sharing

Unfortunately I believe the excuse will be something related to Roberts rules of Order and how it rules out legislative authority and follows parliament style function...or something or other..who knows, definitely shouldn't take Mr Avers 3 days to reply to an email either...


----------



## smoke

SBE II said:


> Agree with second statement, but when dealing with a general publics input and knowing the next meeting will be to vote on season dates how's this beneficial to the general public?


Dude I think you may be missing the point here? 

JUST because the minutes are not made public on a web site or other media does not mean that the information can not be received or passed along through other sources ie: word of mouth, e mails, press releases etc. 

The secretary of CWAC takes notes during the entire meeting, either on his lap top or a legal pad or both at times. When he returns home, he goes over his notes, spell checks etc. then forwards said meeting notes to all members and they review them to make sure there are no mistakes or missing information. The meeting notes are then printed and then voted on at the next available meeting, if approved (I've only witnessed 1 time where additions had to be made) then and only then are these meeting notes to be made public by posting them.

No one is saying nothing will be done or no one will know what transpired at a meeting before the meeting notes are "made public".

It's Roberts rules of meeting quorum. Most organizations use these same guidelines when setting up their bylaws. 

Smoke


----------



## SBE II

smoke said:


> Dude I think you may be missing the point here?
> 
> JUST because the minutes are not made public on a web site or other media does not mean that the information can not be received or passed along through other sources ie: word of mouth, e mails, press releases etc.
> 
> The secretary of CWAC takes notes during the entire meeting, either on his lap top or a legal pad or both at times. When he returns home, he goes over his notes, spell checks etc. then forwards said meeting notes to all members and they review them to make sure there are no mistakes or missing information. The meeting notes are then printed and then voted on at the next available meeting, if approved (I've only witnessed 1 time where additions had to be made) then and only then are these meeting notes to be made public by posting them.
> 
> No one is saying nothing will be done or no one will know what transpired at a meeting before the meeting notes are "made public".
> 
> It's Roberts rules of meeting quorum. Most organizations use these same guidelines when setting up their bylaws.
> 
> Smoke


So how hard is it with electronic communication to get approval? I do it everday with work. get this information to the public. Ya see Smoke it's kinda like the map and email addresses just now making their way here,. Roberts Rules since its evolved has been adjusted to fit the needs of new communication. It doesn't take a genious to figure these things out. Only publication I have seen is that from Lo Brass. It also shouldn't take Don Avers 3 days to reply to an email. The system is flawed.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Just did a quick, less than 2 minute search, and found numerous city council/school board meetings that had there UNAPPROVED minutes already on websites for public viewing.

Example: Grand Rapids Public Schools finance commitee met on 5/20 and their minutes are already listed. Next meeting is not until June 10th.

Grand Rapids Minnesota's city commision has minutes up, but just has teh disclaimer that they are not approved and thus not "final".

Just Sayin'


----------



## Shoveler

Robert's Rules of Order are used for procedural questions and then only if it has been formally adopted. 

It does not trump the Open Meetings Act. The question is still does CWAC have to follow the Open Meetings Act?


----------



## Bellyup

goosemanrdk said:


> Just did a quick, less than 2 minute search, and found numerous city council/school board meetings that had there UNAPPROVED minutes already on websites for public viewing.
> 
> Example: Grand Rapids Public Schools finance commitee met on 5/20 and their minutes are already listed. Next meeting is not until June 10th.
> 
> Grand Rapids Minnesota's city commision has minutes up, but just has teh disclaimer that they are not approved and thus not "final".
> 
> Just Sayin'


And that is a POINT OF ORDER. It does not take rocket science and it does not take a pedigree to realize that today is the age of the information highway. People have more access than ever, and we are demanding information be posted, approved or not. it is how business is done today, in EVERY corporation, businees, government body... etc. CWAC is not exempt, and should be held accountable for such. Get with the times, or disban. That is the way things are going today, especially with small clubs and federations such as CWAC. Don't present your organizations as a power hungry control freak type of organzation, as it will be called out, everyone has access to to your inner workins in todays age, and it will be made public. Thank Enron for that... something about Sarbanes and Oxley......


----------



## goosemanrdk

I am pretty sure that Robert's rules has provisions that once a motion is made and that motion is not passed by vote, said motion is not able to be brought back around as a motion again in the meeting. Pretty sure that very thing has happened in CWAC a time or 2. 

So, are we following Robert's rules to the letter, or just using the parts that fit our needs when we need them?


----------



## smoke

SBE II said:


> So how hard is it with electronic communication to get approval? I do it everday with work. get this information to the public. Ya see Smoke it's kinda like the map and email addresses just now making their way here,. Roberts Rules since its evolved has been adjusted to fit the needs of new communication. It doesn't take a genious to figure these things out. Only publication I have seen is that from Lo Brass. It also shouldn't take Don Avers 3 days to reply to an email. The system is flawed.


Point taken sbe. I understand your frustration, however please realize these dnr personnel have lots on their plates too. Which seems to be a sign of the times in industry as well. I have never been so swamped with things I am responsible for as I have these last few years. So whereas I understand your point, CWAC is one of many items these dnr are responsible for. It may not be Don's top priority to get the meeting notes posted, right or wrong. 

IMO, it's easy to sit back and point out someones or somethings flaws or faults, but harder to see their point or your own flaws. 

I do not want ANYONE to think that I am making excuses for Don Avers or any dnr personnel on CWAC. I am just giving you my side of what I know from being a member of CWAC for 8 years. As far as I know Don has been at the helm of CWAC for 1 1/2 seasons thus far. Things may change in the future. Least us not forget people; we are talking about and working with a branch of Government! :16suspect

Smoke ready for the weekend and some ice cold barley drinks.


----------



## backroadstravler

Shoveler, feeling better? SBEII, CWAC mtgs. are open to the public. Better to make your opinions and thoughts known at the mtg than on a forum of minority opinions. I may have been the member that did not hunt. Not quite true, I did pull the trigger twice on the one day I did hunt. Had major back surgery in Sept that put me out of the marsh for 4 months. I did parking lot checks in the Allegan State. Game and at the Fennville Farm unit. Probably met with more average hunters that do not spend their time on a forum. Hope to see you at the mtg in Aug.


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> I agree with the vision of SBE's to make CWAC more open, have more and timely information to the public, and have areas of the state be generally immune from other parts of the state where season dates and/or regulations are concerned.
> 
> The question is how do you get there with a volunteer group of people?
> 
> I'm curious as to SBE's ideas of how to get there.


I can concur with Belly's suggestion. People always use the direction non-paid and volunteer, but what they forget is exactly what they indicate, a volunteer. Anytime you volunteer it will at times be a thankless job, but what are some doing that others are not? I hate to use Scott as an example but he seems to be doing this right, trying to inform people anyway he can, having constructive and rational discussions about items. Unfortunately after August they will lose Scott. There needs not be just two meetings with no minutes appearing until approval, this puts blinders on the general public. Meetings need to take place in each zone, not a central location, allow ample time for each zone to speak about experiences and suggestions. More mediation and conflict resolution needs to be involved to ensure you rule out bias misrepresentation. 

So Phil if you want my honest interpretation, the wheel needs to be reinvented, and members should be evaluated. JD, if you read what you wrote about the internet you would find that you're right for once, but you let your ignorance get in the way of active listening, because I would actually publish information in the Michigan waterfowl Digest, something ALL waterfowlers have access to, and this is something I have been saying all along. Meeting dates and locations for the following year can be placed along with zone reps contact information. Since that information has been posted about two weeks now, two of the emails are bad. Just cut out some of the advertisement fat in the digest..It's just print guys not hard to write a couple paragraphs, so please blame it on cost. Maybe this will be brought up in the next meeting, I did find it awfully coincidental how we went rounds prior to this meeting and I was chastised about putting a map and contact information together and wham it magically appears. Someone was listening...

Shi-Kid, I have don't have answer for you because all you do is run your mouth and try to run people off this forum that don't agree with your lame *** logic. 

Maybe we need to develop SWAC a non for profit organization run entirely by volunteers and funds raised go directly toward habitat is Southwest MI. Maybe then the Shi-posse will get off their pedistal and start becoming more irrational. But that would be like asking most public hunters to not call my working birds or sky bust...Good luck right?


----------



## SBE II

field-n-feathers said:


> ^^^Agreed. Get rid of organizational CWAC members that are not at large or associated with managed waterfowl areas and then see what happens to these date/regulation debates.
> 
> That aside.....The entire point being getting information to the public in a timely fashion, regardless of what season dates you want, where you hunt, or what waterfowl organization you belong to. I don't think it's a big secret that MANY have no idea who or what CWAC does.
> 
> Additionally, the current process does not foster public input until well after the fact. Meaning....Unless you know someone on CWAC, were at the meeting or talked with someone who was, you are clueless as to what went on until after the next meeting.
> 
> The issue isn't what CWAC does or does not do, or insinuating that CWAC members have some hidden agenda. The issue is transparency, and currently, there isn't any until well after the fact. It's hard to procure public input when the public doesn't even know what is going on.


I would concur with this, just not sure if I'm sold on the whole hidden agenda items. Some I believe, others I do not. 

I also like Phil's response. 

JD, if there's proper representation, and I'm 100% confident that my input matching what another majorities has been will be discussed appropriately why should I need to attend? Are you saying there's misrepresentation?

Smoke, what I was seeing was firing back with the current process, not saying yea you guys are right we need to talk about getting you folks information in a timely manner. Until I posted that response, the thread almost went dead.. But to 30 pages we will go, get the popcorn folks.


----------



## just ducky

field-n-feathers said:


> ..That aside.....The entire point being getting information to the public in a timely fashion, regardless of what season dates you want, where you hunt, or what waterfowl organization you belong to. I don't think it's a big secret that MANY have no idea who or what CWAC does.
> 
> Additionally, the current process does not foster public input until well after the fact. Meaning....Unless you know someone on CWAC, were at the meeting or talked with someone who was, you are clueless as to what went on until after the next meeting...


I could say these same things about the Natural Resources Commission. Unless you keep informed, and watch websites and news articles, you would be clueless about the NRC meetings as well. And these members are not volunteers, but are appointed by the Governor. How many here have ever attended a NRC meeting? I'm betting I'm one of few. People who show up are only those in the know, who keep informed on issues, and badger the DNR and NRC about those things. 

It's easy to blame the DNR for all the worlds troubles, but as i've said in the past, if someone really wants to know what's going on, they need to assume some responsibility for staying in touch. No different than my local township board, county commission, etc. The world doesn't spoon feed anyone. People need to be dilligent and persistent. Otherwise guess what...they're clueless. 

I'll say it again...there are a lot of people who like to sit back and take pot shots at groups such as CWAC, but when the time comes to provide constructive input (like at the meetings, or to the DNR directly) they are no where to be found. Plain and simple, this forum is the wrong place to debate this issue because no one here can change the process. Only the DNR can.

And to whomever suggested these meetings may have to comply with the Open Meetings Act, nope. The CWAC does not make "policy" decisions. They don't act on Administrative Rules under the Adminstrative Procedures Act. They don't legislate. As their title says, they are merely "advisory". Legally they could meet in the back room of someone's house, and bar anyone who is not part of the CWAC. 

Excerpt from the AG's office:

*OPEN MEETINGS ACT
THE BASICS
The Act &#8211; the Open Meetings Act (OMA) is 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 through 15.275. The OMA took effect January 1, 1977. In enacting the OMA, the Legislature promoted a new era in governmental accountability and fostered openness in government to enhance responsible decision making.1
Nothing in the OMA prohibits a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision that requires a greater degree of openness relative to public body meetings than the standards provided for in the OMA.2
What bodies are covered? &#8211; the OMA applies to all meetings of a public body.3 A "public body" is broadly defined as:
[A]ny state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, that is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function; a lessee of such a body performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant to the lease agreement.4 [Emphasis added.]
As used in the OMA, the term "public body" connotes a collective entity and does not include an individual government official.5 The OMA does not apply to private, nonprofit corporations.6*


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Maybe we need to develop SWAC a non for profit organization run entirely by volunteers and funds raised go directly toward habitat is Southwest MI. Maybe then the Shi-posse will get off their pedistal and start becoming more irrational. But that would be like asking most public hunters to not call my working birds or sky bust...Good luck right?


wonderful idea. few issues you may incur.

1. its hard to do from a keyboard.
2. cwac (your play on words SWAC) is volunteer but they don't raise any money. they only send recommendations to DNR.
3. if you were smart, you would create your own organization that encounters all 5 states you hunt! that way you can change and meld all the regulations together....make them seamless...yeah..that way could bitch in all 5 at the same time and not get confused on where your bitching.

you guys really crack me up. before CWAC we had nothing for a voice. no one had a voice....EVER. DNR created CWAC in an effort to bridge the gap...to give someone who wanted to be heard, a voice. Now, that voice isn't good enough for some of you. You want EVERYONE heard with the easiest, lowest common denominator of effort to be included. 

god forbid that someone has to seek out information anymore, the government should knock on my door and hand it off to me personally. no matter what the costs....or how much sense it doesn't make.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> Get rid of organizational CWAC members that are not at large or associated with managed waterfowl areas and then see what happens to these date/regulation debates.



please tell me...what will happen? 


1. you still won't gain any more time in December. (your main goal). Cannot get it through your thick heads that its not OUR reps on CWAC that keep sinking your late dates. We've (SFCHA) recommended the latest start date for the last 20 seasons. GOD YOU GUYS DRIVE ME NUTS WITH THE CIRCLES AND CIRCLES you do on here.

2. cwac will lose legitimacy without big hitters like MUCC, MDHA..ect...allthough i see where your going..., how is 1 guy any different than 1 group of guys? meaning, we drop SFCHA or MDHA, do we not get a rep for our area then? our county? please give me some real solution here....tell me how your solutions fix the problems you proclaim. you won't, just bomb throwing.

3.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> It's easy to blame the DNR for all the worlds troubles, but as i've said in the past, if someone really wants to know what's going on, they need to assume some responsibility for staying in touch. No different than my local township board, county commission, etc. The world doesn't spoon feed anyone. People need to be dilligent and persistent. Otherwise guess what...they're clueless.
> 
> And to whomever suggested these meetings may have to comply with the Open Meetings Act, nope. The CWAC does not make "policy" decisions. They don't act on Administrative Rules under the Adminstrative Procedures Act. They don't legislate. As their title says, they are merely "advisory". Legally they could meet in the back room of someone's house, and bar anyone who is not part of the CWAC.
> 
> [/I][/B]


Most local newspapers construct articles immediately regarding township meetings, citizens that reside in the township are allowed to VOTE on policy. You want people to be persistent, here we are, but you're crying about it. We've all emailed our reps and I have email Don as well.

You and Shi need to practice, "Pull head out of **** function" Just because we don't attend the circle jerk with you guys, doesn't mean we can't have proper REPRESENTATION.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Most local newspapers construct articles immediately regarding township meetings, citizens that reside in the township are allowed to VOTE on policy. You want people to be persistent, here we are, but you're crying about it. We've all emailed our reps and I have email Don as well.
> 
> You and Shi need to practice, "Pull head out of **** function" Just because we don't attend the circle jerk with you guys, doesn't mean we can't have proper REPRESENTATION.


see this is a perfect example of how messed up your theory is.

so now CWAC is a circle jerk function. why are you so interested in it then? 

your rep can bring his/your ideas to the table, doesn't mean or guarantee they are popular. you guys scream for a democracy.....when thats exactly what you got...now you want to redraw the lines to benefit YOU. good luck.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> see this is a perfect example of how messed up your theory is.
> 
> so now CWAC is a circle jerk function. why are you so interested in it then?
> 
> your rep can bring his/your ideas to the table, doesn't mean or guarantee they are popular. you guys scream for a democracy.....when thats exactly what you got...now you want to redraw the lines to benefit YOU. good luck.


Sorry, should have stated if you, JD, or anyone else a part of the Shi-Posse is at the function. That better?

All your posts make it clearly evident you don't believe in public notification, so should we assume you too appose CWAC?


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> I could say these same things about the Natural Resources Commission. Unless you keep informed, and watch websites and news articles, you would be clueless about the NRC meetings as well. And these members are not volunteers, but are appointed by the Governor. How many here have ever attended a NRC meeting? I'm betting I'm one of few. People who show up are only those in the know, who keep informed on issues, and badger the DNR and NRC about those things.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say it again...there are a lot of people who like to sit back and take pot shots at groups such as CWAC, but when the time comes to provide constructive input (like at the meetings, or to the DNR directly) they are no where to be found. Plain and simple, this forum is the wrong place to debate this issue because no one here can change the process. Only the DNR can.


JD,

When a township board meeting is going to happen, or a special town hall meeting to review an issue is going to be held, they ADVERTISE in the local newspapers, and on the local news channels on TV, and also in some local Shopper type newspapers, magazines, etc. They say they are having a meeting to discuss X content, please be present to express your opinion. Key word here is, no you are not 100% right in the fact we have to seek out information. Dude... it is the age of the information highway... you yourself crtisized me for not being up to date on CWAC, NRC, and all thats related, you siad to look for it. I did, and it is not found. I can't find the meeting minutes online. I can find some emails to send people messages though. And I do. The point is, the information has to be made available for us to find....


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> wonderful idea. few issues you may incur.
> 
> 1. its hard to do from a keyboard.
> 2. cwac (your play on words SWAC) is volunteer but they don't raise any money. they only send recommendations to DNR.
> 3. if you were smart, you would create your own organization that encounters all 5 states you hunt! that way you can change and meld all the regulations together....make them seamless...yeah..that way could bitch in all 5 at the same time and not get confused on where your bitching.
> 
> you guys really crack me up. before CWAC we had nothing for a voice. no one had a voice....EVER. DNR created CWAC in an effort to bridge the gap...to give someone who wanted to be heard, a voice. Now, that voice isn't good enough for some of you. You want EVERYONE heard with the easiest, lowest common denominator of effort to be included.
> 
> god forbid that someone has to seek out information anymore, the government should knock on my door and hand it off to me personally. no matter what the costs....or how much sense it doesn't make.


You smoking crack now ? 

When was CWAC first formed ? And you are saying that those original concepts, and ways of doing things are fine ? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was formed maybe just before or just after you were born. The DNR tried to bridge the gap, agreed. But don't you think processes need tweaked as times change ? Hell, if we adopt your logic there would not be a Fortune 500 Company left...... small business would collapse, and the U.S. would become some poverished third world country without an economy to speak of. You want to give all that up ? I didn't think so... so please, rethink your logic. 

Oh, and if you are sick and tired of reading all the stuff posted by your so called "guys" STOP FREAKING READING IT AND RESPONDING. Easy fix...


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Sorry, should have stated if you, JD, or anyone else a part of the Shi-Posse is at the function. That better?
> 
> All your posts make it clearly evident you don't believe in public notification, so should we assume you too appose CWAC?


i believe in self responsibility. novel concept. I don't think CWAC should do backflips to make every facet of their meetings delivered to the front door of every hunter in michigan. 

all the information you wish to seek or any hunter wishes to seek...is very available within a few clicks. Heck, barb avers has answered every email i've sent her on a question. That alone says a lot about transparency.....maybe you would feel better if we conjur up thousands of dollars in web development and snail mail letters to make sure everyone within the democracy is not left behind. 

your seeking a different outcome because the present one does not suit your needs.

here's the ****** part. i agree with a lot of what you guys want but i will never get on board with your measures because your complete idiots and wouldn't want to be associated with you guys. insult me all you want, your just alienating your biggest helpers. Its kinda funny watching you weave your way on a forum...some of the best guys for change are here and listening but all your doing is pissing everyone one of them off. keep it up. looks like your winning.


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> JD,
> 
> When a township board meeting is going to happen, or a special town hall meeting to review an issue is going to be held, they ADVERTISE in the local newspapers, and on the local news channels on TV, and also in some local Shopper type newspapers, magazines, etc. They say they are having a meeting to discuss X content, please be present to express your opinion. Key word here is, no you are not 100% right in the fact we have to seek out information. Dude... it is the age of the information highway... you yourself crtisized me for not being up to date on CWAC, NRC, and all thats related, you siad to look for it. I did, and it is not found. I can't find the meeting minutes online. I can find some emails to send people messages though. And I do. The point is, the information has to be made available for us to find....


Sorry...but I live in a very rural township. I.e. farmer's make up our township leadership. Our local shopper gets trashed. The township has no website. The county does not communicate to me. So I don't get a notification. It's basically word of mouth where I live. So I rely on my neighbors, one of whom is a nosy old woman, and knows everyone's shoe size. And that's factual. Do you see the similarities? No one spoon feeds me. If I want to know what's going on in our township, I NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND FIND OUT MYSELF!!!! 

Done with this pointless discussion. Carry on folks


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> here's the ****** part. i agree with a lot of what you guys want but i will never get on board with your measures because your complete idiots and wouldn't want to be associated with you guys. insult me all you want, your just alienating your biggest helpers.


Do you speak for your whole group ?

(The Shi Flats Club ) That's what I thought..... You would **** your pants if we all showed up there.


----------



## Wingmaster22

SBE and bellyup,

i got news for ya, 90% of the waterfowl hunters in Michigan *don't want to be bothered with how the regs are set*. that's why people are so mis-informed because *they don't care! *they just wanna buy their license and get on with it. 

as far as SFCHA goes they're successful because they work at it. they actually go to meetings and do what it takes to accomplish their goals. proactivity is key and let me tell ya, they didn't get where they wanted to go by bangin on their keyboards in a public forum. if you want what your preaching go to meetings, contact your CWAC rep and the DNR and follow through with everything you do. i'm so tired of hearing you two beating that poor dead horse i'm about to puke. 

it seems like your idea of having a good time is brow beating everyone that doesn't have the same agenda as you. the people you constantly complain about are the ones that donate tons of time and sometimes money in the name of waterfowl. please leave it alone, i personally am very tired of it.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i believe in self responsibility. novel concept. I don't think CWAC should do backflips to make every facet of their meetings delivered to the front door of every hunter in michigan.
> 
> all the information you wish to seek or any hunter wishes to seek...is very available within a few clicks. Heck, barb avers has answered every email i've sent her on a question. That alone says a lot about transparency.....maybe you would feel better if we conjur up thousands of dollars in web development and snail mail letters to make sure everyone within the democracy is not left behind.
> 
> your seeking a different outcome because the present one does not suit your needs.
> 
> here's the ****** part. i agree with a lot of what you guys want but i will never get on board with your measures because your complete idiots and wouldn't want to be associated with you guys. insult me all you want, your just alienating your biggest helpers. Its kinda funny watching you weave your way on a forum...some of the best guys for change are here and listening but all your doing is pissing everyone one of them off. keep it up. looks like your winning.


It's funny how you speak, alienated, what don't you get that the SW already feels that way? You have guys on here saying they don't want GMU's dictating what the entire state does. I sent Don my proposal on season dates and still awaiting a reply, I received a reply from 4 CWAC members, not a very good ratio IMO. If the CWAC isn't doing backflips to represent the public, then what's the point in having them? 

News flash Mr. Keyboard Cowboy, most of us already feel alienated, so we give the input and our opinion and as a majority, we hope it's recognized. So in a sense if representatives and Mr. Avers choose not to reply what's the big deal in what we say? You just fear of being over ruled...


JD, you must not be in a real solid farming community, in my parts of MI the shoppers guide sits on every work bench. Real Farmers don't work at the flats, you should get out more...


----------



## Bellyup

Wingmaster22 said:


> SBE and bellyup,
> 
> i got news for ya, 90% of the waterfowl hunters in Michigan *don't want to be bothered with how the regs are set*. that's why people are so mis-informed because *they don't care! *they just wanna buy their license and get on with it.
> 
> as far as SFCHA goes they're successful because they work at it. they actually go to meetings and do what it takes to accomplish their goals. proactivity is key and let me tell ya, they didn't get where they wanted to go by bangin on their keyboards in a public forum. if you want what your preaching go to meetings, contact your CWAC rep and the DNR and follow through with everything you do. i'm so tired of hearing you two beating that poor dead horse i'm about to puke.
> 
> it seems like your idea of having a good time is brow beating everyone that doesn't have the same agenda as you. the people you constantly complain about are the ones that donate tons of time and sometimes money in the name of waterfowl. please leave it alone, i personally am very tired of it.


I do write the reps, and I have attended a meeting. I also contact the DNR, some biologists, etc. I volunteer with some more local projects in helping habitat, and I am about as involved as you are most likely. Can't confirm that 100% though, as I have no idea who you are or what you represent, I am not assuming that is the case as you just did..... careful what you assume, it might make something of you. 

Oh, and guess what, the biolgists are in the same category as I am..... imagine that. I am a little more informed than one might assume. If you do go puke, just make sure you hit the toliet. Might want to lay off the hooch if it is causing you to puke while reading.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> It's funny how you speak, alienated, what don't you get that the SW already feels that way? You have guys on here saying they don't want GMU's dictating what the entire state does. I sent Don my proposal on season dates and still awaiting a reply, I received a reply from 4 CWAC members, not a very good ratio IMO. If the CWAC isn't doing backflips to represent the public, then what's the point in having them?
> 
> News flash Mr. Keyboard Cowboy, most of us already feel alienated, so we give the input and our opinion and as a majority, we hope it's recognized. So in a sense if representatives and Mr. Avers choose not to reply what's the big deal in what we say? You just fear of being over ruled...
> 
> 
> JD, you must not be in a real solid farming community, in my parts of MI the shoppers guide sits on every work bench. Real Farmers don't work at the flats, you should get out more...


this comment is so ignorant. i'm just done with it. your like a cancer here. 

your trying to argue so many different angles, i don't think you even know what your doing.


----------



## SBE II

Wingmaster22 said:


> SBE and bellyup,
> 
> i got news for ya, 90% of the waterfowl hunters in Michigan *don't want to be bothered with how the regs are set*. that's why people are so mis-informed because *they don't care! *they just wanna buy their license and get on with it.
> 
> as far as SFCHA goes they're successful because they work at it. they actually go to meetings and do what it takes to accomplish their goals. proactivity is key and let me tell ya, they didn't get where they wanted to go by bangin on their keyboards in a public forum. if you want what your preaching go to meetings, contact your CWAC rep and the DNR and follow through with everything you do. i'm so tired of hearing you two beating that poor dead horse i'm about to puke.
> 
> it seems like your idea of having a good time is brow beating everyone that doesn't have the same agenda as you. the people you constantly complain about are the ones that donate tons of time and sometimes money in the name of waterfowl. please leave it alone, i personally am very tired of it.


And you know this because you have spoke to 90% of the hunters? Judging by where you live I assume you probably do most of your hunting in Canada? If not, you should. 

It's much easier getting a committee together for a GMU, they all see each other. I also wrote all the reps as indicated in this thread and Mr Avers

But hey thank you for joining in on the east vs west battle, we look forward to your opinion but hopeful for rational in understanding the CWAC in not fully understood, lacks awareness, and whatever else you may feel. Again, its not just us saying, organizations shouldn't be involved in CWAC meetings, please read prior posts.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> this comment is so ignorant. i'm just done with it. your like a cancer here.
> 
> your trying to argue so many different angles, i don't think you even know what your doing.


Or you finally decided to get caught up on your reading...Good Cop out though..

All bark no bite..


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> this comment is so ignorant. i'm just done with it. your like a cancer here.
> 
> your trying to argue so many different angles, i don't think you even know what your doing.


It was a good discussion until you got involved and pumped the donkey do-do. 

I would suggest this thread gets locked before it gets to far out of hand. No need to listen to the donkey do-do that spillith. 

Maybe we can start another more productive thread and they will keep their personal attacks to themselves. Not likely, but one can hope.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

which part of michigan waterfowl hunting does SBE have a problem with.


A) not enough hunting in December.

B) managed areas suck, they should be eliminated from the face of the earth

C) cwac sucks, they aren't fair, we need a democracy!!! 

D) Illinois can hunt in december, why can't we?

E) Eliminate Non-Profit organizations from participating in CWAC

F) public notifications of events and happenings sent to all michigan hunters, hand delivered to their doorsteps (requires signature so we know they got it). This includes minutes for 2 meetings a year. NRC regulation changes as well. and CWAC zoning reps and changes and their required zone coverage with detailed map along with phone numbers and addresses....to be hand delivered....to every hunter.


choose 1.

Ok, now i'm done.


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> Ok, now i'm done.


When pink owls fly in the daytime........


----------



## Big Frank 25

The bottom line is and has been tracked for many years. More license are sold with a earlier opener. This has been told to us many times since my involvement with MDHA Blue Water from the mid 70's. Late season splits reduce access in many parts of the State and causes lack of hunter opportunity. A balanced season is the the best we can ask for Generally, I think we get that! Live with it!

The bottom line remains the same. SALES!


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> which part of michigan waterfowl hunting does SBE have a problem with.
> 
> 
> A) not enough hunting in December.
> 
> _Correct_
> 
> B) managed areas suck, they should be eliminated from the face of the earth
> 
> _Incorrect, they just have too much of a voice that effects SW MI_
> 
> C) cwac sucks, they aren't fair, we need a democracy!!!
> 
> _Need to reinvent the wheel and evaluate current members. Since its existence not much has changed_
> 
> D) Illinois can hunt in december, why can't we?
> _Same as A but I will add more input. Not sure, you tell me? Because the Ducks all migrate in the flats in Oct?_
> 
> E) Eliminate Non-Profit organizations from participating in CWAC
> _Yep..._
> 
> F) public notifications of events and happenings sent to all michigan hunters, hand delivered to their doorsteps (requires signature so we know they got it). This includes minutes for 2 meetings a year. NRC regulation changes as well. and CWAC zoning reps and changes and their required zone coverage with detailed map along with phone numbers and addresses....to be hand delivered....to every hunter.
> 
> _If the CWAC is going to be a public representation then the DNR needs to aid in this. Get up to date, more publications, and broadcasting. Zone reps should also be reaching out to individuals that notified them of their suggestions, manditory, and documented...No reps telling me I lost the emails to the other guys, please tell them. _
> 
> _We got the map you doink, you just don't want to admit that all this time you've been telling me it's stupid to recommend something of the sort, they actually listened to someone..._
> 
> 
> choose 1.
> 
> Ok, now i'm done.


That would be unfortunate because we would never make it to 30 pages...

Answers italicized above


----------



## SBE II

Big Frank 25 said:


> . A balanced season is the the best we can ask for Generally, I think we get that!
> 
> The bottom line remains the same. SALES!


That's all some of us are asking for, we proposed a October 15th start for Zone 3..Good luck right? Yes it's a week day, why? Because it's more days in December.

If it were my way..Wouldn't start until November...But I didn't propose that. I'm happy with early goose is September and swatting mosquitos killing a pile of locals, not sitting on water in Oct watching people fishing in shorts and watching a few locals buzz by that could care less about a call or decoys..


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE,

What shouldn't organizations have a seat on CWAC?


----------



## Bellyup

PhilBernardi said:


> SBE,
> 
> What shouldn't organizations have a seat on CWAC?


Phil,

I am asking a question to you and few others if they know, and I hope a certain 2 do not respond. Do you think an organizational member of CWAC carries more weight sort to speak than a member at large, or a regional rep ? I don't know, and would like to know. It certainly appears that an organizational member has more weight with the NRC and DNR than a region rep, or at least that is the perception I am getting. I see advantages and dis-advantages to haveing a organizational rep.


----------



## Big Frank 25

Early Teal season. Something to Rally for. A whole new ballgame.


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> SBE,
> 
> What shouldn't organizations have a seat on CWAC?


Great question Phil, if you reject one you would have to reject them all. I would probably say those associated with GMU's...But my rational could changed based upon conversation. I see Harsens, Flats, and fish reps. Where's a fenville rep..I'm open to your opinion as I have always valued your input and rational. A lot of large group east side representation associated with GMU.

Also, for factual evidence please see the waterfowl counts for Fennville, one could concur that the date some of us proposed there was a spike in the counts and numbers are highest in December.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Fennville_waterfowl_numbers_sep24_398935_7.pdf


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Phil,

I am asking a question to you and few others if they know, and I hope a certain 2 do not respond. Do you think an organizational member of CWAC carries more weight sort to speak than a member at large, or a regional rep ? Voting wise on CWAC, as you know, they carry 1 vote like any other rep. I don't know, and would like to know. It certainly appears that an organizational member has more weight with the NRC and DNR than a region rep, or at least that is the perception I am getting. Let's take MUCC as an example. Do you think MUCC has more "gravitas", in general, with the DNR than either you or I as a single citizen? They do because they represent many other organizations. It's not a stretch to suggest they have like "gravitas" where waterfowl issues are concerned.I see advantages and dis-advantages to having a organizational rep._ So do I, but I think it more advantageous than not.


----------



## Bellyup

Big Frank 25 said:


> Early Teal season. Something to Rally for. A whole new ballgame.


I see a lot of teal on the opening week or two of duck season in my area. So I am not honestly in favor of an early teal season. I would rather see a crane season and a mute swan season. If it were presented in a certain manner I could be swayed for an early teal season... depends on how the rest of the season dated would fall in the south zone. 

Are you going to get all pissed now becasue I am not 100% on your rally for an early teal season ? Lisence sales will most likely stay flat if an early teal is offered. The same folks who hunt ducks under normal seasons will hunt them during early teal, hence no further sales, and if so, it is not going to be impactfull. So how do you rationalize an early teal season ? (notice I am using the same rational you used on me for later zone 3 dates.)


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Great question Phil, if you reject one you would have to reject them all. I would probably say those associated with GMU's...But my rational could changed based upon conversation. I see Harsens, Flats, and fish reps. Where's a fenville rep..I'm open to your opinion as I have always valued your input and rational. A lot of large group east side representation associated with GMU.

Also, for factual evidence please see the waterfowl counts for Fennville, one could concur that the date some of us proposed there was a spike in the counts and numbers are highest in December.
_

So, it seems like the GMU related reps ought not be on CWAC, right? And this is because....? They are too biased? Don't represent non-GMU waterfowlers (in general)? 

Keep in mind, any logic for removing GMU reps or any association/organization reps would more than likely apply to all DNR citizen-based committees (Parks Advisory Committee, Forest Mgt Advisory Committee, etc). So, whatever you argue is also applicable - in my mind at least - to other citizen advisory committees. I know this isn't your focus of attention, but the logic can be applied to them as well.


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> _Great question Phil, if you reject one you would have to reject them all. I would probably say those associated with GMU's...But my rational could changed based upon conversation. I see Harsens, Flats, and fish reps. Where's a fenville rep..I'm open to your opinion as I have always valued your input and rational. A lot of large group east side representation associated with GMU.
> 
> Also, for factual evidence please see the waterfowl counts for Fennville, one could concur that the date some of us proposed there was a spike in the counts and numbers are highest in December.
> _
> 
> So, it seems like the GMU related reps ought not be on CWAC, right? And this is because....? They are too biased? Don't represent non-GMU waterfowlers (in general)?
> 
> Keep in mind, any logic for removing GMU reps or any association/organization reps would more than likely apply to all DNR citizen-based committees (Parks Advisory Committee, Forest Mgt Advisory Committee, etc). So, whatever you argue is also applicable - in my mind at least - to other citizen advisory committees. I know this isn't your focus of attention, but the logic can be applied to them as well.



Solid statement Phil and positive dialogue. I read your last post as indicated replies, you mentioned the thought of bias representation is adventagous. If we're thinking it is and uncertain how are we sure it's not? Just like our government a house divided cannot stand..

Someone also indicated a teal season, that wouldn't be until 2014, and my understanding, unless I'm wrong the season dates determined this year will be set for the next 3-4?


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> _Phil,
> 
> I am asking a question to you and few others if they know, and I hope a certain 2 do not respond. Do you think an organizational member of CWAC carries more weight sort to speak than a member at large, or a regional rep ? Voting wise on CWAC, as you know, they carry 1 vote like any other rep. I don't know, and would like to know. It certainly appears that an organizational member has more weight with the NRC and DNR than a region rep, or at least that is the perception I am getting. Let's take MUCC as an example. Do you think MUCC has more "gravitas", in general, with the DNR than either you or I as a single citizen? They do because they represent many other organizations. It's not a stretch to suggest they have like "gravitas" where waterfowl issues are concerned.I see advantages and dis-advantages to having a organizational rep._ So do I, but I think it more advantageous than not.


Okay I do have to chime in about representation due to the fact that I'm heavily involved in one of the associations. In theory, an "at large" member representing the general public should have just as much weight as someone representing the flats, fish point or harsens. But in order to do that, they would need to make contact with a large volume of people, and be able to document it, so that at the CWAC meeting they could say "I spoke with XX number of people in my area". If I'm Bud Dankers for example, who represents the SFCHA on CWAC, I can easily say something like "at our last monthly meeting, the SFCHA took a vote on this, and of XX members present, XX were in favor". So again, in theory, association reps should not carry more weight. But because at large reps typically do not get that much input, in practice the association reps may in fact carry more weight when they talk. But don't blame the rep or the association...blame the hunters who fail to contact their reps and get involved.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Okay I do have to chime in about representation due to the fact that I'm heavily involved in one of the associations. In theory, an "at large" member representing the general public should have just as much weight as someone representing the flats, fish point or harsens. But in order to do that, they would need to make contact with a large volume of people, and be able to document it, so that at the CWAC meeting they could say "I spoke with XX number of people in my area". If I'm Bud Dankers for example, who represents the SFCHA on CWAC, I can easily say something like "at our last monthly meeting, the SFCHA took a vote on this, and of XX members present, XX were in favor". So again, in theory, association reps should not carry more weight. But because at large reps typically do not get that much input, in practice the association reps may in fact carry more weight when they talk. B*ut don't blame the rep or the association...blame the hunters who fail to contact their reps and get involved.*



You were all good up until your last sentence...Raise the awareness flag..If the hunters know and don't speak, shame on them, but if they don't know..One dog shows up to fight and the other didn't get the memo..


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> here's the ****** part. i agree with a lot of what you guys want but i will never get on board with your measures because your complete idiots and wouldn't want to be associated with you guys.


And that's it in a nut shell.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> And that's it in a nut shell.


The feeling is mutual...


----------



## Bellyup

PhilBernardi said:


> _Great question Phil, if you reject one you would have to reject them all. I would probably say those associated with GMU's...But my rational could changed based upon conversation. I see Harsens, Flats, and fish reps. Where's a fenville rep..I'm open to your opinion as I have always valued your input and rational. A lot of large group east side representation associated with GMU._
> 
> _Also, for factual evidence please see the waterfowl counts for Fennville, one could concur that the date some of us proposed there was a spike in the counts and numbers are highest in December._
> 
> 
> So, it seems like the GMU related reps ought not be on CWAC, right? And this is because....? They are too biased? Don't represent non-GMU waterfowlers (in general)?
> 
> Keep in mind, any logic for removing GMU reps or any association/organization reps would more than likely apply to all DNR citizen-based committees (Parks Advisory Committee, Forest Mgt Advisory Committee, etc). So, whatever you argue is also applicable - in my mind at least - to other citizen advisory committees. I know this isn't your focus of attention, but the logic can be applied to them as well.


So is the reason the Allegan unit (Fenville Farm unit) does not have representation other than the regular region reps, is beacuse a club such as the Flats club is not formed ? Is it safe to assume if an organization was formed a seat would be granted on the CWAC ? I thought I recalled in past posts over the years, it was very difficult to get an additonal seat on the CWAC board ? Is it safe to assume the other clubs that have a rep and fall under the south zone would rally against an additional seat for the south zone, knowing full well the DNR data collected at the Fenville Farm unit proves a later season date would be when the peak migration occurs in the area ? I ask because this could very easily become reality should it be an option.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> You were all good up until your last sentence...Raise the awareness flag..If the hunters know and don't speak, shame on them, but if they don't know..One dog shows up to fight and the other didn't get the memo..


You appear to have at least 3 reps on the list 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CWAC_Committee_Listforweb1-12_395806_7.pdf 

So trying to turn this into a positive discussion, if I'm one of you SW Michigan guys, I'm getting busy right now trying to figure out a way to communicate with everyone who won't take the time to try to stay informed on their own about the importance of CWAC. Question is how do you spoon feed people in your area about the importance of getting involved? We already said 90% of the hunters don't care. So even though I'm still agreeing with you that the DNR could do a better job communicating, lacking that, how do you guys down that way make sure your counterparts there get involved? My first thought is since there are some active groups in your area (Mac Bay, Lake Effect MDHA, etc.) my first thought would be to use the networks they have in place...to communicate about CWAC, and to urge them to contact their reps. That may help you cover a few hundred people, which is good. But how do you reach the masses? That's the question. Stop whining about the DNR not doing enough. They have the list on their website. And even if they did post minutes and agendas, do you think the masses would look there? Honestly I don't. So come up with a solution yourself.

Until each of those three reps for your area hear from 50-100 people on a regular basis (like an association rep does) the fact is they won't carry as much weight. But again, don't blame the reps or the associations because they have better communication


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> And that's it in a nut shell.


btw, found a picture of you someone posted online?


----------



## Bellyup

Big Frank 25 said:


> You sir are the one throwing "me" around. *"Not for me."* Your reply*#91*
> 
> Thanks for playing!:lol:


I also said I could be swayed given the right situations. Is going duck hunting by yourself considered a me me and only for me scenario as you say ? Of course it is I enjoy a few hunts each year going solo and you are right it is all about me being outdoors connecting to nature. For the teal season you describe I think we can agree that is more the big picture and the entire season type of thing, no ? Given that I would think you would want all duck hunters support in establishing a season. Or is it just about you going teal hunting in September and me staying home so you have more birds to shoot at ?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Dude he's just Hangry...Throw him a twinkie if you have one left to spare..


hostess is back in business....maybe they shoulda sent a notice to your house that you had to sign for it...or should we just find their message board and whine about how they never let you know.

call me a fat ass, call me a twinkie lover....don't care much. I dont whine and cry for 3 years about more days in december, then finally get them and totally flop the hunt so bad i look like a moron while everyone else in the territory limits 4 days straight.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> So you only admit they can do better on the website, not PRINTED material? Thanks for dodging the meeting date question to, since you're so pro-attendance  I find it odd some good folks have resigned from CWAC..Wonder why that is...


ha ha...not dodging anything. Keep working the DNR to put all of that on their website if you want. minutes, meeting dates, agendas, blah, blah, blah. I still maintain a very small minority will see it/use it. Web based information is only a small piece of the communication picture.

As I said before, even if the DNR does do a better job with their website, you still haven't had a constructive comeback for my suggestion about rallying your fellow SW Michigan hunters? If you all in SW Michigan want a better voice at CWAC, then your 3 reps need to hear from their hunters in masses. How would you suggest a good share of them be reached? Are you going to personally call them? or are you going to email them (many probably don't have email addy's). Remember, CWAC is all volunteers...there is no budget for mailings/phone calls, so whatever your reps do is on their dime. And your statement about PRINTED (not sure why you wanted this capitalized) material, are you suggesting the DNR send mailings to all 50k waterfowlers? Or what exactly are you suggesting in the way of PRINTED (note that I'm using your capitalization) materials? The DNR will never have the funding for that. 

You're talking in circles dude. But keep it up...it's almost my bedtime and this thread is better than sucking down a bottle of Nyquil :evilsmile


----------



## KLR

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/august2009/th_suicide.gif


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon

If the sw guys are really serious about trying to change things they need some new advocates. Can't possibly take the time to read through all this crap. I'm out on page 10. I'll watch the train wreck next month when its all brought up again 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky

KLR said:


> http://www.animateit.net/data/media/august2009/th_suicide.gif


trust me...this thought came to mind last night :evilsmile even thought about watching "The Deer Hunter" to ease my mind :yikes:


----------



## just ducky

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> If the sw guys are really serious about trying to change things they need some new advocates. Can't possibly take the time to read through all this crap. I'm out on page 10. I'll watch the train wreck next month when its all brought up again
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Welcome to the world of CWAC B! You will probably be glad you represent the western UP and not some SLP section, because this is a broken record. I don't care how much the DNR does or doesn't try to communicate, the bottom line is the 3 SW lower CWAC reps are the ones who can help these guys in their plight. If those 3 reps do not feel their represented hunters are being heard, then they have the responsibility to fix that. All you have to do is read the pages of responsibilities for CWAC reps that was posted in page 1 of this thread. If they don't want that responsibility, then they should not be on CWAC. Those 3 votes could make a real difference if they come to an agreement on issues, and come to CWAC with a consistent message. No amount of wrangling by us here on this forum can do more than they can.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> Welcome to the world of CWAC B! You will probably be glad you represent the western UP and not some SLP section, because this is a broken record. I don't care how much the DNR does or doesn't try to communicate, the bottom line is the 3 SW lower CWAC reps are the ones who can help these guys in their plight. If those 3 reps do not feel their represented hunters are being heard, then they have the responsibility to fix that. All you have to do is read the pages of responsibilities for CWAC reps that was posted in page 1 of this thread. If they don't want that responsibility, then they should not be on CWAC. Those 3 votes could make a real difference if they come to an agreement on issues, and come to CWAC with a consistent message. No amount of wrangling by us here on this forum can do more than they can.


Dan, you and I see eye to eye on most things, but I am not going to touch this pointless and preposterous thought with a 10 foot pole outside of saying.. Based on what I saw happen/go on the three reps could do exactly what you propose, and NOTHING would change. I have numerous example that I experienced to base my statement from, but am not going to mention them as I know that most would not believe me(hint hint apply that to CWAC reps from other areas in regards to SW reps talking about the things they see in their areas).


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> Based on what I saw happen/go on the three reps could do exactly what you propose, and NOTHING would change.


Does this mean the majority of Zone III reps do not want the change?


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Well if we use JD's example of associations getting 100+ people engaged in the CWAC process where does that leave an individual rep. No doubt GMU's get much more engagement than a SW rep, they're there in front of everyone and it's easy exposure. That rep to get the same exposure would have have to go well out of his way to make different banquets and other events...I agree most organizations have bias representation, hell look at our government.

Personally GMU's would run their own way...It's done in other states..have you asked Don and/or DNR about moving to this type of model?Does that eliminate Bias Phil? No. And it never will - we can only hope for some modicum of enlightened self-interest where one's descriptive or normative thinking is not biased - IMHO.

Phil look at the difference in counts from Shi to FennvilleI would, but the link takes me to some GMU recap of some sort...?...Much much different..Are we ignoring data, because it would seem the dates reflect more of whats going on, on the east compared to the west.No surprise to me. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that 50-60% of waterfowlers live and/or hunt east of US-127, and probably even closer to the east side than that. Maybe someone has a DNR document indicating where MI resident watefowlers live and hunt waterfowl? Maybe it's in one of the survey docs. ?

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Shiawassee2012_409837_7.pdf_


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> _Well if we use JD's example of associations getting 100+ people engaged in the CWAC process where does that leave an individual rep. No doubt GMU's get much more engagement than a SW rep, they're there in front of everyone and it's easy exposure. That rep to get the same exposure would have have to go well out of his way to make different banquets and other events...I agree most organizations have bias representation, hell look at our government.
> 
> Personally GMU's would run their own way...It's done in other states..have you asked Don and/or DNR about moving to this type of model?Does that eliminate Bias Phil? No. And it never will - we can only hope for some modicum of enlightened self-interest where one's descriptive or normative thinking is not biased - IMHO.
> 
> Phil look at the difference in counts from Shi to FennvilleI would, but the link takes me to some GMU recap of some sort...?...Much much different..Are we ignoring data, because it would seem the dates reflect more of whats going on, on the east compared to the west.No surprise to me. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that 50-60% of waterfowlers live and/or hunt east of US-127, and probably even closer to the east side than that. Maybe someone has a DNR document indicating where MI resident watefowlers live and hunt waterfowl? Maybe it's in one of the survey docs. ?
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Shiawassee2012_409837_7.pdf_



Well Phil you're spot on..But unfortunately you see all the outcomes..Since the NRC will be a big player, wouldn't this be considered, "Scientific Data" I'd like to give more input but dumb and dumber keep chiming in..Maybe one day we will run into each other and we can have more of a quality conversation without bias representation. 

Shi, Hostess is still closed bud. You must have a secret twinkie dealer

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+hostess+still+closed?


----------



## goosemanrdk

TSS Caddis said:


> Does this mean the majority of Zone III reps do not want the change?


If only it were that easy. I am sure for "their area" they don't want a change, but this is about compromise.

Compromise fully occurs when you have a person from area A, B, C etc. Then Person A values/believes what person B says goes on in their area(freeze up migration patterns etc) and in turn Person B returns the same favor to Person A. And then this goes on thru all members. 

Well, based on my experience, this is NOT what has happened. Not going to go into any further details other than to say, I am pretty sure there are/or I know for a fact there has been reps from all other areas of the state that think that because it freezes up on the east side on said date, that is also freezes up in SW michigan exactly the same on that said date as well. Despite reps from the SW telling them different.


----------



## TSS Caddis

PhilBernardi said:


> Maybe someone has a DNR document indicating where MI resident watefowlers live and hunt waterfowl? Maybe it's in one of the survey docs. ?


Unclear if it maps where you live or where you hunted for those days. I'm guessing where you live due to how it lays out for SE Michigan.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> Dan, you and I see eye to eye on most things, but I am not going to touch this pointless and preposterous thought with a 10 foot pole outside of saying.. Based on what I saw happen/go on the three reps could do exactly what you propose, and NOTHING would change. I have numerous example that I experienced to base my statement from, but am not going to mention them as I know that most would not believe me(hint hint apply that to CWAC reps from other areas in regards to SW reps talking about the things they see in their areas).


I believe what you say Robert...you lived it. All I'm saying is these couple of guys on this site (and I assume more people) feel they are not being heard. Part of that problem IMO is that there is no organized voice from your area. And please don't take offense to that because you were formerly a rep. What I mean by saying that is like it or not, the associations like SFCHA, Harsens, Fish Point, etc. do speak as a somewhat organized voice, and that carries weight...that's just the fact...don't blame those associations or their reps. The mere fact that Bud can say he has nearly 300 voices behind his opinion does carry weight. You didn't have that ability when you were a rep. Again, no offense intended. So my suggestion was for the 3 SW Michigan reps to band together on their views to CWAC as a whole, so that when they speak, they could say things like "Mac Bay is also behind this" or "Lake Effect supports the proposal" In the meetings I've attended, I don't recall that happening...at least I don't recall it. 

And if the problem is with the 3 reps themselves (and understand I'm not suggesting it is), then pursue getting new reps in place. Impeachment is possible if the right amount of support is behind it.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> If only it were that easy. I am sure for "their area" they don't want a change, but this is about compromise.


Wasn't the late 4 day a compromise?

If the majority of Zone III duck hunters are outside of SW Michigan, shouldn't the compromise be skewed to benefit the majority more than the minority?


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> ...Well, based on my experience, this is NOT what has happened. Not going to go into any further details other than to say, I am pretty sure there are/or I know for a fact there has been reps from all other areas of the state that think that because it freezes up on the east side on said date, that is also freezes up in SW michigan exactly the same on that said date as well. Despite reps from the SW telling them different.


But Rob, I could say the same thing about most any discussion in any group. I've heard the DNR's thoughts on freeze-up patterns several times at the CWAC meetings, and have their map somewhere. So the reps got that same information. Whether they believe the DNR's data is a whole other subject. But I'm not ready to suggest a conspiracy, as Bellywhatever did, among CWAC reps to ignore the data and simply beat down SW Michigan.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Well Phil you're spot on..But unfortunately you see all the outcomes..Since the NRC will be a big player, wouldn't this be considered, "Scientific Data" I'd like to give more input but dumb and dumber keep chiming in..Maybe one day we will run into each other and we can have more of a quality conversation without bias representation.
> 
> Shi, Hostess is still closed bud. You must have a secret twinkie dealer
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+hostess+still+closed?


assuming you're calling me either "dumb" or "dumber". You'll note that I personally am not going back to namecalling, as I said weeks ago I would not. I would appreciate it if you would, at least to me personally, offer the same courtesy.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Unclear if it maps where you live or where you hunted for those days. I'm guessing where you live due to how it lays out for SE Michigan.


yeah that's the map where I recall questioning whether for St. Clair, Macomb, Wayne and Monroe counties it was showing hunters live or hunt there. It seemed to me that the Lake St. Clair contingent (St. Clair and Macomb counties) see an awful lot of hunting pressure, as does Lake Erie. I would speculate as much as Saginaw Bay, but maybe not? So it's a confusing map.


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Well Phil you're spot on..But unfortunately you see all the outcomes..Since the NRC will be a big player, wouldn't this be considered, "Scientific Data" I'd like to give more input but dumb and dumber keep chiming in..Maybe one day we will run into each other and we can have more of a quality conversation without bias representation. _

Sure it is, along with a boatload of other data.


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> I believe what you say Robert...you lived it. All I'm saying is these couple of guys on this site (and I assume more people) feel they are not being heard. Part of that problem IMO is that there is no organized voice from your area. And please don't take offense to that because you were formerly a rep. What I mean by saying that is like it or not, the associations like SFCHA, Harsens, Fish Point, etc. do speak as a somewhat organized voice, and that carries weight...that's just the fact...don't blame those associations or their reps. The mere fact that Bud can say he has nearly 300 voices behind his opinion does carry weight. You didn't have that ability when you were a rep. Again, no offense intended. So my suggestion was for the 3 SW Michigan reps to band together on their views to CWAC as a whole, so that when they speak, they could say things like "Mac Bay is also behind this" or "Lake Effect supports the proposal" In the meetings I've attended, I don't recall that happening...at least I don't recall it.
> 
> And if the problem is with the 3 reps themselves (and understand I'm not suggesting it is), then pursue getting new reps in place. Impeachment is possible if the right amount of support is behind it.


You probably already mentioned it before, the issue is having more reps or at least greater weight/"gravitas" in determining season dates/zones so as to have more hunting days in December (or maybe into January).

And as you may know Dan (you do now), I went in front of NRC last year and asked them to consider more Decembers days for the "SW". 

I agree with you: The SW needs to be better organized, so that probably means another group or two beyond Lake Effect (and whoever else is currently out there). Does doing this guarantee change in their favor? No, but it does increase the odds in their favor.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> My recollection is their vote was like 55% in favor, so a more accurate description may be "fairly evenly divided", but a majority in favor. Certainly not overwhelmingly in favor though.


"I'm wrong" isn't in your vocabulary is it? 55% would be a Majority or was the rep the the detractor that could be the 50 or 55?...Evenly divided would mean like 5 yes and 5 no...but good try.:gaga:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Shi, Hostess is still closed bud. You must have a secret twinkie dealer


http://www.wamc.org/post/twinkies-return-mostly-sweet-news-kansas-town


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> http://www.wamc.org/post/twinkies-return-mostly-sweet-news-kansas-town


Only your beloved twinkies and ho hos

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/29/hostess-bakeries-indiana-illinois/2121559/


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> "I'm wrong" isn't in your vocabulary is it? 55% would be a Majority or was the rep the the detractor that could be the 50 or 55?...Evenly divided would mean like 5 yes and 5 no...but good try.:gaga:


This was not my issue. I can't tell you what the actual numbers were because I wasn't there. I only used it as an example of why it may be important to actually attend a meeting. Geez...take a breath man.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> This was not my issue. I can't tell you what the actual numbers were because I wasn't there. I only used it as an example of why it may be important to actually attend a meeting. Geez...take a breath man.


Well...quit talking in circles...You started with majority, then went to minority, and then fairly evenly divided, whatever the hell that means..So by you saying the actually attending a meeting to ensure the rep was going to do the right thing, how's that proper representation? You picking up what I'm putting down yet JD?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Only your beloved twinkies and ho hos
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/29/hostess-bakeries-indiana-illinois/2121559/


my god you should take your own advice and admit when your wrong, lol. 

you should re-read all your posts on here in one sitting and watch yourself do loops trying to disagree with every word that someone posts on here.

i know what phil and JD will be discussing while they hunt together next year, got a feeling this thread will keep their downtime in the blind a little less boring.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> my god you should take your own advice and admit when your wrong, lol.
> 
> you should re-read all your posts on here in one sitting and watch yourself do loops trying to disagree with every word that someone posts on here.
> 
> i know what phil and JD will be discussing while they hunt together next year, got a feeling this thread will keep their downtime in the blind a little less boring.


Ok I'm half right and you're half wrong visa versa because hostess is half open..

Hey credit goes to Phil he can speak rational, maybe you should join the hunt and get some personality advice.

Pretty sure I have only disagree with you, JD, and some of the CWAC member comments..Phil, Mark, and others I see a lot of validity, SCIENCE, and knowledge in their statements..


----------



## PhilBernardi

These are a great substitute for Twinkies. As far as I'm concerned, they are actually better.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> These are a great substitute for Twinkies. As far as I'm concerned, they are actually better.


little debbie quick to fill that void i see.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Dang it! Now I have a craving for some Cloud Cakes! :lol:


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> These are a great substitute for Twinkies. As far as I'm concerned, they are actually better.


c'mon Phil...call a spade a spade. Whether it's the Little Debbie girl, or the Hostess...um...what was they're mascot again? Anyway, I'm hungry now...gonna go find me a cloud to much on :evilsmile


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> my god you should take your own advice and admit when your wrong, lol.
> 
> you should re-read all your posts on here in one sitting and watch yourself do loops trying to disagree with every word that someone posts on here.
> 
> i know what phil and JD will be discussing while they hunt together next year, got a feeling this thread will keep their downtime in the blind a little less boring.


Kid, Hostess is gone, forever. Per bankruptcy code, which has been recently updated and is available to citiots like you online if you can click a few times here and there, you would know that is was closed down and divested to other companies and investors. The Bankruptcy judge decides what is a fair and reasonable offer to divst certain assets, and brand equities. 

But who the F &$% gives a ho ho about it............ you can still buy your blind snacks once distribution is full swing within the new companies. Do I need to babysit you on this, or can you handle seeking out the information on the internet ? How is your awareness level now ?


----------



## SBE II

Bellyup said:


> Kid, Hostess is gone, forever. Per bankruptcy code, which has been recently updated and is available to citiots like you online if you can click a few times here and there, you would know that is was closed down and divested to other companies and investors. The Bankruptcy judge decides what is a fair and reasonable offer to divst certain assets, and brand equities.
> 
> But who the F &$% gives a ho ho about it............ you can still buy your blind snacks once distribution is full swing within the new companies. Do I need to babysit you on this, or can you handle seeking out the information on the internet ? How is your awareness level now ?


Damn finance guys...:evilsmile


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Dang it! Now I have a craving for some Cloud Cakes! :lol:


kind of reminds me of last week up in remote Ontario, where our cream for our coffee is called "Bailey's", and we were dunking our cookies in it! And we still managed to fish :lol:

Dang...got two things now to stop on the way home for...clouds and Baileys! :evilsmile


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> kind of reminds me of last week up in remote Ontario, where our cream for our coffee is called "Bailey's", and we were dunking our cookies in it! And we still managed to fish :lol:
> 
> Dang...got two things now to stop on the way home for...clouds and Baileys! :evilsmile


Now this is more like it. If there was a like button I would push it ! Twinkie, cloud cake, all cake and cream.... what is not to like. 

Bailey's, God's nectar for coffee. Carolins (the cheaper version) is not bad, but it still does not measure up to Bailey's. Kind of like substituting Kessler for Crown Royal.


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> kind of reminds me of last week up in remote Ontario, where our cream for our coffee is called "Bailey's", and we were dunking our cookies in it! And we still managed to fish :lol:
> 
> Dang...got two things now to stop on the way home for...clouds and Baileys! :evilsmile


Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Inject some Clouds with Bailey's! 

Win Win :lol:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

i am vastly proving my point. 


I could type the sky is blue....and you guys would write an essay trying to prove otherwise.

kudos, you guys leave no stone unturned in your quest of proving anyone wrong. congrats.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Inject some Clouds with Bailey's!
> 
> Win Win :lol:


probably the best idea in this whole thread. i'm sure someone will suggest bailey's will not be 51% majorities choice in that situation and we should poll the board on whats best.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i am vastly proving my point.
> 
> 
> I could type the sky is blue....and you guys would write an essay trying to prove otherwise.
> 
> kudos, you guys leave no stone unturned in your quest of proving anyone wrong. congrats.


Getting Hangry again...


----------



## Bellyup

PhilBernardi said:


> Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Inject some Clouds with Bailey's!
> 
> Win Win :lol:


I think you might be onto something here.......... partially freeze them too..............

Dam Phil you might have the next billion dollar brand !!!! I am thinking I am gonna try this very soon.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> But you know this right because you talk to the majority or the was in the minority or the fairly divided? Can't recall, but hey good to see you're back on the band wagon again...Afternoon remote meeting you boys have fun
> 
> I know what he meant and if you read my reply that's his assumption and it's pretty apparent from the recommendations that were sent to CWAC members that instead of asking why, the push back is there. Heck one of the CWAC guys even said no way I remember back in 1980 we froze out October 1st in Zone 1...HAAH its 2013 and major climate changes are upon us..If you haven't noticed.


Are you seriously going to CONTINUE TO ARGUE that there are more total waterfowl hunters hunting in late November than there are at the openers in October? Really? If you're still holding to that belief, then there really is no help. First thing for you to do is be realistic about that point, and you aren't.


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Most certainly is!
> 
> Lectura a través de este hilo entero es una tortura peor que Phil Bernardi haciéndome perder perfectamente buena munición en pollos de basura blanco y *****!


HEY HEY!!! :smile-mad :lol::lol:


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> HEY HEY!!! :smile-mad :lol::lol:


Just the facts man. Next time I go with you, you're replacing the ammo I waste on those damn things :evilsmile


----------



## just ducky

wavie said:


> We're half way there, gaining momentum.


The little train is picking up speed, heading for that brick wall....:evilsmile


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> They have even asked me, "Does this guy even hunt?" Good question..


must be the same people telling you more people hunt in december than october...i get it now.


----------



## PhilBernardi

just ducky said:


> Just the facts man. Next time I go with you, you're replacing the ammo I waste on those damn things :evilsmile


:lol:

No, next time we hunt your love for them will be unquenching and you'll end up pushing me out of the way to shoot them first.  :lol: :lol:

Love da gooseseseses, JD!


----------



## PhilBernardi

14 pages to go, boys


----------



## just ducky

*We're on a roll!*











*Oh yeah....ding!*


----------



## just ducky

*Huh?*










*Your turn SBE...:evilsmile*


----------



## just ducky

*tick tock! *


----------



## FullBody

TSS Caddis said:


> Do you seriously believe any of that?
> 
> IMO, it comes down to this:
> 
> 1) Are all SW CWAC reps on board for later dates: Sounds like yes. At that point, no need to post threads bitching about CWAC and transparency, etc... Your reps are already representing what you want.
> 
> 2) SW should have more reps: I don't believe so. The other areas of Zone III have more hunters so they should have more representation IMO.
> 
> 3) Is there a majority of Zone III reps that want later dates? Obviously enough Zone III reps do not feel this way. Even if it did pass it may not make it through the NRC since it would cut down on participation.
> 
> 4) How do you get a big enough majority to pass this? Convince more Zone III reps that the whole zone should go later? Move anti late season Zone III areas to Zone II? We've went down this road before. I believe it was stated that the SE Zone III reps also do not want to go later, not to mention the impact of moving Sag Bay to Zone II would have on current Zone II dates.
> 
> 5) Leaves us with the last option of no split and added Zone IV. I doubt any of the reps other than SW reps will want that since it limits flexibility in case of a short season. Even if we had 4 zones, then we would probably hear western UP saying they need their own zone because it is so different than eastern UP.
> 
> 5) So last year we ended up with a compromise of a 4 day split, which IMO could have been earlier and provided more opportunity than it did at the end of the year. Some may argue that 4 days is not enough compromise, I would point out that the majority of hunting days take place in the Sag. Bay watershed, so of course they should get the better end of the deal. Anyone that argues that SW deserves as much consideration as Sag Bay does has never hunted the Sag Bay watershed to see just how many hunters their are.
> 
> 
> Here is what I gleaned from this thread:
> 
> Most of the duck hunters do not know about CWAC: That has nothing to do with the above. The more hunters that know the better, but I'd be mindful that the hunters that do not know about CWAC are probably the hunters who do not want a later season.
> 
> CWAC can publish minutes earlier: Yes they could. that again has nothing to do with the above argument for going later.
> 
> CWAC members could be more engaged on MS: But why when every one of these threads bashes them. They can glean plenty by reading MS and talking to hunters in their area.
> 
> I think most MS members understand the frustration of SW hunters, but due to the current lay of the land, I believe that LoBrass correctly stated before that the best place to apply preasure is the Feds. More zones and retain the split and the problem goes away, at least until the SSW guys feal screwed by the SW guys.


There you have it. Facts are mean. 

It is certainly obvious why SW Michigan waterfowlers on MS have gained the reputation of whiners. It's from threads like these and mouths who post on them. You're not doing any good by crying conspiracy and fighting with the same few guys on the internet. Shut up, stop typing the same garbage over and over, and try a different approach(NOT ON A MESSAGE BOARD).


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> please tell me...what will happen?


I finally have had some time to put thought into this response. First, thank you for your questions. Maybe not the best worded questions with some unnecessary extracurricular slams. However, outside of that, they are still legitimate questions nonetheless and will focus on that.



Shiawassee_Kid said:


> 1. you still won't gain any more time in December. (your main goal). Cannot get it through your thick heads that its not OUR reps on CWAC that keep sinking your late dates. We've (SFCHA) recommended the latest start date for the last 20 seasons. GOD YOU GUYS DRIVE ME NUTS WITH THE CIRCLES AND CIRCLES you do on here.


I'm glad that you have confirmed that your *CWAC rep* has voted in favor of later dates. And yes, it's no secret that you personally have said you would like later season dates as well....multiple times.



Shiawassee_Kid said:


> 2. cwac will lose legitimacy without big hitters like MUCC, MDHA..ect...allthough i see where your going...


As a matter of opinion, I respectfully disagree with this statement. The entire premise of CWAC is to be an advisory board which represents hunter opinion on various topics within CWAC as a whole. Their responsibility is to vote their majority opinion as well. Regardless of what area of this state you are from, or where you stand on certain issues, your voice and opinion is already accounted for within CWAC.....without these organizations.



Shiawassee_Kid said:


> How is 1 guy any different than 1 group of guys? meaning, we drop SFCHA or MDHA, do we not get a rep for our area then? our county? please give me some real solution here....tell me how your solutions fix the problems you proclaim. you won't, just bomb throwing.


I never said anything of the sort. 

I did say: _"that are not *at large or associated with managed waterfowl areas* and then see what happens to these date/regulation debates."_

Managed waterfowl areas and GMU's should absolutely have a voice within CWAC. This goes for SFCHA which represents a *specific* area. Other areas like Fish Point, Harsens, Allegan should have a voice as well. Allegan isn't technically listed as being officially represented, but I'm fairly confident the local CWAC reps do a good job in communication their concerns and opinion.

Where the "water gets muddy" is this idea that outside of regional representation, who I stated already is represented within CWAC, is now also representing the opinion of the majority of their members (which is not necessarily the problem). The term "double dip" comes to mind, and is a term I personally did not start or come up with. However, it rings true. From what has been stated in conversations, and on this site, these organization's vote within CWAC has gone with the east side vote most/if not all of the time. Keep in mind...this area is already represented significantly, as it should due to majority of waterfowl hunters being there. 

Here is the point as to why any of this matters.......

There are currently 20 CWAC members. Of those 20, with the exception of Michigan Waterfowl Association in the UP, 4 of those are Organizational CWAC members not associated with a managed area or already represented by at large CWAC members. Again, keep in mind that these organizations historically vote for East side opinion giving them the "double dip" as previously noted. 

Continuing.....A 75% vote is needed to pass anything, which means of the 20 members it needs 15 votes to pass. Historically, if what you have stated is true regarding your CWAC rep's voting history, he votes in favor of later dates. All three of our SW reps vote in favor of later dates. The Zone 3 NC rep votes in favor of later dates. That's 5 votes for later dates. Later dates fail with all 5 of these reps voting in favor of it, because early dates just got 15 votes. Doesn't matter one bit the opinion of those 5 votes, because of the shear number of "other" votes and the motion passes with 75%.

Now remove those "double dip" votes. Mind you, all hunters involved are already represented with CWAC. Not one single hunter in this state is left without representation at all. Excluding the UP, this now leaves 16 votes within CWAC with only 12 votes needed for 75%. Given the same scenario as above.....now what happens? I'll tell you.....both sides coming to the table better be in the mood for some compromise. Because without it, nothing is getting passed, and no one area of this state marginalizes any other regions opinion.

Just my observation and opinion.....For what it's worth.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> I finally have had some time to put thought into this response. First, thank you for your questions. Maybe not the best worded questions with some unnecessary extracurricular slams. However, outside of that, they are still legitimate questions nonetheless and will focus on that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you have confirmed that your *CWAC rep* has voted in favor of later dates. And yes, it's no secret that you personally have said you would like later season dates as well....multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of opinion, I respectfully disagree with this statement. The entire premise of CWAC is to be an advisory board which represents hunter opinion on various topics within CWAC as a whole. Their responsibility is to vote their majority opinion as well. Regardless of what area of this state you are from, or where you stand on certain issues, your voice and opinion is already accounted for within CWAC.....without these organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything of the sort.
> 
> I did say: _"that are not *at large or associated with managed waterfowl areas* and then see what happens to these date/regulation debates."_
> 
> Managed waterfowl areas and GMU's should absolutely have a voice within CWAC. This goes for SFCHA which represents a *specific* area. Other areas like Fish Point, Harsens, Allegan should have a voice as well. Allegan isn't technically listed as being officially represented, but I'm fairly confident the local CWAC reps do a good job in communication their concerns and opinion.
> 
> Where the "water gets muddy" is this idea that outside of regional representation, who I stated already is represented within CWAC, is now also representing the opinion of the majority of their members (which is not necessarily the problem). The term "double dip" comes to mind, and is a term I personally did not start or come up with. However, it rings true. From what has been stated in conversations, and on this site, these organization's vote within CWAC has gone with the east side vote most/if not all of the time. Keep in mind...this area is already represented significantly, as it should due to majority of waterfowl hunters being there.
> 
> Here is the point as to why any of this matters.......
> 
> There are currently 20 CWAC members. Of those 20, with the exception of Michigan Waterfowl Association in the UP, 4 of those are Organizational CWAC members not associated with a managed area or already represented by at large CWAC members. Again, keep in mind that these organizations historically vote for East side opinion giving them the "double dip" as previously noted.
> 
> Continuing.....A 75% vote is needed to pass anything, which means of the 20 members it needs 15 votes to pass. Historically, if what you have stated is true regarding your CWAC rep's voting history, he votes in favor of later dates. All three of our SW reps vote in favor of later dates. The Zone 3 NC rep votes in favor of later dates. That's 5 votes for later dates. Later dates fail with all 5 of these reps voting in favor of it, because early dates just got 15 votes. Doesn't matter one bit the opinion of those 5 votes, because of the shear number of "other" votes and the motion passes with 75%.
> 
> Now remove those "double dip" votes. Mind you, all hunters involved are already represented with CWAC. Not one single hunter in this state is left without representation at all. Excluding the UP, this now leaves 16 votes within CWAC with only 12 votes needed for 75%. Given the same scenario as above.....now what happens? I'll tell you.....both sides coming to the table better be in the mood for some compromise. Because without it, nothing is getting passed, and no one area of this state marginalizes any other regions opinion.
> 
> Just my observation and opinion.....For what it's worth.


i will go on record saying I think the 75% rule is too steep. wish it was more like 65%. This has been discussed by us off the record many times. Even to get small elementary changes accomplished is tough because of it.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i will go on record saying I think the 75% rule is too steep. wish it was more like 65%. This has been discussed by us off the record many times. Even to get small elementary changes accomplished is tough because of it.


Within standard/default RRoO, to change a constitution, 2/3 majority is needed; whereas less important policy, etc, only simple majority is needed. 

It would be interesting to see where CWAC 3/4 majority came from; not that CWAC can't have that (they do), but it isn't in keeping with default RRoO.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> Within standard/default RRoO, to change a constitution, 2/3 majority is needed; whereas less important policy, etc, only simple majority is needed.
> 
> It would be interesting to see where CWAC 3/4 majority came from; not that CWAC can't have that (they do), but it isn't in keeping with default RRoO.


yeah i think me and jd privately bitch about it every year while hanging at the waterfowl show

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky

I will also go on record as saying I think the 75% "super majority" is messed up. I've been on lots of boards, committees, commissions, etc. in my day job, and all follow Roberts Rules, and I've never seen one of them that has required a 75% "super majority" on votes. 

I too would be curious to know where that came from and what the rationale was. Since I happen to be good friends with the first chair of CWAC, I'm going to ask him that very question. I'll see what I can find out.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i will go on record saying I think the 75% rule is too steep. wish it was more like 65%. This has been discussed by us off the record many times. Even to get small elementary changes accomplished is tough because of it.


That's fine.....But, given my scenario above, less than the 75% rule would make it even worse...not better. Personally, I don't have a problem with the 75%. For me, all things being equal, the problem is the "double dip". Regardless, it's just an opinion and a problem I don't see changing anytime soon.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> That's fine.....But, given my scenario above, less than the 75% rule would make it even worse...not better. Personally, I don't have a problem with the 75%. For me, all things being equal, the problem is the "double dip". Regardless, it's just an opinion and a problem I don't see changing anytime soon.


but it does. there has been many proposals for dates/seasons that came down to 1 vote hangups. those dates were late starts. they were basically stalled because 1 member from the bay could not be swayed to make it a 15 member majority.

your looking at it as glass half empty...verse glass half full sorta. long before you guys (SW) contingent complained on here there was many a battles for zone dates. that 75% has been a pain in everyones side for a long time. And yes lowering that would benefit you because now if your SW reps came to cwac with a solid proposal/comprimise, it would most definitely be easier to pass. 

i've seen Bud (our rep) have to compromise on an opener simply because we would never had reached a decision and the meeting woulda went for days. It was most definitely not what we recommended but we knew getting a later date was gonna be a tough go at it...and accepted the result.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

and last years 4 day compromise came from the 75% issue. many proposals were voted on before I think Scott came up with the 4 day idea which everyone jumped on board for.

like i said, the 4 day might not come around again this year. it will all come down to how badly people complain or compliment how it went down. I know that extra 2 days we lost cost us a weekend hunt. A lot of our guys were not happy about it. Our rep could very possibly be asked to vote against the 4 day. (no idea, just using as example). that 75% needed to secure the 4day could all of suddenly sink it.


----------



## goosemanrdk

field-n-feathers said:


> That's fine.....But, given my scenario above, less than the 75% rule would make it even worse...not better. Personally, I don't have a problem with the 75%. For me, all things being equal, the problem is the "double dip". Regardless, it's just an opinion and a problem I don't see changing anytime soon.


Not necassarily, had the "rest of world standards" for passing a vote been in place the zone lines would have been changed in the very first vote the very first time that they were discussed.

Could it be that the "75%" super-majority was put inplace to keep CWAC from "overridding" the DNR and selecting something that wasn't previously propossed by the DNR waterfowl workgroup and keep the decisions to minor changes vs some sort of major change that comes fro the hunters themselves.
Ironic, seeing as CWAC was created because the DNR was doing things with the season that the hunters did not want. Yet each year, all CWAC does is, for the most part, is vote to select some proposal from the DNR workgroup with if anything a minor change hear and there. 
Yes, i know that once CWAC voted something and the DNR did different. Ironic that the DNR would do that given the fact of why CWAC was created. Heard there was quite the "blow up" over that happening as well. Which again all of this created more irony in the fact that Russ Mason talks that they "value" CWAC and like commitees, and plan to utlize them even more in the future. They even go on to comment that they(DNR) work for us(citizen), but certain things are not even mentioned/tried for "fear" that the DNR will do something different.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Bellyup said:


> Considering how many times I am out hunting on the opening weekends, and following weekends, how does the DNR know which trucks and trailers are for hunting and which ones are for fishing ? I see a lot more fishing boats at the boat launches than I do hunters. It would not be hard to imagine those counts are skewed somewhat given this fact.
> 
> One question, does the DNR base facts off of public land and not private land ? I know around me it is pretty much all private land, so it would be wise to count hunters on private land in SW. Even I tend to hunt a private spot on opening day as it is less crowded and you don't have to put up with the opening weekend warriors. Even the public land I hunt if the birds are there for the opener is not as crowded as some boat ramps. I do put in on private land and travel onto public waters though. A lot of people do this.
> 
> Someone help me understand how participation facts are based on boat ramp counts and parking lot counts ? I would tend to think this is not a very accurate method.


I have no idea. However, I'm fairly certain the formula they use doesn't include the multiple guys hunting private land corn fields close to and around any river system in December/January. Not saying that's bad....Just saying that it is virtually impossible to ascertain given our currently available resources.


----------



## SBE II

field-n-feathers said:


> I have no idea. However, I'm fairly certain the formula they use doesn't include the multiple guys hunting private land corn fields close to and around any river system in December/January. Not saying that's bad....Just saying that it is virtually impossible to ascertain given our currently available resources.


CWAC awareness could possibly help the DNR obtain this data? But what do I know..I also think that most hardcore waterfowlers aren't hunting public areas in MI, if you live in SW MI going to hunt public land is rarely discussed, as most of us know how the birds act at the Todd Farm


----------



## field-n-feathers

SBE II said:


> CWAC awareness could possibly help the DNR obtain this data? But what do I know..I also think that most hardcore waterfowlers aren't hunting public areas in MI, if you live in SW MI going to hunt public land is rarely discussed, as most of us know how the birds act at the Todd Farm


I think we need to be careful and not attribute *public* hunting with *managed area* hunting. I would not be surprised in the least if the majority of waterfowling is indeed done on "public" (read not managed), even here in the SW. 

Goose hunting?....That's another story, for sure. As evidenced by the shear number of field hunters present in any given area.


----------



## SBE II

field-n-feathers said:


> I think we need to be careful and not attribute *public* hunting with *managed area* hunting. I would not be surprised in the least if the majority of waterfowling is indeed done on "public" (read not managed), even here in the SW.
> 
> Goose hunting?....That's another story, for sure. As evidenced by the shear number of field hunters present in any given area.


I would agree, if we're pointing out factual scientific data, and doing proper research we need to associate with these terms. I associate public to managed because general public gains accessibility through permits or state land. I consider what I do private land because I gained permission through land owners and the general public is not welcome..

Waterfowl hunting in SW MI I believe would gain more participation if it would proceed to more days in December. The guys that deer hunt are typically done unless they're serious bow hunters or want to take advantage of muzzleloader. I'm not sure if there's ever been data to support this, but anytime you split both duck and goose that limit participation as well. Most guys in SW Mi are field hunters, they want the opportunity to hunt both.


----------



## just ducky

field-n-feathers said:


> I think we need to be careful and not attribute *public* hunting with *managed area* hunting. I would not be surprised in the least if the majority of waterfowling is indeed done on "public" (read not managed), even here in the SW....


 Managed areas make up a very small percentage of "public" hunting areas. I don't know if they still do it, but the DNR used to do an annual waterfowl season report for the entire state, and it included hunter surveys at selected sites such as the major access of spots on Saginaw Bay & Lake St. Clair in the southern, or Houghton Lake, Reedsburg Dam, Martiny or Kawkawlin Creek in the northern, and Munuscong Bay and several similar in the UP. Belly, with all due respect, I don't know how they would do this on public lands. For instance, I've upland and deer hunt a large piece of private property in Montcalm County for nearly 40 years, and at various times during the fall, there are 1-4 vehicles parked there. At any given time we could be hunting turkey, grouse and woodcock, pheasant, deer, etc. We also do a bit of duck hunting along the creek for early wood ducks. But if a DNR staff person drove by and counted vehicles, how would they know what we were doing there? Yes, this could also be said at public areas as you pointed out. But at least at a place like Munuscong, or even many of the Saginaw Bay launches, in mid-October there's a very good chance the people are hunting. I would suspect they have some kind of formula for guestimating the amount of hunting going on based on number of vehicles counted. JMO.


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> Managed areas make up a very small percentage of "public" hunting areas. I don't know if they still do it, but the DNR used to do an annual waterfowl season report for the entire state, and it included hunter surveys at selected sites such as the major access of spots on Saginaw Bay & Lake St. Clair in the southern, or Houghton Lake, Reedsburg Dam, Martiny or Kawkawlin Creek in the northern, and Munuscong Bay and several similar in the UP. Belly, with all due respect, I don't know how they would do this on public lands. For instance, I've upland and deer hunt a large piece of private property in Montcalm County for nearly 40 years, and at various times during the fall, there are 1-4 vehicles parked there. At any given time we could be hunting turkey, grouse and woodcock, pheasant, deer, etc. We also do a bit of duck hunting along the creek for early wood ducks. But if a DNR staff person drove by and counted vehicles, how would they know what we were doing there? Yes, this could also be said at public areas as you pointed out. But at least at a place like Munuscong, or even many of the Saginaw Bay launches, in mid-October there's a very good chance the people are hunting. I would suspect they have some kind of formula for guestimating the amount of hunting going on based on number of vehicles counted. JMO.


Dan,

I understand what you are saying (and thanks for keeping it cival this time). Here is a point of mine you are making. My experience on MS and with the CWAC seems to always point towards presenting scientific data, credilbe, reliable, unbiased research based data from qualified people. But What I keep seeing on MS is people countering my points and others, with statements like yours above. "Guesstimating" "I would suspect" "Some kind of formula" I am not calling this a conspiracy theory, never have, that came from you I believe. No big deal as I don't believe in that sort of thing. So now, you understand why I find it difficult at best to use your responses and some others as credible, and reliable. So I chose to ignore those remarks to some extent, and only respond when someone took the thread personal, or truly called someone out and tried to discredit them for having a difference of opinion. One thing is for certain, there is no such thing as a healthy debate for both sides of a opinion on MS.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

I think the DNR went broke reading this thread. Do we really need more data gathering so that we can gather that there is less hunters in sw michigan than in the bay regions.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I think the DNR went broke reading this thread. Do we really need more data gathering so that we can gather that there is less hunters in sw michigan than in the bay regions.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Did they? Because I just received an email from the DNR with a survey for Spring Turkey..hmmmmm

I think the data collective would be more conducive to outcomes and recognition for future discussion. You can't ever have too much data...It's whether or not you choose to utilize or discard information...


----------



## goosemanrdk

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I think the DNR went broke reading this thread. posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Na, they should be alright for right now with all of the guns and ammo that are flying of the shelves of stores. Pittman-Roberston money whould be flowing well for the DNR.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

goosemanrdk said:


> Na, they should be alright for right now with all of the guns and ammo that are flying of the shelves of stores. Pittman-Roberston money whould be flowing well for the DNR.


now if they could only spend it on surveys, belly and SBE would be all set.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> now if they could only spend it on surveys, belly and SBE would be all set.


Sure and CWAC awareness...


----------



## goosemanrdk

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> now if they could only spend it on surveys, belly and SBE would be all set.


Kid, I take it you just gone done eating some snacks seeing as there was no ache or idiot added to the end of Belly and Sbe's names.:lol:

Fyi, this comment is intended with complete and absolute humor and joking. No personal attacks are intened so the comment should be treated as such.:lol:


----------



## SBE II

goosemanrdk said:


> Kid, I take it you just gone done eating some snacks seeing as there was no ache or idiot added to the end of Belly and Sbe's names.:lol:
> 
> Fyi, this comment is intended with complete and absolute humor and joking. No personal attacks are intened so the comment should be treated as such.:lol:


Yep he's not hangry as of yet and doesn't seem to have a case of the Monday's..:lol:

But it concerns me because then I don't know if this will make it to 30 pages...We have a goal here


----------



## goosemanrdk

SBE II said:


> Yep he's not hangry as of yet and doesn't seem to have a case of the Monday's..:lol:
> 
> But it concerns me because then I don't know if this will make it to 30 pages...We have a goal here


Weekend Snickers Supply must have been good.:lol:

Just trying to help the cause of 30pages, Oh and boost my post count as well.:evil:


----------



## SBE II

goosemanrdk said:


> Weekend Snickers Supply must have been good.:lol:
> 
> Just trying to help the cause of 30pages, Oh and boost my post count as well.:evil:


Careful you will get roped in with Belly and I, then lose all credibility


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Did they? Because I just received an email from the DNR with a survey for Spring Turkey..hmmmmm
> 
> I think the data collective would be more conducive to outcomes and recognition for future discussion. You can't ever have too much data...It's whether or not you choose to utilize or discard information...


really easy to do a follow-up survey when they require an application up-front. They know who all the turkey hunters are because of that process. So then is the answer that all of us waterfowlers apply for a permit so they know who each and every one of us is?


----------



## just ducky

And before someone says "they know who we all are because they have our license numbers when we buy licenses",......not. The licensing system isn't set up that way. Could it be? Sure. But do the taxpayers have a few million sitting around that they would like to donate to the DNR to revise our licensing system? I'm sure EDS, or whomever the current vendor is, would be happy to take our money.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> really easy to do a follow-up survey when they require an application up-front. They know who all the turkey hunters are because of that process. So then is the answer that all of us waterfowlers apply for a permit so they know who each and every one of us is?


I got a turkey license, but did not do any sort of application up front. Bought it over the counter for the 234 hunt well after the "application" period had been past.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> I got a turkey license, but did not do any sort of application up front. Bought it over the counter for the 234 hunt well after the "application" period had been past.


Did you get a survey Robert? Like SBE said, I got one emailed to me the other day. Could be that anyone who buys their license on-line gets a survey, which is how I applied for my turkey permit? I really don't know.


----------



## just ducky

For those who wondered about the 75% "super majority" issue with CWAC, I contacted the original chair of CWAC, Chuck Nelson, who is a personal friend, and this is what he offered....

_*Dan - The 75% was strongly supported by folks from the UP and NLP as they felt that folks from S MI often dictated to them and didn't respect their opinions and they were often outnumbered by them. This also really challenged us to work together as unlike Congress we knew we WERE going to have a waterfowl season, all wanted one and had to do some compromising to meet different people's interests. It worked well every time when I was chair 1981-83 and after when I served. Also, it put the DNR on notice that the waterfowling community was united and if they chose to disregard CWAC's recommendations, it was at their own peril. I am happy to explain this to anyone else who may be interested and feel free to share with whoever. 

Dr. Chuck Nelson*_

Interesting. Back in the early days, apparently those in the minority actually liked the idea of a 75% vote to approve something because it kept the rest of CWAC from approving things against their will. Now it seems you all don't like the 75% vote because it's too hard for you to get something approved.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> Did you get a survey Robert? Like SBE said, I got one emailed to me the other day. Could be that anyone who buys their license on-line gets a survey, which is how I applied for my turkey permit? I really don't know.


yes I got a survey. no I did not buy it on-line. A few years ago, I was doing my bear applications on-line, since then I get surveys(deer, turkey etc) e-mailed to me.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> Also, it put the DNR on notice that the waterfowling community was united and if they chose to disregard CWAC's recommendations, it was at their own peril. .
> .


Sound's like they may have been willing to try and challange the DNR a little more back then too.


----------



## TSS Caddis

just ducky said:


> And before someone says "they know who we all are because they have our license numbers when we buy licenses",......not. The licensing system isn't set up that way. Could it be? Sure. But do the taxpayers have a few million sitting around that they would like to donate to the DNR to revise our licensing system? I'm sure EDS, or whomever the current vendor is, would be happy to take our money.


I'd say they do know who the waterfowlers are for 2 reasons.

1) If you lose your license you can reprint it at a later date.
2) They send out state waterfowl surveys.


----------



## goosemanrdk

TSS Caddis said:


> I'd say they do know who the waterfowlers are for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1) If you lose your license you can reprint it at a later date.
> 2) They send out state waterfowl surveys.


Add to that that we have to buy the State waterfowl stamp/license as well.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> really easy to do a follow-up survey when they require an application up-front. They know who all the turkey hunters are because of that process. So then is the answer that all of us waterfowlers apply for a permit so they know who each and every one of us is?


An application isn't required, I buy over the counter every year..Kind of like saying real easy to do a follow up survey because the get all of your personal information when you buy a license. 

Nice try JD


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> I'd say they do know who the waterfowlers are for 2 reasons.
> 
> 1) If you lose your license you can reprint it at a later date.
> 2) *They send out state waterfowl surveys*.


Too bad they don't send the surveys too everyone...And the sampling they did wasn't even close to serving the entire state demographic..


----------



## TSS Caddis

SBE II said:


> Too bad they don't send the surveys too everyone...


I've received 2 in 30 years.



SBE II said:


> And the sampling they did wasn't even close to serving the entire state demographic..


Can you back that statement up? Having seen the work of MDNR statisticians with the mgmt of cold water fisheries, I have the utmost confidence in them.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> I've received 2 in 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you back that statement up? Having seen the work of MDNR statisticians with the mgmt of cold water fisheries, I have the utmost confidence in them.


It was previously discussed..I would say I have received 1 in my 18 years of hunting. If I did receive as a youth my dad would have forced me to fill it out but I don't have any recollection. As we have discussed numerous times the differentiation in opinion throughout various locations of this state, sampling won't work, for this type of argument I would not manage by a sample report. I would encompass as much of the waterfowl hunting population as I could. One thing that's not pointed out is location...Just age Strata and the fact they filled out a HIP survey..

Following the 2010 hunting seasons, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was sent to 5,984 randomly selected people that were eligible to hunt waterfowl in Michigan. The people selected were grouped into one of two strata on the basis of their age, licenses purchased, and whether they had registered with the HIP. The first stratum consisted of people at least 16 years old that had purchased a waterfowl hunting license. The second stratum consisted of people 10-15 years old during September 1, 2010, and January 30, 2011, that had registered with the HIP by January 30, 2011. The overall sample consisted of 4,860 people from the first stratum (N=56,576), and 1,124 people from the second stratum (N=12,669).


----------



## TSS Caddis

SBE II said:


> It was previously discussed..I would say I have received 1 in my 18 years of hunting. If I did receive as a youth my dad would have forced me to fill it out but I don't have any recollection. As we have discussed numerous times the differentiation in opinion throughout various locations of this state, sampling won't work, for this type of argument I would not manage by a sample report. I would encompass as much of the waterfowl hunting population as I could. One thing that's not pointed out is location...Just age Strata and the fact they filled out a HIP survey..
> 
> Following the 2010 hunting seasons, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was sent to 5,984 randomly selected people that were eligible to hunt waterfowl in Michigan. The people selected were grouped into one of two strata on the basis of their age, licenses purchased, and whether they had registered with the HIP. The first stratum consisted of people at least 16 years old that had purchased a waterfowl hunting license. The second stratum consisted of people 10-15 years old during September 1, 2010, and January 30, 2011, that had registered with the HIP by January 30, 2011. The overall sample consisted of 4,860 people from the first stratum (N=56,576), and 1,124 people from the second stratum (N=12,669).


"In 2010, about 47,788 people hunted waterfowl in Michigan"

47,788 water fowl hunters in 2010
To achieve:
Confidence level of 95% 
Confidence interval of +/- 4% 
*Sample Size of approx: 593*

Of course it all depends on what you are trying to find out also. But if the question is a yes or no to would you like later season dates, were you happy with your season, etc... you statistically only need 600 or so surveys.

Even for 99% confidence level and +/-2% interval you are only talking 3,800 or so surveys and the data you put forth was basically 6k surveys.

I'm sure we have some statistics guys who could better answer if 6k surveys is enough or too few, but since it is very close to the number of surveys they sent out I'd be confident to say that the DNR knows what they are doing.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> An application isn't required, I buy over the counter every year..Kind of like saying real easy to do a follow up survey because the get all of your personal information when you buy a license.
> 
> Nice try JD


"try"? What was I trying? All I was doing was giving my thought on the process. I even said at one point that I really didn't know.

I don't work for them (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night :evilsmile), so once again, you need to go to the source and ask the DNR directly I guess.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> It was previously discussed..I would say I have received 1 in my 18 years of hunting.....


AHHHHHHH. Now I understand why you and I don't communicate well. 18 years of hunting? :yikes: As my ex-boss used to tell me when I was a cub, "I have socks older than you!" You're apparently one of those Millennials (Google it) who know everything about everything, and have been coddled from birth. Got it now


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> AHHHHHHH. Now I understand why you and I don't communicate well. 18 years of hunting? :yikes: As my ex-boss used to tell me when I was a cub, "I have socks older than you!" You're apparently one of those Millennials (Google it) who know everything about everything, and have been coddled from birth. Got it now


Nice try...Don't loop me into that category. I will be 32 this year, so my apologies it will be my 20th year in the pulling trigger and I have been in the blind with my dad since the age of 5, and JD no offense but and not to stand on Soap box but I get out of Michigan annually and hunt a variety of states. So to think of generation to generation my dad agrees with everything I have indicated about seasons. A person that in his 50 years of hunting knew nothing about CWAC.

Dont make this a generation gap, that would be like you saying, introducing a youth hunter is pointless. Well it seems in the last survey the DNR didn't have your mentality.

I like how you try to redirect the thread from your inability to read and admit you weren't aware that you DON'T have to apply for turkey hunting permits and you felt thats the only way the DNR obtains their information. But in my above reply to TSS it's apparent they used the HIP survey, so please JD tell me how they don't get EVERY waterfowlers information?

Side note that would make me generation Y, the information age, so maybe that's why I have so many suggestions to awareness and surveys.

Again, nice try.


----------



## goosemanrdk

TSS Caddis said:


> "In 2010, about 47,788 people hunted waterfowl in Michigan"
> 
> 47,788 water fowl hunters in 2010
> To achieve:
> Confidence level of 95%
> Confidence interval of +/- 4%
> *Sample Size of approx: 593*
> 
> Of course it all depends on what you are trying to find out also. But if the question is a yes or no to would you like later season dates, were you happy with your season, etc... you statistically only need 600 or so surveys.
> 
> Even for 99% confidence level and +/-2% interval you are only talking 3,800 or so surveys and the data you put forth was basically 6k surveys.
> 
> I'm sure we have some statistics guys who could better answer if 6k surveys is enough or too few, but since it is very close to the number of surveys they sent out I'd be confident to say that the DNR knows what they are doing.


SBE, 
Working in a profession that many times relies on information from studies and sample sizes, gonna have to side with Caddis on this one.

However, rather that trying to argue, I will provide some information to help you in the right direction with some things. So, Rather than argue about the sample size, who was surveyed etc, you really ought to look at getting the information that is out there to be USED MORE APPROPTIATELY by those that make the decisions.

Case in Point(2 examples):
1- Most(not going to say all as I am sure I have missed a few) surveys for zone 3 have asked weather the person surveyed wanted a-First Sat Oct, b-Second Sat Oct, c-Third Sat Oct, D- 4th Sat Oct, E- Other. Well, most of those surveys have selects a, b and c with the highest vote, and for the most part those three selections are very close in percentage. So, take this past season, you have the 1st, second and third Saturdays relatively close in popularity and we all like to mention "Compromise", why then was the 1st Saturday even a thought for being the opener. Seems to me based on the survey that the second Saturday should be selected as it is the "compromise" of the survey information. No Brainer, really.

2-The last CWAC meeting I attened, a DNR employee(will remain nameless) said something to me about the zone three openers and them being "the earliest possible in October, wait and see the slide that will get put up." He was alluding, based on past discussions between him and I that they had predominately been the 1st Saturday of October. Well, when said slide came up and the previous 10years dates were shown and then allocated to a coresponding weekend(1st Saturday or 2nd Saturday), guess what? 7 of the 10 listed cooresponded to being the SECOND SATURDAY, not the 1st as he alluded too. He didn't have much to say when I privately pointed that out to him as we were sitting side by side.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> "In 2010, about 47,788 people hunted waterfowl in Michigan"
> 
> 47,788 water fowl hunters in 2010
> To achieve:
> Confidence level of 95%
> Confidence interval of +/- 4%
> *Sample Size of approx: 593*
> 
> Of course it all depends on what you are trying to find out also. But if the question is a yes or no to would you like later season dates, were you happy with your season, etc... you statistically only need 600 or so surveys.
> 
> Even for 99% confidence level and +/-2% interval you are only talking 3,800 or so surveys and the data you put forth was basically 6k surveys.
> 
> I'm sure we have some statistics guys who could better answer if 6k surveys is enough or too few, but since it is very close to the number of surveys they sent out I'd be confident to say that the DNR knows what they are doing.



Okay, let me propose this to you, it's apparent or at least seems this way, that there's more waterfowlers on the east side of the state and theres a difference in opinion and statistical data regarding bird numbers. So how do we determine the data is not skewed by location? TSS I pick up on what you're putting down but with such a variation in area and participation I believe the numbers are skewed.

If you select a specific demographic you're controlling the survey, which means, "you hope" When sampling the most common error that occurs is selection bias..So while the numbers are relative in data terms it's not relative to what the actual population is thinking. Sorry a little of my marketing background is coming out.


----------



## SBE II

goosemanrdk said:


> SBE,
> 
> 
> Case in Point(2 examples):
> 1- Most(not going to say all as I am sure I have missed a few) surveys for zone 3 have asked weather the person surveyed wanted a-First Sat Oct, b-Second Sat Oct, c-Third Sat Oct, D- 4th Sat Oct, E- Other. Well, most of those surveys have selects a, b and c with the highest vote, and for the most part those three selections are very close in percentage. So, take this past season, you have the 1st, second and third Saturdays relatively close in popularity and we all like to mention "Compromise", why then was the 1st Saturday even a thought for being the opener. Seems to me based on the survey that the second Saturday should be selected as it is the "compromise" of the survey information. No Brainer, really.
> 
> 2-The last CWAC meeting I attened, a DNR employee(will remain nameless) said something to me about the zone three openers and them being "the earliest possible in October, wait and see the slide that will get put up." He was alluding, based on past discussions between him and I that they had predominately been the 1st Saturday of October. Well, when said slide came up and the previous 10years dates were shown and then allocated to a coresponding weekend(1st Saturday or 2nd Saturday), guess what? 7 of the 10 listed cooresponded to being the SECOND SATURDAY, not the 1st as he alluded too. He didn't have much to say when I privately pointed that out to him as we were sitting side by side.



Did anyone get your back when you did this Robert? Or does this revert to your previous statement of fighting back when regarding the DNR.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> 1- Most(not going to say all as I am sure I have missed a few) surveys for zone 3 have asked weather the person surveyed wanted a-First Sat Oct, b-Second Sat Oct, c-Third Sat Oct, D- 4th Sat Oct, E- Other. Well, most of those surveys have selects a, b and c with the highest vote, and for the most part those three selections are very close in percentage. So, take this past season, you have the 1st, second and third Saturdays relatively close in popularity and we all like to mention "Compromise", why then was the 1st Saturday even a thought for being the opener. Seems to me based on the survey that the second Saturday should be selected as it is the "compromise" of the survey information. No Brainer, really.


For the 2011 season I believe they went with Oct 8th as a Zone III opener.

Survey preference distribution from the 2010 survey: 

Sept 24 22%
Oct 1 18%
Oct 8 24%
Oct 15 16%

So 40% wanted earlier than Oct 8, 40% wanted Oct 8 or later. They opened on Oct 8.

Seems like a compromise in 2011. Does anyone have the results from the 2012 season survey?


----------



## goosemanrdk

SBE II said:


> Did anyone get your back when you did this Robert? Or does this revert to your previous statement of fighting back when regarding the DNR.


Wasn't anything to "get my back with" so to speak. I wasn't involved with CWAC and season decisions this past year, and the other "issue" was more of private side decusions between me and the DNR person. But, that side discussion did raise my awareness of how "perception" can sometimes get in the way of facts.


----------



## SBE II

goosemanrdk said:


> Wasn't anything to "get my back with" so to speak. I wasn't involved with CWAC and season decisions this past year, and the other "issue" was more of private side decusions between me and the DNR person. But, that side discussion did raise my awareness of how "perception" can sometimes get in the way of facts.


Didn't know if the "call out" was public and the galley or other reps at the time chimed in...


----------



## TSS Caddis

Zone III season date preferences. Going with the assumption(right or wrong) that if a voted for date was not available surveyed would go for earlier over later, looks like the vast majority would prefer to open prior to the 3rd week of the season. The dip in 3rd Saturday votes may support that, who knows.

Interestingly the survey asks what county you hunted, but that data was not included in the report


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> Zone III season date preferences. Going with the assumption(right or wrong) that if a voted for date was not available surveyed would go for earlier over later, looks like the vast majority would prefer to open prior to the 3rd week of the season. The dip in 3rd Saturday votes may support that, who knows.
> 
> Interestingly the survey asks what county you hunted, but that data was not included in the report


And the majority of SLP which i believe is white indicated the 2nd weekend. Mind you, I don't recall receiving the survey..Hence my conclusion of controlled data..


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Okay, let me propose this to you, it's apparent or at least seems this way, that there's more waterfowlers on the east side of the state and theres a difference in opinion and statistical data regarding bird numbers. So how do we determine the data is not skewed by location? Via random sample TSS I pick up on what you're putting down but with such a variation in area and participation I believe the numbers are skewed.Not sure why you'd believe that given it is random; unless you want 100% certainty in which case the whole population needs to be asked, and you and I know that's not gonna happen.

If you select a specific demographic you're controlling the survey, which means, "you hope" When sampling the most common error that occurs is selection bias..So while the numbers are relative in data terms it's not relative to what the actual population is thinking. Sorry a little of my marketing background is coming out._I disagree. Regarding the 2010 DNR waterfowl harvest survey, the randomness of the sample was sufficient for scientific survey purposes that were identified in the report. If you look at the 2010 report result on the question of when the opening Saturday ought to be for the South Zone, there was no plurality for any one of them. 

Sure, ask the "SW" under a location stratification what Saturday they want and its a reasonable assumption that more than, I'll go out on a limb and say, 60% want the 3rd Saturday in October. So what? All that might tell me is that "SW" Michigan waterfowlers want a later date than possibly 60% of the "Middle South Zone" waterfowlers, and so on (i.e., what the operation definition of "location" for determining your stratification)....and taken as a whole, we'd end up with what the survey noted: no plurality on a specific Saturday.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> ...Side note that would make me generation Y, the information age, so maybe that's why I have so many suggestions to awareness and surveys....


Gen Y's = Millennials...i.e. you are one. The research is out there...as I said just Google it. And like it or not (because you are one) it does explain a lot.


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE II said:


> And the majority of SLP which i believe is white indicated the 2nd weekend. Mind you, I don't recall receiving the survey..Hence my conclusion of controlled data..


"Controlled data"?  

Do you mean why one stratification scheme over a different one?


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Gen Y's = Millennials...i.e. you are one. The research is out there...as I said just Google it. And like it or not (because you are one) it does explain a lot.


It's a sub category of Y and hate to tell Mr. I'm never wrong, I witnessed the recession just as much as any middle class generation X in 2008..Should I explain my job loss, short selling of a house, and my return to gaining a higher education in hopes to achieve a better life? And have..So please tell me Mr. know it all, what is it that you know that I don't, and what makes you a better hunter than I? Because it's been twice now I have called you out on written rules regarding Michigan hunting you were unaware of, that of coyotes and now realizing not everyone needs to apply for a turkey permit. 

Displaying tendencies in a Millenial doesn't define me as that. The only definition one could agree with is seeking out more information...Maybe we have to many Generation X's on the CWAC and DNR and inhibits their ability to think open minded...Hence the reason you sir are never wrong..

Is this an example of Generation X ignoring Generation Y and their input? Look it up, it's a problem in the work place...


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> "Controlled data"?
> 
> Do you mean why one stratification scheme over a different one?


Correct and they utilized defined age ranges and those that filled out a HIP survey...It's fine that if you want to coincide with the data, I realize I too don't have a choice, but I do realize the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again to try and achieve different results.

So to prove me wrong, why can't we survey the entire population or attempt to?


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> It's a sub category of Y and hate to tell Mr. I'm never wrong, I witnessed the recession just as much as any middle class generation X in 2008..Should I explain my job loss, short selling of a house, and my return to gaining a higher education in hopes to achieve a better life? never said you haven't experienced the recession? But regardless, how does that make you any more or less a Millennial?
> 
> And have..So please tell me Mr. know it all, what is it that you know that I don't, and what makes you a better hunter than I? and when in god's name did I ever say I was a better hunter than you? I'd be the last one to say that about anyone. Age has absolutely nothing to do with how good of a hunter you are. Because it's been twice now I have called you out on written rules regarding Michigan hunting you were unaware of, that of coyotes and now realizing not everyone needs to apply for a turkey permit.
> 
> Displaying tendencies in a Millenial doesn't define me as that. The only definition one could agree with is seeking out more information...Maybe we have to many Generation X's on the CWAC and DNR and inhibits their ability to think open minded...Hence the reason you sir are never wrong.. being a Millennial simply means you exhibit the traits and tendancies of them. The major one being an inherent sense of entitlement, such as the fact you feel the government owes you something simply because you purchase a license, or hunt in this state. In each of us, our attitudes are in many ways a reflection of our age and upbringing. So in that sense, generations do have everything to do with the discussions we're having. That's what I mean when I say it explains a lot.
> 
> Is this an example of Generation X ignoring Generation Y and their input? Look it up, it's a problem in the work place...


 Don't have to look it up. It's a fact. I see it every day in my professional life. Just sit through a state legislative hearing, and watch how the 30 something legislator interacts with the 50 or 60 something legislator. But it doesn't mean the generations can't work very well together provided everyone has an open mind, and is willing to work at it


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE II said:


> Correct and they utilized defined age ranges and those that filled out a HIP survey...It's fine that if you want to coincide with the data, I realize I too don't have a choice, but I do realize the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again to try and achieve different results.
> 
> So to prove me wrong, why can't we survey the entire population or attempt to?


So, the reasons why were never discussed in your classes that related to marketing surveying? The whys/fors/how/whos/etc?

Why don't you take five 3-week vacations a year? Probably 'cause you don't have the money, or maybe don't have the time, or maybe it isn't a priority, etc. Same general logic and conditions hold true for any organization that is public/non-profit/for-profit.

What's the triad for projects? Cost, schedule and scope? Then factor in priorities (legislative mandates, varied stakeholders, etc)....

In theory, the DNR could question each and every MI waterfowler, but in practice reality holds sway (see my above comments).


----------



## Bellyup

Wouldn't it be easier to just get a fourth zone than all this other stuff ! 

Phil, no offense man, but you make it sound impossible to change anything within the structure in those posts. I am not a stats person, took a few courses on it, but it was not my main interest. 

Based on your posts (Phil) it seems clear to me that a 4th zone is what we should be seriously promoting and demanding from the NRC. 

Kid and JD, please don't go on about the ability to lose dates if they shorten the season, etc. If they have to shorten the season we shouldn't be hunting prinme time anyway, in my opinion, let the birds be. 

But with a fourth zone the real issue I see is drawing the boundries, and even then it is not guarenteed what date will be handed the 4th zone for an opener. It has been proven before (recently) that two zones can and do open on the same weekend if they so choose to do so. That would pretty much kill the entire premise of a 4th zone. And it is a real possiblity in my opinion. Give a concession and allow a 4th zone, but in the end open it the same dates as 3rd zone.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

i'm enjoying Phil's posts. I'm waiting for his quantum physics side to kick in.


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> So, the reasons why were never discussed in your classes that related to marketing surveying? The whys/fors/how/whos/etc?
> 
> Why don't you take five 3-week vacations a year? Probably 'cause you don't have the money, or maybe don't have the time, or maybe it isn't a priority, etc. Same general logic and conditions hold true for any organization that is public/non-profit/for-profit.
> 
> What's the triad for projects? Cost, schedule and scope? Then factor in priorities (legislative mandates, varied stakeholders, etc)....
> 
> In theory, the DNR could question each and every MI waterfowler, but in practice reality holds sway (see my above comments).


Phil,

I hope to continue positive interaction with you. Regarding the three week vacation I actually have 23 days of vacation, I do use most of that for hunting. 10 days this already this year dedicated to chasing white devils. I hope to get drawn for SD, will often take a day or two if it gets hot in IL or MI, then will probably treck to IA and MO this year. I will probably go to SK to assist guiding, very unclear though right now. Money is not a concern.

But if I'm going to take a majority of my time, I want to ensure I'm setting myself up for the best possible outcomes. You will rarely see me take time to do this in the state of MI.

So you would like me to basically do SWOT analysis of the DNR and CWAC? Always relative talk in my courses related to the open ended questions you ask and how can you control the survey to have the BEST possible outcome but when you create guidelines on a sample survey it's hard to know if you have eliminated bias.

If you want me to define me, it's somewhat to reinvent the wheel of what I see as an outsider, I don't see much that has changed since the existence of CWAC. I also don't see the DNR actively seeking the best input possible regarding waterfowl and creating awareness to the general public. I think we have an age old process that needs to be reevaluated and we need to ask ourselves if we're looking in the right areas..

I hope to see more surveys from the DNR to allow the general public to give their input. I also noticed an email that the state has offered to provide suggestions regarding the turkey surveys. To me they're trying to gain more information pertaining to the general public on their process. General public for waterfowl has to first know what CWAC is to hope they're heard..


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just get a fourth zone than all this other stuff !
> 
> Phil, no offense man, but you make it sound impossible to change anything within the structure in those posts. I am not a stats person, took a few courses on it, but it was not my main interest.
> 
> Based on your posts (Phil) it seems clear to me that a 4th zone is what we should be seriously promoting and demanding from the NRC.
> 
> Kid and JD, please don't go on about the ability to lose dates if they shorten the season, etc. If they have to shorten the season we shouldn't be hunting prinme time anyway, in my opinion, let the birds be.
> 
> But with a fourth zone the real issue I see is drawing the boundries, and even then it is not guarenteed what date will be handed the 4th zone for an opener. It has been proven before (recently) that two zones can and do open on the same weekend if they so choose to do so. That would pretty much kill the entire premise of a 4th zone. And it is a real possiblity in my opinion. Give a concession and allow a 4th zone, but in the end open it the same dates as 3rd zone.


IMO discussion about a 4th zone will just turn into a rehash of all that we've talked about in the past, including the various maps that were flying around. If you really want that, then please start a new thread with that as the title so that I can purposely avoid it.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Don't have to look it up. It's a fact. I see it every day in my professional life. Just sit through a state legislative hearing, and watch how the 30 something legislator interacts with the 50 or 60 something legislator. But it doesn't mean the generations can't work very well together provided everyone has an open mind, and is willing to work at it


If I felt the government owed me something why did I not ask for any government aid regarding the short selling of my house? All I ever received was unemployment, which correct me if I'm wrong, we all pay into that benefit. I ate the money..Didn't ask for a dime and a month after I was laid off I was in school..

The only thing I wish the government to be is not crooked, but I pay taxes, and work just like you do..So how are we different? Because I accept input from all generations, and don't ignore the fact that I could be wrong about things? All I have ever provided is suggestions and speculation on how to make things better, you just try to throw a wrench in positive conversation...

You sir are very narrow minded..Hence maybe when you enjoy sitting in on legislation..Dare we say you're Obama like? Please revert back to your egotistical comments about me regarding what you feel I am. It's pretty evident you're narrow minded..


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i'm enjoying Phil's posts. I'm waiting for his quantum physics side to kick in.


If I threw you a twinkie would you go away?


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> If I felt the government owed me something why did I not ask for any government aid regarding the short selling of my house? All I ever received was unemployment, which correct me if I'm wrong, we all pay into that benefit. I ate the money..Didn't ask for a dime and a month after I was laid off I was in school..
> 
> The only thing I wish the government to be is not crooked, but I pay taxes, and work just like you do..So how are we different? Because I accept input from all generations, and don't ignore the fact that I could be wrong about things? All I have ever provided is suggestions and speculation on how to make things better, you just try to throw a wrench in positive conversation...
> 
> You sir are very narrow minded..Hence maybe when you enjoy sitting in on legislation..Dare we say you're Obama like? Please revert back to your egotistical comments about me regarding what you feel I am. It's pretty evident you're narrow minded..


Keep writing...you're proving my point very eloquently


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Keep writing...you're proving my point very eloquently


Quality rebuttal on your assumptions of who you think I am..

Thanks for proving my point in numerous threads on never admitting when you're wrong..

But thanks for being close minded..News flash I'm not the only one that's noticed, and it's just not on this forum...:sad:


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Quality rebuttal on your assumptions of who you think I am..
> 
> Thanks for proving my point in numerous threads on never admitting when you're wrong..
> 
> But thanks for being close minded..News flash I'm not the only one that's noticed, and it's just not on this forum...:sad:


I look forward to meeting you at the next CWAC meeting in August so we can go over these issues in finer detail.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> I look forward to meeting you at the next CWAC meeting in August so we can go over these issues in finer detail.


Are you so ignorant that in the past pages I indicated I have to work that Saturday, if I have sent out my suggestions to my REPRESENTATIVE and all CWAC member what's the point? Are you implying that the CWAC isn't doing their job and we need to babysit? If you're trying to imply something else or have a subliminal comment to make please feel free to voice it..

BTW I'm up to about 5 replies from CWAC members..2-3 of which provided feedback.


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> I look forward to meeting you at the next CWAC meeting in August so we can go over these issues in finer detail.


Are you calling him out ? You two might want to meet up in person somewhere else other than the August CWAC meeting first.


----------



## Bellyup

SBE II said:


> Are you so ignorant that in the past pages I indicated I have to work that Saturday, if I have sent out my suggestions to my REPRESENTATIVE and all CWAC member what's the point? Are you implying that the CWAC isn't doing their job and we need to babysit? If you're trying to imply something else or have a subliminal comment to make please feel free to voice it..
> 
> BTW I'm up to about 5 replies from CWAC members..2-3 of which provided feedback.


Well at least you got 5, this time I have only received one. And it was not positive to even entertaining the thought os support. (no i won't name names. That is below the belt)


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> Are you calling him out ? You two might want to meet up in person somewhere else other than the August CWAC meeting first.


Seriously? You think I'm picking a fight?  Good lord!


----------



## SBE II

Bellyup said:


> Well at least you got 5, this time I have only received one. And it was not positive to even entertaining the thought os support. (no i won't name names. That is below the belt)


Yep, I've exercised foot in mouth on the names as well. Shocking to say the least.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Are you so ignorant that in the past pages I indicated I have to work that Saturday, if I have sent out my suggestions to my REPRESENTATIVE and all CWAC member what's the point? Are you implying that the CWAC isn't doing their job and we need to babysit? If you're trying to imply something else or have a subliminal comment to make please feel free to voice it..
> 
> BTW I'm up to about 5 replies from CWAC members..2-3 of which provided feedback.


sorry but I haven't committed your posts to memory. Honestly, I was hoping some of you would come and attend, like many of us do. It's not about "babysitting". The DNR does provide valuable information, and you actually can learn something at the meetings. And we do often have a chance to address the group when they ask for public comment.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> sorry but I haven't committed your posts to memory. Honestly, I was hoping some of you would come and attend, like many of us do. It's not about "babysitting". The DNR does provide valuable information, and you actually can learn something at the meetings. And we do often have a chance to address the group when they ask for public comment.


Sorry JD, but to be quite honest until some of the processes change, and some of the people are reviewed I find it counterproductive and not cost effective. I will just continue to do what I am suppose to do as a non CWAC member..


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> ...BTW I'm up to about 5 replies from CWAC members..2-3 of which provided feedback.


Without knowing what your communication was to them (nor do I want to know), I'm assuming it was something relating to west/southwest Michigan hunting opportunities. so are you expecting responses from all 20? Reviewing the list, I only see 4 or maybe 5 that would represent that area. Certainly I would expect the chair to respond, but not someone from the UP...Brandon for example. I'm just sayin....

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CWAC_Committee_Listforweb1-12_395806_7.pdf


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Without knowing what your communication was to them (nor do I want to know), I'm assuming it was something relating to west/southwest Michigan hunting opportunities. so are you expecting responses from all 20? Reviewing the list, I only see 4 or maybe 5 that would represent that area. Certainly I would expect the chair to respond, but not someone from the UP...Brandon for example. I'm just sayin....
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CWAC_Committee_Listforweb1-12_395806_7.pdf


Actually my email suggested start dates for all Zones because we know its all concurrent and start a week a part..Typically..

Isn't that part of proper representation, this email was sent my numerous individuals..

Hint JD my communication was a defined email agreed to by a group of people. So it's not just my suggestion


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> Without knowing what your communication was to them (nor do I want to know), I'm assuming it was something relating to west/southwest Michigan hunting opportunities. so are you expecting responses from all 20? Reviewing the list, I only see 4 or maybe 5 that would represent that area. Certainly I would expect the chair to respond, but not someone from the UP...Brandon for example. I'm just sayin....
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CWAC_Committee_Listforweb1-12_395806_7.pdf


What in the hell do you want us to do ? We follow the guidelines, we go by the process you point out, we do everything you preach about. We step up to the plate when asked, we contact the DNR, we talk to our reps, I have been to a meeting a while ago, and to be honest it isn't working. If everyone followed your advice there would not be a need for CWAC in the first place. Because we would all be at the DNR meetings in the so called peanut gallery tossing out the season dates. So Dan, be careful what advice you give. You tell me that it appears we are out to destroy the CWAC and the DNR, which is not true. The advice you are giving us is to do EXACTLY that. You wonder why we have not followed it...... We are following the guidlines as they are laid out by the govt regs. 

The problem is not the process, the problem is the process not being adhered to by all.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Actually my email suggested start dates for all Zones because we know its all concurrent and start a week a part..Typically..
> 
> Isn't that part of proper representation, this email was sent my numerous individuals..
> 
> Hint JD my communication was a defined email agreed to by a group of people. So it's not just my suggestion


okay so let's assume August comes around and you've still only heard from a handful. Wouldn't you be curious to ask the others why they hadn't responded? That in itself would be one reason to attend. Or perhaps one of them would have a question about what was written. If you aren't there to answer, then ???? I know...I know...you can't make it. 

Too many people are quick assume that the CWAC members have ulterior motives, and that they don't do what they're supposed to do. That's also a reason to attend the meetings, to talk with some of them personally, and get to know where they're coming from.


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> ...You tell me that it appears we are out to destroy the CWAC and the DNR, which is not true....


don't recall saying that myself. I have said that the DNR, and to some extent CWAC members, take a lot of unwarranted abuse. Maybe someone else did, but I don't recall saying you were out to "destroy" anything.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Now we are rolling!!!!!!:yikes:


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> okay so let's assume August comes around and you've still only heard from a handful. Wouldn't you be curious to ask the others why they hadn't responded? That in itself would be one reason to attend. Or perhaps one of them would have a question about what was written. If you aren't there to answer, then ???? I know...I know...you can't make it.
> 
> Too many people are quick assume that the CWAC members have ulterior motives, and that they don't do what they're supposed to do. That's also a reason to attend the meetings, to talk with some of them personally, and get to know where they're coming from.


Again, your ignorance stands in the way of the term obvious. If I follow the process thats in place that's suppose to work why should I have attend? If the right people are in place, shouldn't it be expected? See JD you're talking as if the system is broke, but yet you don't see i that way.

Look up the term oxymoron, this could very well define what Belly and I have been trying to indicate to you for sometime now.


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> okay so let's assume August comes around and you've still only heard from a handful. Wouldn't you be curious to ask the others why they hadn't responded? That in itself would be one reason to attend. Or perhaps one of them would have a question about what was written. If you aren't there to answer, then ???? I know...I know...you can't make it.
> 
> Too many people are quick assume that the CWAC members have ulterior motives, and that they don't do what they're supposed to do. That's also a reason to attend the meetings, to talk with some of them personally, and get to know where they're coming from.


It seems to me you are quick to defend the people of the DNR and CWAC, why is that ? Do they need defending ? Did they do something wrong that you feel this great need to come to their aid on the MS ? You are a huge advocate of them, and that is great. Now let us handle the task. We are very capable of of presenting an idea, emailing the CWAC, the DNR the NRC, all of which you have suggested in the past. We are certainly capable of attending a CWAC meeting. Just becasue SBE indicates he has a prior obligation does not mean others that agree with an idea have a different obligation.... Maybe there will be representation there in August, you are quick to assume that this is only SBE and Bellyache. You yourself have said there are untold numbers that never see the internet that hunt waterfowl, that don't email, etc. So obviously you can go google what you are looking for.... and find data published. And as you have said, it is that data we need to collect. 

So who is the we ? Should it be me ? Should it be a CWAC Rep form the area ? Should it be the DNR ? Should it be the NRC ? Should it be DU ? Should it be Delta Waterfowl ? Should it be MDHA ? Who is credible enough to be heard and taken seriously at a meeting ? 

On closing your rants, I don't always drink Kool Aid, but when I do, it is D&D brand..........


----------



## goosemanrdk

Who is the bigger Minority?

The Western UP/UP hunter or the SW Mich hunter?

Why do I ask, it is my understanding that at last falls meeting the plan/everyone was on the page of having zone 3 open the second weekend in Oct. Except that the UP season was set first(second to last weekend in Sept) and then it snowballed from there into cosecutive weekends of Opener and zone 3 got the First weekend of October for the opener.


----------



## Bellyup

goosemanrdk said:


> Who is the bigger Minority?
> 
> The Western UP/UP hunter or the SW Mich hunter?
> 
> Why do I ask, it is my understanding that at last falls meeting the plan/everyone was on the page of having zone 3 open the second weekend in Oct. Except that the UP season was set first(second to last weekend in Sept) and then it snowballed from there into cosecutive weekends of Opener and zone 3 got the First weekend of October for the opener.


There you go, keep the fuel coming. Or is it bait ? That was not anyones fault, that was the proceses fault.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Bellyup said:


> Are you calling him out ? You two might want to meet up in person somewhere else other than the August CWAC meeting first.


Obviously, he's going to meet with SBE to arbitrate the terms of the duck killing contest you guys proposed for this fall.

You and SBE's individual kill totals vs Kid's and mine. Kid doesn't hunt, so it'll just have to fall all on my shoulders I guess.


----------



## SBE II

goosemanrdk said:


> Who is the bigger Minority?
> 
> The Western UP/UP hunter or the SW Mich hunter?
> 
> Why do I ask, it is my understanding that at last falls meeting the plan/everyone was on the page of having zone 3 open the second weekend in Oct. Except that the UP season was set first(second to last weekend in Sept) and then it snowballed from there into cosecutive weekends of Opener and zone 3 got the First weekend of October for the opener.


Thats what I tried saying before but damnit..It means nothing unless you're at that meeting!


----------



## Bellyup

TSS Caddis said:


> Obviously, he's going to meet with SBE to arbitrate the terms of the duck killing contest you guys proposed for this fall.
> 
> You and SBE's individual kill totals vs Kid's and mine.


You would win hands down. I hunt the tough ducks that we have to call in and convince birds via a good spread. You just haul ashes 20 miles out to sea and put your dekes in a straight line and pick on those poor dumb birds. :evil: (this is intended as a joke please don't take it personal)

In all seriousness, I am not willing to enter a killing contest. You would kick my **** without any problem in sheer number of ducks killed. I don't have the resources available you do. Not meaning cash. You obvisouly have a lot more knowledge and ability to move to where th ebirds are. I don't have that as much. So I try to maximize the resource when it is at its best here.


----------



## TSS Caddis

SBE II said:


> Thats what I tried saying before but damnit..It means nothing unless you're at that meeting!


I'd agree that the push for consecutive openers and letting the UP go first can cause a problem. Have we had a space between zone openers in the past? I don't recall.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> Obviously, he's going to meet with SBE to arbitrate the terms of the duck killing contest you guys proposed for this fall.
> 
> You and SBE's individual kill totals vs Kid's and mine. Kid doesn't hunt, so it'll just have to fall all on my shoulders I guess.


Sorry Warbucks...No dog in this fight unless I'm allowed my other states totals, our season dates don't allow to get after that good push of course you're talking to primarily a puddle duck hunter, have all the divers you want brother...


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> I'd agree that the push for consecutive openers and letting the UP go first can cause a problem. Have we had a space between zone openers in the past? I don't recall.


Good to see we can agree on something..


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> Who is the bigger Minority?
> 
> The Western UP/UP hunter or the SW Mich hunter?
> 
> Why do I ask, it is my understanding that at last falls meeting the plan/everyone was on the page of having zone 3 open the second weekend in Oct. Except that the UP season was set first(second to last weekend in Sept) and then it snowballed from there into cosecutive weekends of Opener and zone 3 got the First weekend of October for the opener.


I can't address the second part of your question because I honestly don't recall.

But regarding who the bigger minority is, the UP reps have the advantage (I guess?) of having less CWAC reps in their area, AND less CWAC reps who care about when they're season dates are. So I suppose they have an easier time (I guess?) getting what they want. But that's JMO. You sat on CWAC Robert...you've undoubtedly heard some CWAC members say "we don't give a rip when the UP dates are, let's get to the real issue...the SLP" Lots of folks are asleep during the annual August meeting during the UP discussion. just my view. You can probably speak better to it since you were one of the reps.


----------



## TNL

What is this thread about anyway? It was supposed to be an update of CWAC info - which, BTW, thank you to the OP.

It morphed into a couple of guys whining about the SW within 3 or 4 posts. You assume all SW hunters want later dates which just isn't true. There are Michigan birds in Louisiana before we can ever load our guns. Sure would be nice to get a crack at them.

Yep, the lull can suck, but you might have to work harder chasing them around the state because birds aren't on your private land. Yep, it's easier shooting field birds when there is little or no food sources around. And yep, the split is literally like shooting ducks in a barrel if your fortunate enough to be in the right spot. 

May God help you if we have to go back to a 30 day season with a point system. Shoot a Can and you're done for the day. Many of you X,Y,Z ers weren't even born then. My guess is you'd bail on the sport all-together.


----------



## wavie

goosemanrdk said:


> Now we are rolling!!!!!!:yikes:


Crap, I took the under on 30.


----------



## SBE II

TNL said:


> What is this thread about anyway? It was supposed to be an update of CWAC info - which, BTW, thank you to the OP.
> 
> It morphed into a couple of guys whining about the SW within 3 or 4 posts. You assume all SW hunters want later dates which just isn't true. There are Michigan birds in Louisiana before we can ever load our guns. Sure would be nice to get a crack at them.
> 
> Yep, the lull can suck, but you might have to work harder chasing them around the state because birds aren't on your private land. Yep, it's easier shooting field birds when there is little or no food sources around. And yep, the split is literally like shooting ducks in a barrel if your fortunate enough to be in the right spot.
> 
> May God help you if we have to go back to a 30 day season with a point system. Shoot a Can and you're done for the day. Many of you X,Y,Z ers weren't even born then. My guess is you'd bail on the sport all-together.



Nope I wouldn't...but thanks for point out of the managed/public areas, it would seem that in the SW there's one, and it's a skybusters haven..So yes most of what we concur is due to private but then again you might have missed the duck counts of the flats vs the todd farm during peak times? It's easy to get lost in this thread I know..

Yep this thread is about CWAC, DNR, and the whole nine..We can start another once this hits 30 pages, we thank you for being a part of the goal. I would like point out there's no lull, its a peak and thats it...when referring to puddle ducks... A split doesn't have to go away just because you start later..:idea:


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Thats what I tried saying before but damnit..It means nothing unless you're at that meeting!


never said it "means nothing". I said it helps if you're there to defend your position if necessary. It also helps to talk to other CWAC reps to get a feeling about where your proposal may be lacking, so that you may be able to broker a deal.

Do you have to attend? Nope. But no one should be fooled here...CWAC is no different than any other state meeting, or your local township board. There are politics involved. And "working the crowd" can help your cause. I'll drag back up the Shiawassee SWD proposal from almost 4 years ago now. Was there "lobbying" of people that took place? You're darn right there was. Does this mean the system is "broken"? Draw your own conclusions. But from where I sit, it's no different than me attending my local township board meeting. Lobbying does take place....just a fact folks.


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Obviously, he's going to meet with SBE to arbitrate the terms of the duck killing contest you guys proposed for this fall....


Yeah that's it...arbitrate :evilsmile


----------



## goosemanrdk

wavie said:


> Crap, I took the under on 30.


With as long as it had been since one of these threads had gone on, what were you thinking?:lol:


----------



## just ducky

wavie said:


> Crap, I took the under on 30.


It's all about total post counts man :evilsmile My goal when I die is to be the all-time leader. Poor ol' Smoke doesn't stand a chance :lol:


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> It's all about total post counts man :evilsmile My goal when I die is to be the all-time leader. Poor ol' Smoke doesn't stand a chance :lol:


Maybe when I get to 2,000 posts I will upload the SWAC logo as my avi...:gaga:


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> It's all about total post counts man :evilsmile My goal when I die is to be the all-time leader. Poor ol' Smoke doesn't stand a chance :lol:


For you, In the words of Charlie Sheen "WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!":lol:


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Maybe when I get to 2,000 posts I will upload the SWAC logo as my avi...:gaga:


you're climbing rapdily brother


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> For you, In the words of Charlie Sheen "WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!":lol:


Or as Smoke would say...Ding! :evilsmile


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> never said it "means nothing". I said it helps if you're there to defend your position if necessary. It also helps to talk to other CWAC reps to get a feeling about where your proposal may be lacking, so that you may be able to broker a deal.
> 
> Do you have to attend? Nope. But no one should be fooled here...CWAC is no different than any other state meeting, or your local township board. There are politics involved. And "working the crowd" can help your cause. I'll drag back up the Shiawassee SWD proposal from almost 4 years ago now. Was there "lobbying" of people that took place? You're darn right there was. Does this mean the system is "broken"? Draw your own conclusions. But from where I sit, it's no different than me attending my local township board meeting. Lobbying does take place....just a fact folks.


JD, I think he posted he sent a letter to all of them... why are you telling him to do that now ? We followed the process and your advice already.... you second guessing your own advice now ? Lobbying... well it is being lobbied right here... and in other places too. Stop and LISTEN, we ARE following your advice..............


----------



## SBE II

Bellyup said:


> JD, I think he posted he sent a letter to all of them... why are you telling him to do that now ? We followed the process and your advice already.... you second guessing your own advice now ? Lobbying... well it is being lobbied right here... and in other places too. Stop and LISTEN, we ARE following your advice..............


All but showing up to the meeting...SO essentially what he hounds us for he's indicating, go to the meeting so I represent me, me, and you guessed it, me...

He needs to just read his last 10 posts then it wouldn't have taken this far for him to realize it..


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> JD, I think he posted he sent a letter to all of them... why are you telling him to do that now ? We followed the process and your advice already.... you second guessing your own advice now ? Lobbying... well it is being lobbied right here... and in other places too. Stop and LISTEN, we ARE following your advice..............


Get this straight...I'm not chastizing what has been done (communicating with CWAC), nor am I saying your work is done, because I don't even know the full argument. I'm just saying some things take more work, and persistence can pay off. It ain't over until the fat lady says it is. back 4 years ago on the SWD issue if we stopped after writing emails/letters, we likely wouldn't have gotten the outcome we were looking for.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Get this straight...I'm not chastizing what has been done (communicating with CWAC), nor am I saying your work is done, because I don't even know the full argument. I'm just saying some things take more work, and persistence can pay off. It ain't over until the fat lady says it is. back 4 years ago on the SWD issue if we stopped after writing emails/letters, we likely wouldn't have gotten the outcome we were looking for.


Then to me thats pizz poor representation...:idea:


----------



## KLR

http://youtu.be/Shzi3PnzIjE


Posted using
A complete piece of crap app that isn't half as good as tapatalk


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

consecutive openers starting with UP will be fixed this year i think. last weekend, 1st weekend, 2nd weekend has traction and will probably stick.


and yes gene there was years where there was more than a week between an opener. wanna say the year that z1 and z2 opened on same date. pretty sure in the 90s it has happened. could be wrong tho. memory fading, sensory overload from all this important information being tossed up here in the last few days. surveys!


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Then to me thats pizz poor representation...:idea:


Ya know I'm not sure why I'm offering advice to you all...I have no dog in this fight. Just saying people who give up easily often fail


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Ya know I'm not sure why I'm offering advice to you all...I have no dog in this fight. Just saying people who give up easily often fail


Hmm so why do you complain about me wanting more awareness and for the system to be reviewed. JD for GOD SAKE READ WHAT YOU TYPE.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> consecutive openers starting with UP will be fixed this year i think. last weekend, 1st weekend, 2nd weekend has traction and will probably stick.
> 
> 
> and yes gene there was years where there was more than a week between an opener. wanna say the year that z1 and z2 opened on same date. pretty sure in the 90s it has happened. could be wrong tho. memory fading, sensory overload from all this important information being tossed up here in the last few days. surveys!


What's your guess on the openers?


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> Get this straight...I'm not chastizing what has been done (communicating with CWAC), nor am I saying your work is done, because I don't even know the full argument. I'm just saying some things take more work, and persistence can pay off. It ain't over until the fat lady says it is. back 4 years ago on the SWD issue if we stopped after writing emails/letters, we likely wouldn't have gotten the outcome we were looking for.


You are not chastizing... what the fruck do you call it then ? And you are right about one thing, you don't know the full argument. I am full aware it takes time, money resources and most of all, keeping the MS'R Posse outta the loop ! :lol: Words from your mouth, this site only represents the tiniest of samples of the waterfowl hunters population. 

So it is not going to skew the sample one way or the other. 

Isn't it time for you to go fishing ?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> What's your guess on the openers?


if zone 1 doesn't open on last saturday in september and the rest follow each week, I think the DNR got it wrong.

should be set in stone. done with. that way people can schedule in advance for vacations and such.

should be no different than hunting dates for any other species. set the dates and leave them. if they want to play with the split, so be it. just need alternative plans for 45 and 30 days which would be kinda simple to do.

while SW is a part of z3 and saginaw bay is in z3, you will never see a 3rd week opener under 60 day rule. NEVER. its just not gonna happen. sooner you come to grips with that, the better off you will be. there is no "change" to seek. told everyone that 3 mo ago but i will admit, its fun watching you plead your case.

and for the record, i would love a 3rd week opener...but i understand why its not. do you?


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE II said:


> Then to me thats pizz poor representation...:idea:


I can imagine that it has that perception, and it might be for some dimensions of it, but it really is part of a larger political process that is at play.

One part would be for every email/call/letter you make to one or more CWAC rep or DNR staff member about things like season start dates, one or more others are vying too to have their desired dates. 

Just because someone doesn't get their desired outcome doesn't mean that the process of representation was poor.

Somewhat related is the ol' adage about our larger democratic winner-take-all system: to the victors goes the spoils, and if the majority enacts laws/policies you don't like, oh well. If the CWAC majority votes (75%) for start dates you don't like, oh well. 

As for a 4th zone or 5th zone (or whatever), I'm happy to take up that discussion in 3 years.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Hmm so why do you complain about me wanting more awareness and for the system to be reviewed. JD for GOD SAKE READ WHAT YOU TYPE.


Because sometimes beating a dead horse (where's that little emoticon of beating the dead horse?) is pointless. You said you've talked with the DNR, and Don Avers is working on getting the communication fixed. Give the guy a chance. If nothing changes in a year, bring it up again. 

There's a difference between being constructive in trying to fix something, and bashing the people. I see on this site a lot of plain old bashing.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Bellyup said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just get a fourth zone than all this other stuff ! It isn't about easier; it's about opportunity withing constraints that are in part determined by each year by USFWS, DNR, MI duck numbers; flight numbers; weather changes; MI wetland changes; etc, etc.
> 
> Phil, no offense man, but you make it sound impossible to change anything within the structure in those posts. I am not a stats person, took a few courses on it, but it was not my main interest. I'm pointing out what was surveyed and why. If you want a different stratification, you can write to DNR's Barb Avers with your proposal.
> 
> Based on your posts (Phil) it seems clear to me that a 4th zone is what we should be seriously promoting and demanding from the NRC. We? You, as I don't live in "SW". I'll be watching out for my interests first, then maybe yours.
> 
> Kid and JD, please don't go on about the ability to lose dates if they shorten the season, etc. If they have to shorten the season we shouldn't be hunting prinme time anyway, in my opinion, let the birds be.
> 
> But with a fourth zone the real issue I see is drawing the boundries, and even then it is not guarenteed what date will be handed the 4th zone for an opener. It has been proven before (recently) that two zones can and do open on the same weekend if they so choose to do so. That would pretty much kill the entire premise of a 4th zone. And it is a real possiblity in my opinion. Give a concession and allow a 4th zone, but in the end open it the same dates as 3rd zone.


If I'm still posting here in 3 years, I'll be happy to engage in zone discussions at that time.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> if zone 1 doesn't open on last saturday in september and the rest follow each week, I think the DNR got it wrong.
> 
> should be set in stone. done with. that way people can schedule in advance for vacations and such.
> 
> should be no different than hunting dates for any other species. set the dates and leave them. if they want to play with the split, so be it. just need alternative plans for 45 and 30 days which would be kinda simple to do.
> 
> while SW is a part of z3 and saginaw bay is in z3, you will never see a 3rd week opener under 60 day rule. NEVER. its just not gonna happen. sooner you come to grips with that, the better off you will be. there is no "change" to seek. told everyone that 3 mo ago but i will admit, its fun watching you plead your case.
> 
> and for the record, i would love a 3rd week opener...but i understand why its not. do you?


Why though because we're under the idealogy that it has to be consecutive weeks? Didn't you yourself just say the DNR needs to get away from this? It's fine that you think that way so I met in the middle since we're talking about reaching an agreement, I proposed the 10.15, yep it's during the week but it's a few more days in December..>Guess It doesn't matter to me whether we start or end on a weekend...But we have halted during the week before..Just sayin..


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> If I'm still posting here in 3 years, I'll be happy to engage in zone discussions at that time.


As will I, but I do realize what's set in stone in August will run the next 3 years..So here we are..


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Because sometimes beating a dead horse (where's that little emoticon of beating the dead horse?) is pointless. You said you've talked with the DNR, and Don Avers is working on getting the communication fixed. Give the guy a chance. If nothing changes in a year, bring it up again.
> 
> There's a difference between being constructive in trying to fix something, and bashing the people. I see on this site a lot of plain old bashing.


I don't want to assume KLR's video was directed toward you, but maybe more so this thread. But damn that dog running in circles should be name JD


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Why though because we're under the idealogy that it has to be consecutive weeks? Didn't you yourself just say the DNR needs to get away from this? It's fine that you think that way so I met in the middle since we're talking about reaching an agreement, I proposed the 10.15, yep it's during the week but it's a few more days in December..>Guess It doesn't matter to me whether we start or end on a weekend...But we have halted during the week before..Just sayin..


I'd be shocked if a mid-week opener was approved. But read my words...I'm not disagreeing with the idea. Just saying I'd be shocked if the policy makers go along with it. Why do I say that? Because I know there's been discussion recently about the way turkey permits open on Mondays, and they have discussed changing those to a Saturday opener. Why? I'm not gonna say it, but you all know the answer...it starts with the letter "P".


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> I don't want to assume KLR's video was directed toward you, but maybe more so this thread. But damn that dog running in circles should be name JD


Having talked over a "pop" with him at the Lake Effect Chapter banquet (and Caddis, TJ and the rest of the crew), and talked a bit about this website, I think you'd better re-think that


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> I'd be shocked if a mid-week opener was approved. But read my words...I'm not disagreeing with the idea. Just saying I'd be shocked if the policy makers go along with it. Why do I say that? Because I know there's been discussion recently about the way turkey permits open on Mondays, and they have discussed changing those to a Saturday opener. Why? I'm not gonna say it, but you all know the answer...it starts with the letter "P".


That's fine it would just seem to make more sense, you're still starting relatively earlier you just get to go a few days later...that meet in the middle thing...I wonder with Turkeys if it were to start on a saturday it would still end on a sunday...I'm assuming they did the monday thing to avoid weekend overlap or ending on a saturday...


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> That's fine it would just seem to make more sense, you're still starting relatively earlier you just get to go a few days later...that meet in the middle thing...I wonder with Turkeys if it were to start on a saturday it would still end on a sunday...I'm assuming they did the monday thing to avoid weekend overlap or ending on a saturday...


Personally I agree with you. HUH? SAY WHAT? But it will be interesting to see what those who matter think.


----------



## PhilBernardi

_Phil,

I hope to continue positive interaction with you. Regarding the three week vacation I actually have 23 days of vacation, I do use most of that for hunting. 10 days this already this year dedicated to chasing white devils. I hope to get drawn for SD, will often take a day or two if it gets hot in IL or MI, then will probably treck to IA and MO this year. I will probably go to SK to assist guiding, very unclear though right now. Money is not a concern.

But if I'm going to take a majority of my time, I want to ensure I'm setting myself up for the best possible outcomes. You will rarely see me take time to do this in the state of MI.

So you would like me to basically do SWOT analysis of the DNR and CWAC?You can propose that one be done. Ask the DNR. Ask the legislature. Always relative talk in my courses related to the open ended questions you ask and how can you control the survey to have the BEST possible outcome but when you create guidelines on a sample survey it's hard to know if you have eliminated bias. Propose something else. Seems to be that you (and others too) don't like some or most of the current survey work being done related to waterfowl; so ask the DNR to change things. If they don't change, involve the MI state legislature or go to the Guv's office.

If you want me to define me, it's somewhat to reinvent the wheel of what I see as an outsider, I don't see much that has changed since the existence of CWAC. I also don't see the DNR actively seeking the best input possible regarding waterfowl and creating awareness to the general public. I think we have an age old process that needs to be reevaluated and we need to ask ourselves if we're looking in the right areas.. Ask for change - as I think you have and will continue to do. You may or may not get your hoped for outcome. Personally, you can set up surveys and CWAC in the manner you wish, but the votes ultimately won't be in your favor under the current zone structure.

I hope to see more surveys from the DNR to allow the general public to give their input. I don't want the general public telling me when I should or shouldn't be hunting waterfowl; I'd rather we waterfowlers work with DNR and USFWS to determine all that. I also noticed an email that the state has offered to provide suggestions regarding the turkey surveys. To me they're trying to gain more information pertaining to the general public on their process. General public for waterfowl has to first know what CWAC is to hope they're heard.No argument here. I hope the DNR takes your suggestion about mentioning CWAC in the waterfowl guide - excellent suggestion.._


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Having talked over a "pop" with him at the Lake Effect Chapter banquet (and Caddis, TJ and the rest of the crew), and talked a bit about this website, I think you'd better re-think that


It's okay I enjoy being an outcast.;..


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> It's okay I enjoy being an outcast.;..


they had a seat saved for you at their table....


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> _Phil,
> 
> I hope to continue positive interaction with you. Regarding the three week vacation I actually have 23 days of vacation, I do use most of that for hunting. 10 days this already this year dedicated to chasing white devils. I hope to get drawn for SD, will often take a day or two if it gets hot in IL or MI, then will probably treck to IA and MO this year. I will probably go to SK to assist guiding, very unclear though right now. Money is not a concern.
> 
> But if I'm going to take a majority of my time, I want to ensure I'm setting myself up for the best possible outcomes. You will rarely see me take time to do this in the state of MI.
> 
> So you would like me to basically do SWOT analysis of the DNR and CWAC?You can propose that one be done. Ask the DNR. Ask the legislature. Always relative talk in my courses related to the open ended questions you ask and how can you control the survey to have the BEST possible outcome but when you create guidelines on a sample survey it's hard to know if you have eliminated bias. Propose something else. Seems to be that you (and others too) don't like some or most of the current survey work being done related to waterfowl; so ask the DNR to change things. If they don't change, involve the MI state legislature or go to the Guv's office.
> 
> If you want me to define me, it's somewhat to reinvent the wheel of what I see as an outsider, I don't see much that has changed since the existence of CWAC. I also don't see the DNR actively seeking the best input possible regarding waterfowl and creating awareness to the general public. I think we have an age old process that needs to be reevaluated and we need to ask ourselves if we're looking in the right areas.. Ask for change - as I think you have and will continue to do. You may or may not get your hoped for outcome. Personally, you can set up surveys and CWAC in the manner you wish, but the votes ultimately won't be in your favor under the current zone structure.
> 
> I hope to see more surveys from the DNR to allow the general public to give their input. I don't want the general public telling me when I should or shouldn't be hunting waterfowl; I'd rather we waterfowlers work with DNR and USFWS to determine all that. I also noticed an email that the state has offered to provide suggestions regarding the turkey surveys. To me they're trying to gain more information pertaining to the general public on their process. General public for waterfowl has to first know what CWAC is to hope they're heard.No argument here. I hope the DNR takes your suggestion about mentioning CWAC in the waterfowl guide - excellent suggestion.._


Phil,

Going to agree other than I should have used better verbiage when indicating general public, I meant that of the waterfowl community. 

I also let Don know at the beginning of last week there needs to be more CWAC awareness and sent him my proposal. No response as of yet..Only response I received was prior about getting minutes posted earlier...

I mostly agree with you on the Surveys...But just as they did in the turkey survey I had to indicate the amount of days I hunted and counties...Pretty specific information there...I think this could show how data is skewed regarding waterfowl zones..


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> _... I don't want the general public telling me when I should or shouldn't be hunting waterfowl; I'd rather we waterfowlers work with DNR and USFWS to determine all that...._


_

Boy now there's the best post of the day. DING>>>DING>>>DING Maybe we all can agree on that one, eh?_


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> they had a seat saved for you at their table....


Could of had interesting conversation but not much gets accomplished between diver and puddler hunters...  If daddy warbucks was at the table I would have ran that tab up for sure then used your millenial definition of me as an excuse for free soda pops..

I shoot em for the wall and then I'm over it after that...No lawn darts on the grill please


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> Boy now there's the best post of the day. DING>>>DING>>>DING Maybe we all can agree on that one, eh?


Read above before you pull your fleshlight out...Careful googling that..:lol:

Mods forgive me as I have sinned...


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE II said:


> Phil,
> 
> Going to agree other than I should have used better verbiage when indicating general public, I meant that of the waterfowl community.
> 
> I also let Don know at the beginning of last week there needs to be more CWAC awareness and sent him my proposal. No response as of yet..Only response I received was prior about getting minutes posted earlier...
> 
> I mostly agree with you on the Surveys...But just as they did in the turkey survey I had to indicate the amount of days I hunted and counties...Pretty specific information there...I think this could show how data is skewed regarding waterfowl zones..


I'm pretty damn confident that the MI waterfowl survey asks for county(ies) of harvest; I don't recall if the date of harvest is asked for or the month thereof. Maybe someone else can respond to fill in the blanks....


----------



## Bellyup

KLR said:


> You might be trying to have a discussion, but you've missed what I said.
> 
> Open the season whenever it benefits the greatest number of participants and I will flex my activity to fit within those dates. I do not care if I hunt early or late, or both, or neither.
> 
> I'm 110% advocating that the tennis shoe hunters get the dates that suit them, because there are more of them than me.


Since you really don't care one way or the other, it is really a moot point don't ya think.......... so my advocating for a later season should not have any effect on your preferences and opinions in any way. So with your calling this thread a bandwidth sucking and some other things why have you read it and posted often in it ? Espcecially since you don't care ?


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> SBE, you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> 
> i want a later season. but I understand why there isn't. do you?
> 
> this is the complete reason why your spinning your wheels and you won't admit it. great for 30 pages of junk...but honesty your only making yourself look half retarded. stop, step back and think about it for 30 seconds. then ask yourself a 100% honest question, "why won't they start the 60 day season later than 2nd week of october. When you can answer that question all by yourself, you sir have graduated DNR 101. I will be glad to give you a little hint....
> 
> M_ N _ Y and P _ _ T _ C _ _ _ TION
> 
> you've spent 3 months trying to make us believe you have the numbers to back up your ideological ********. you don't have the numbers, you can poll and survey til your blue and you still don't have the numbers....you can spin this 6 ways to sideways and your still never gonna get what YOU want.
> 
> See i want a later opener. At least i got the common sense to understand that I may be in the minority. If i want to extend my hunting season into December, i'll just go hang out some buddies on the bayou or MO. You should try it.



Someone is getting hangry again. I'm not sure if you're illiterate or don't interpret information well but when you and I discussed season dates I didn't recommend a third weekend start I recommended an Oct 15th start. Now if people that understood compromise, not sure if this is you, would correlate that into okay he realizes a third weekend is a shot in the dark but it's not an unreasonable suggestions. 

Now I answer your question again about the numbers, until every waterfowl in this state is polled or an attempt is made, like I have been now TWICE with SD, then I will stand by the data. It's apparent the SW is the minority compared to the east side, that's already been stated. With this said and I believe Phil stated it three pages ago, when the discussion about rezoning comes up in three years, lets talk, until then all I can do is provide suggestions on what I and others feel lack in the process to hope to improve. Because its been said by many others to, since the existence of CWAC not much has changed, and quality people have resigned, there's flaws in the system.

I explained myself about two pages ago but you must have skimmed over that..I accept I'm the minority in SW Z3 fighting for what my group believes would be a good recommendation.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> The surveys show the majority do not want a week 3 opener.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


So why did we work backwards and have a Z3 first week opener and go against the majority?  Wouldn't this be the same difference as going a week later, such as oh say, the 3rd week?

Let me guess, people that didn't want a later start compromised and we had a 4 day split?


----------



## TSS Caddis

SBE II said:


> So why did we work backwards and have a Z3 first week opener and go against the majority?  Wouldn't this be the same difference as going a week later, such as oh say, the 3rd week?


I'm not really sure where you are getting that. Half the survey'd wanted to open 1st Saturday or earlier, the other half 2nd Saturday or 3rd Saturday. 3rd Saturday received the lowest responses. 

Assuming the 2nd Saturday opener was taken off as an option and even split of the 2nd Saturday votes each earlier and later, an even greater number would want 1st Saturday or earlier. The numbers really support that the majority of hunters do not want to open 3rd Saturday. 

First Saturday vs Second Saturday, well it really doesn't matter since 40% want 1st Saturday or earlier and 40% want 2nd Saturday or 3rd Saturday.

Leveraging 2010 survey:

Sept 24 22%
Oct 1 18%
Oct 8 24%
Oct 15 16%

With an Oct 5th first Saturday this year vs Oct 8th in the 2010 survey, I'd assume if they re-surveyed the same people there would be an even higher percent wanting first Saturday or earlier.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Don't quit now! We are almost there! :lol:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Someone is getting hangry again. I'm not sure if you're illiterate or don't interpret information well but when you and I discussed season dates I didn't recommend a third weekend start I recommended an Oct 15th start. Now if people that understood compromise, not sure if this is you, would correlate that into okay he realizes a third weekend is a shot in the dark but it's not an unreasonable suggestions.
> 
> Now I answer your question again about the numbers, until every waterfowl in this state is polled or an attempt is made, like I have been now TWICE with SD, then I will stand by the data. It's apparent the SW is the minority compared to the east side, that's already been stated. With this said and I believe Phil stated it three pages ago, when the discussion about rezoning comes up in three years, lets talk, until then all I can do is provide suggestions on what I and others feel lack in the process to hope to improve. Because its been said by many others to, since the existence of CWAC not much has changed, and quality people have resigned, there's flaws in the system.
> 
> I explained myself about two pages ago but you must have skimmed over that..I accept I'm the minority in SW Z3 fighting for what my group believes would be a good recommendation.


yeah cuz opening on a week day doesn't effect participation. you can't compromise something that won't even be an option. were not talking 2.5 million deer hunters here. majority of duck hunting happens on the weekends. next.


----------



## SBE II

TSS Caddis said:


> I'm not really sure where you are getting that. Half the survey'd wanted to open 1st Saturday or earlier, the other half 2nd Saturday or 3rd Saturday. 3rd Saturday received the lowest responses.
> 
> Assuming the 2nd Saturday opener was taken off as an option and even split of the 2nd Saturday votes each earlier and later, an even greater number would want 1st Saturday or earlier. The numbers really support that the majority of hunters do not want to open 3rd Saturday.
> 
> First Saturday vs Second Saturday, well it really doesn't matter since 40% want 1st Saturday or earlier and 40% want 2nd Saturday or 3rd Saturday.
> 
> Leveraging 2010 survey:
> 
> Sept 24 22%
> Oct 1 18%
> Oct 8 24%
> Oct 15 16%
> 
> With an Oct 5th first Saturday this year vs Oct 8th in the 2010 survey, I'd assume if they re-surveyed the same people there would be an even higher percent wanting first Saturday or earlier.


Are we both looking at page 26? The data is broken down by zone...The south zone wanted a 2nd weekend October...That data is show in two different area...Not sure where you're coming up with 40% either, unless you're relating that to those only in Zone 1...


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yeah cuz opening on a week day doesn't effect participation. you can't compromise something that won't even be an option. were not talking 2.5 million deer hunters here. majority of duck hunting happens on the weekends. next.


When you're close minded, thought you wanted to go later? What's wrong with a suggestion Kid, because you don't agree with it?


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yeah cuz opening on a week day doesn't effect participation. you can't compromise something that won't even be an option. next.


These discussions are hilarious. I don't know many themes where we can go from arguing against making a zone change with people crying about over-crowding and morph it into.....Nope, wouldn't work - participation. 

If that's where the discussion needs to go, then fine. Make it the Saturday closest to October 15th.


----------



## SBE II

field-n-feathers said:


> These discussions are hilarious. I don't know many themes where we can go from arguing against making a zone change with people crying about over-crowding and morph it into.....Nope, wouldn't work - participation.
> 
> If that's where the discussion needs to go, then fine. Make it the Saturday closest to October 15th.


Since he's managed area hunter you would think it would benefit him on overcrowding but who knows..Haven't been there and won't go there..


----------



## TSS Caddis

SBE II said:


> Are we both looking at page 26? The data is broken down by zone...The south zone wanted a 2nd weekend October...That data is show in two different area...Not sure where you're coming up with 40% either, unless you're relating that to those only in Zone 1...


2010: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/WLD_report_3545_2010_waterfowl_harvest_survey_388078_7.pdf

Page 18


2011 Survey doesn't have 3rd Saturday as an option, but it looks even more like people prefer early. 64% prefer 1st Saturday or earlier vs later. 23% perfer 2nd Saturday. 

2011: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3561_414519_7.pdf

Page 17
Zone III
Sep. 22 18%
Sep. 29 12%
Oct. 6 24%
Oct 13 23%


----------



## field-n-feathers

SBE II said:


> Since he's managed area hunter you would think it would benefit him on overcrowding but who knows..Haven't been there and won't go there..


That I don't know and can't comment on. 

If all of these arguments revolve around participation.....Simple fix. Regardless of a revolving long term solution to season dates, don't wait until August to finalize them. Give guys a chance to get their vacation time in. With the current process, it's no wonder guys want a weekend opener. You don't see many deer hunters crying about not having a weekend opener, and their season is 15 days. The reason being, they know when it will start 30 years from now.

What Saturday closest to October 15th zone 3 opener would look like....

2013 - October 12
2014 - October 18
2015 - October 17
2016 - October 15
2017 - October 14
2018 - October 13
2019 - October 12


----------



## Bellyup

TSS Caddis said:


> 2010: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/WLD_report_3545_2010_waterfowl_harvest_survey_388078_7.pdf
> 
> Page 18
> 
> 
> 2011 Survey doesn't have 3rd Saturday as an option, but it looks even more like people prefer early. 64% prefer 1st Saturday or earlier vs later. 23% perfer 2nd Saturday.
> 
> 2011: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3561_414519_7.pdf
> 
> Page 17
> Zone III
> Sep. 22 18%
> Sep. 29 12%
> Oct. 6 24%
> Oct 13 23%


I am going to compromise and give you the benefit of the doubt. I honestly believe the survey is skewed, honestly. Not being a Rich, but I don't feel the representation or stratom or whatever the stats guys call it, is in line with what I hear day in and day out during the season from hunters in the field. 

So lets assume your survey results are spot on. And SW in a minority. The DNR is about participation. Wouldn't i tmake perfect sens to insert a split, much like I described when try to discuss things with KLR ? That would solve the participation issue, you ten percenters give up nothing, and the tennis shoe hunters give up nothing, and the only compromise is between the east side and the west side. 

And before you comment on my abilities, or the fact that a week or two makes no differences, it does in fact make a world of difference. You are not even on the same ball field as we are, so you really can't speak to how the bird patterns are other than heresay.


----------



## Big Frank 25

The Ball Field you play on. How is the public access there? Will it accommodate an influx of hunters for the later season? After all we are looking for hunter participation.?


----------



## just ducky

Bellyup said:


> ...Wouldn't i tmake perfect sens to insert a split, much like I described when try to discuss things with KLR ? That would solve the participation issue, you ten percenters give up nothing, and the tennis shoe hunters give up nothing, and the only compromise is between the east side and the west side...


Yes compromise...a great word. But you'd be back to the same problem...you and some in the SW area would be proposing splits very different from other parts of Z3. If memory serves, many of the splits I've seen proposed in the past fly directly in the face of the DNR's data on bird migrations through Z3. Yes, we've all seen the data for Allegan, and yes, it's much different than the remainder of Z3. But you're still dealing with the same SW vs. remainder of Z3, Hatfields and McCoys fight.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> That I don't know and can't comment on.
> 
> If all of these arguments revolve around participation.....Simple fix. Regardless of a revolving long term solution to season dates, don't wait until August to finalize them. Give guys a chance to get their vacation time in. With the current process, it's no wonder guys want a weekend opener. You don't see many deer hunters crying about not having a weekend opener, and their season is 15 days. The reason being, they know when it will start 30 years from now.
> 
> What Saturday closest to October 15th zone 3 opener would look like....
> 
> 2013 - October 12
> 2014 - October 18
> 2015 - October 17
> 2016 - October 15
> 2017 - October 14
> 2018 - October 13
> 2019 - October 12


i don't necessarily disagree.

opening on a weekday WILL affect license sales. thats all. just a simple fact. please tell me I'm wrong. again, we are not 2.5 million strong where losing 5,000 or 10,000 hunters that could possibly miss the opener due to work/obligations. Take our numbers (40-50k) and take 10k off of it and you start to realize how much it could affect. Deer opener also is a much more anticipated or important opener for a Majority of hunters. Wheras deer people are more likely to miss work for because they have 15 days to hunt....and duck they have 60 days....they will wait or possibly not even go because they missed the intitial burst (opening day blowout). Do you guys realize how many people hunt opening day or 2 and never hunt again? A weekday opener could cut into that pretty big.

losing A weekend of hunting will costs us participation. we lost one last season, we lost probably one of the best 2 accessible days of the year last year in z3 in a compromise for SW. It was easier to mitigate losing the las days participation instead of what your suggesting which is mitigate it off the front.

hopefully SBE can digest what i posted as it may sound confusing...comprehension is short with this one.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> That I don't know and can't comment on.
> 
> If all of these arguments revolve around participation.....Simple fix. Regardless of a revolving long term solution to season dates, don't wait until August to finalize them. Give guys a chance to get their vacation time in. With the current process, it's no wonder guys want a weekend opener. You don't see many deer hunters crying about not having a weekend opener, and their season is 15 days. The reason being, they know when it will start 30 years from now.
> 
> What Saturday closest to October 15th zone 3 opener would look like....
> 
> 2013 - October 12
> 2014 - October 18
> 2015 - October 17
> 2016 - October 15
> 2017 - October 14
> 2018 - October 13
> 2019 - October 12


also FnF, this would be a solid suggestion. propose we develop z3 dates first. and using your theory on saturday closest. then other zones can fall in line and choose how early they want or whatever. 

too me this is a productive example of making sense. but it still has to conquer the early crowd (majority).


----------



## TSS Caddis

Bellyup said:


> So lets assume your survey results are spot on.


Yes, let's assume the experts know more than you.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i don't necessarily disagree.
> 
> opening on a weekday WILL affect license sales. thats all. just a simple fact. please tell me I'm wrong. again, we are not 2.5 million strong where losing 5,000 or 10,000 hunters that could possibly miss the opener due to work/obligations. Take our numbers (40-50k) and take 10k off of it and you start to realize how much it could affect. Deer opener also is a much more anticipated or important opener for a Majority of hunters. Wheras deer people are more likely to miss work for because they have 15 days to hunt....and duck they have 60 days....they will wait or possibly not even go because they missed the intitial burst (opening day blowout). Do you guys realize how many people hunt opening day or 2 and never hunt again? A weekday opener could cut into that pretty big.
> 
> losing A weekend of hunting will costs us participation. we lost one last season, we lost probably one of the best 2 accessible days of the year last year in z3 in a compromise for SW. It was easier to mitigate losing the las days participation instead of what your suggesting which is mitigate it off the front.
> 
> hopefully SBE can digest what i posted as it may sound confusing...comprehension is short with this one.


Where is the data that shows we would lose up to 20% of our hunters if the season didn't start on a weekend? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I sure haven't seen it. Are these the same people that hunt the first few days, then don't hunt anymore? 

We've lost approximately 10,000 waterfowl hunters over the past 10 years. One could blame the economy on that, but the decline has been pretty steady over that time period. At what point will the focus be on hunter retention as opposed to hunter participation? At this rate, over the next century, all 100 waterfowl hunters will participate 100%.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> Where is the data that shows we would lose up to 20% of our hunters if the season didn't start on a weekend? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I sure haven't seen it. Are these the same people that hunt the first few days, then don't hunt anymore?
> 
> We've lost approximately 10,000 waterfowl hunters over the past 10 years. One could blame the economy on that, but the decline has been pretty steady over that time period. At what point will the focus be on hunter retention as opposed to hunter participation? At this rate, over the next century, all 100 waterfowl hunters will participate 100%.


all valid questions.

to me i could care less if i started my season on a weekend or weekday. but i'm not the average hunter. The average hunter might REALLY care...actually i'm pretty sure they care a LOT and thats why the big stink about weekends. Weekend Warriors make up a huge majority of our masses.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> all valid questions.
> 
> to me i could care less if i started my season on a weekend or weekday. but i'm not the average hunter. The average hunter might REALLY care...actually i'm pretty sure they care a LOT and thats why the big stink about weekends. Weekend Warriors make up a huge majority of our masses.


I'm with you. Considering I work every other one, I could care less about weekends.


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> all valid questions.
> 
> to me i could care less if i started my season on a weekend or weekday. but i'm not the average hunter. The average hunter might REALLY care...actually i'm pretty sure they care a LOT and thats why the big stink about weekends. Weekend Warriors make up a huge majority of our masses.


I waited for the thread to go here...Thanking you for making us aware it's okay for you to assume data but when we have our own reservations that don't match yours we're idiots...

I believe it was you that mentioned it about 3 pages ago, having better set dates so people can arrange vacation, so I'm confused does this only relate to the time you want to take off? Or are you one of those 7 day workers that has to take a vacation day on a Saturday?

I don't see people holding back on turkey permits because it opens on a Monday, they just wait to hunt the weekend...So my assumption would be it's not going to have much of an effect. If of course, we're assuming things..


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> also FnF, this would be a solid suggestion. propose we develop z3 dates first. and using your theory on saturday closest. then other zones can fall in line and choose how early they want or whatever.
> 
> too me this is a productive example of making sense. but it still has to conquer the early crowd (majority).


Solid statement. I could care less about Zone 1 or 2 dates. Let them decide for themselves. 

Although they are few and far between, we've had season start dates that were not consecutive weekends. Heck, we've even had multiple zones start on the same day. Seems like a waste of zones to me. But, outside of the opener, they did at least have different splits. One of them even being front-loaded.


----------



## SBE II

field-n-feathers said:


> Solid statement. I could care less about Zone 1 or 2 dates. Let them decide for themselves.
> 
> Although they are few and far between, we've had season start dates that were not consecutive weekends. Heck, we've even had multiple zones start on the same day. Seems like a waste of zones to me. But, outside of the opener, they did at least have different splits. One of them even being front-loaded.


For once a solid statement from the Kid...Hence the reason I say have seperate zone meetings...Allows more time for that Zone to give an input...


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

field-n-feathers said:


> I'm with you. Considering I work every other one, I could care less about weekends.


my best angle to get later dates for sw is a new Z4. thats why a couple years ago i was so aggressive in stoking the fire here to get people into it. When that 5 year renewal came around and there wasn't much organized to propose solid solution...sw lost a chance to separate itself from the bay.

obviously grandfathered stuff and restricted season pose a hurdle but I still think thats the #1 option. Right now SW should be pressuring the feds to ease up on grandfathered rulings in the case of restricted seasons, etc...and then come full force with z4 proposal in 3 years.

option #2 would be an early teal/woody season that might free up z3 to open 15th (closest saturday).

that would be where i put my energy. not at the state level with bureaucracy stuff that SBE is proposing that won't solve nothing but prove what they already know...but just now give them the data to confirm it. lol.

but hey, what do i know, I just hunt the same managed area cornfield 1 time a year in tennis shoes.


----------



## PhilBernardi

_I don't see people holding back on turkey permits because it opens on a Monday, they just wait to hunt the weekend...So my assumption would be it's not going to have much of an effect. If of course, we're assuming things.._

At least turkeys have a very well known migration pattern. :evilsmile :lol:

We're almost there guys! Who's gonna tip us over?


----------



## LakeEffectMDHA

I read an excerpt in the Michigan Outdoor news cuffs and collars section that said CO's were investigating the Caddis Effect. Where a man was being investigated for paying hunters not to hunt over the last decade resulting in a decline of hunters in areas of the State.

Carry on


----------



## field-n-feathers

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> my best angle to get later dates for sw is a new Z4. thats why a couple years ago i was so aggressive in stoking the fire here to get people into it. When that 5 year renewal came around and there wasn't much organized to propose solid solution...sw lost a chance to separate itself from the bay.
> 
> obviously grandfathered stuff and restricted season pose a hurdle but I still think thats the #1 option. Right now SW should be pressuring the feds to ease up on grandfathered rulings in the case of restricted seasons, etc...and then come full force with z4 proposal in 3 years.
> 
> option #2 would be an early teal/woody season that might free up z3 to open 15th (closest saturday).
> 
> that would be where i put my energy. not at the state level with bureaucracy stuff that SBE is proposing that won't solve nothing but prove what they already know...but just now give them the data to confirm it. lol.
> 
> but hey, what do i know, I just hunt the same managed area cornfield 1 time a year in tennis shoes.


Valid input and advice. I'd be willing to bet an early Teal season is coming very soon. Eliminating the 4 Zone with NO split rule at the Federal level will take much more than just a few SW Michigan hunters to be on board with. Additionally, considering this is a Flyway wide rule, I would think it would take push back from not just us but every state within our Flyway.


----------



## pinman

Bellyup said:


> I am going to compromise and give you the benefit of the doubt. I honestly believe the survey is skewed, honestly. Not being a Rich, but I don't feel the representation or stratom or whatever the stats guys call it, is in line with what I hear day in and day out during the season from hunters in the field.
> 
> So lets assume your survey results are spot on. And SW in a minority. The DNR is about participation. Wouldn't i tmake perfect sens to insert a split, much like I described when try to discuss things with KLR ? That would solve the participation issue, you ten percenters give up nothing, and the tennis shoe hunters give up nothing, and the only compromise is between the east side and the west side.
> 
> And before you comment on my abilities, or the fact that a week or two makes no differences, it does in fact make a world of difference. You are not even on the same ball field as we are, so you really can't speak to how the bird patterns are other than heresay.


There you go throw out a well planned randomly sampled statistical study, based on your heavily skewed, geographically restricted sample. Why believe the people who do this for a living, might as well believe the guy who developed his opinion based on his limited hunting area.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## field-n-feathers

I'd also like to add that, as much as I'd like a 4th zone opportunity, I'm not sure the resource (waterfowl) within our Flyway could handle a Flyway wide rule change like this. Adding a 4th zone with separate seasons in each state within our Flyway would increase exposure to the resource quite a bit. It's already been shown that length of season (exposure) has more of an effect on the harvest than bag limits.


----------



## PhilBernardi

field-n-feathers said:


> I'd also like to add that, as much as I'd like a 4th zone opportunity, I'm not sure the resource (waterfowl) within our Flyway could handle a Flyway wide rule change like this. Adding a 4th zone with separate seasons in each state within our Flyway would increase exposure to the resource quite a bit. It's already been shown that length of season (exposure) has more of an effect on the harvest than bag limits.


Damn party pooper! :evilsmile


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> my best angle to get later dates for sw is a new Z4. thats why a couple years ago i was so aggressive in stoking the fire here to get people into it. When that 5 year renewal came around and there wasn't much organized to propose solid solution...sw lost a chance to separate itself from the bay.
> 
> obviously grandfathered stuff and restricted season pose a hurdle but I still think thats the #1 option. Right now SW should be pressuring the feds to ease up on grandfathered rulings in the case of restricted seasons, etc...and then come full force with z4 proposal in 3 years.
> 
> option #2 would be an early teal/woody season that might free up z3 to open 15th (closest saturday).
> 
> that would be where i put my energy. not at the state level with bureaucracy stuff that SBE is proposing that won't solve nothing but prove what they already know...but just now give them the data to confirm it. lol.
> 
> but hey, what do i know, I just hunt the same managed area cornfield 1 time a year in tennis shoes.


So a date proposal accomplishes nothing? Considering it's going to be set for the next three years and which at that time we can discuss zones. 

No interest in an early teal here..


----------



## SBE II

pinman said:


> There you go throw out a well planned randomly sampled statistical study, based on your heavily skewed, geographically restricted sample. Why believe the people who do this for a living, might as well believe the guy who developed his opinion based on his limited hunting area.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


The obama administration controls the statistics for the BLS and unemployment rates...Do you believe those statistics to?:evilsmile


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> So a date proposal accomplishes nothing? Considering it's going to be set for the next three years and which at that time we can discuss zones.
> 
> No interest in an early teal here..


dude, your a freaking idiot.

early teal season wouldn't directly benefit you......but indirectly you would be able to start after october 15th because the tennis shoe hunter would get what he wants.

are you really that dense? lemme spell it out.

3 day or 7 day teal season......close....then z3 60 day opener somewhere mid october. guess your not interested eh?

i swear to god you have got to be the most annoying, semi-retarded waterfowler that has ever graced this board. you have surpassed bellyup. hoping this hits on the start of #30.


----------



## field-n-feathers

I may or may not participate in a teal season. What am I saying?....Yes I would. But, I truly think it would help get a later duck season. IMHO of course.


----------



## Bellyup

TSS Caddis said:


> Yes, let's assume the experts know more than you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


The pomp we have all grown to love.... I knew that post would bring him out. Before long you are gonna start tossing the dollar bills around. Yup, you went there first, I only reacted to you. Hmmm.

And with that it is 30 pages, lets shut her down.


----------



## field-n-feathers

PhilBernardi said:


> Damn party pooper! :evilsmile


I know. Sorry. Damn facts and common sense anyway.


----------



## just ducky

Dang it all! I wanted to be the one to put this over 30 pages :sad: Do I at least get a double-post credit for 30 pages + 2? DING DING! :evilsmile


----------



## field-n-feathers

just ducky said:


> ...Do I at least get a double-post credit for 30 pages + 2? DING DING! :evilsmile


NO. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.:lol::lol: DING!


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> dude, your a freaking idiot.
> 
> early teal season wouldn't directly benefit you......but indirectly you would be able to start after october 15th because the tennis shoe hunter would get what he wants.
> 
> are you really that dense? lemme spell it out.
> 
> 3 day or 7 day teal season......close....then z3 60 day opener somewhere mid october. guess your not interested eh?
> 
> i swear to god you have got to be the most annoying, semi-retarded waterfowler that has ever graced this board. you have surpassed bellyup. hoping this hits on the start of #30.


I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you? As FnF indicated not interested in hunting them...

You have to the most ignorant and loudest mouth person that probably hunts the flats..It seems everyone else on here is able to have a conversation without throwing out slang, you sir need a manual attitude adjustment...:16suspect


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ...lemme spell it out.
> 
> 3 day or 7 day teal season......close....then z3 60 day opener somewhere mid october. guess your not interested eh?....


Best statement in all 30 pages of BS. Big picture thinking....I like 

I guarantee I won't hunt teal either, but if it helps the masses (as you very clearly spelled it out) then bring it on!


----------



## just ducky

field-n-feathers said:


> NO. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.:lol::lol: DING!


Damn! Day late and a dollar short as always.


----------



## field-n-feathers

just ducky said:


> .....but if it helps the masses (as you very clearly spelled it out) then bring it on!


Yep. DING!


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you? As FnF indicated not interested in hunting them...
> 
> You have to the most ignorant and loudest mouth person that probably hunts the flats..It seems everyone else on here is able to have a conversation without throwing out slang, you sir need a manual attitude adjustment...:16suspect


Hey Phil...where's that emoticon of the popcorn eating dude again? This one's just getting good.


----------



## pinman

SBE II said:


> The obama administration controls the statistics for the BLS and unemployment rates...Do you believe those statistics to?:evilsmile


That stats are right, its how they are being reported. If you quit looking for work you are no longer unemployed.

Now if they only sampled in north Dakota it would be similar to bellys sample.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## field-n-feathers

just ducky said:


> Damn! Day late and a dollar short as always.


Better late than never. DING! :lol::lol:


----------



## PhilBernardi

Well done, Gents! :lol:


----------



## SBE II

pinman said:


> That stats are right, its how they are being reported. If you quit looking for work you are no longer unemployed.
> 
> Now if they only sampled in north Dakota it would be similar to bellys sample.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


No its not, it doesn't calculate those not receiving unemployment benefits..


----------



## Bellyup

pinman said:


> That stats are right, its how they are being reported. If you quit looking for work you are no longer unemployed.
> 
> Now if they only sampled in north Dakota it would be similar to bellys sample.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I bet you are interested in buying a bridge I have for sale too....


----------



## wavie

just ducky said:


> Dang it all! I wanted to be the one to put this over 30 pages :sad:


There goes my money to buy a waterfowl license and a season pass for the GMUs. Sticking with the powerball next time. If I was hospitalized I might read the entire thread, but kudos to those who followed in its entirety.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Well done, Gents! :lol:


NO NO NO! although some of the arguments here would drive a person to drink, WHERE'S THE POPCORN EATING DUDE????


----------



## pinman

SBE II said:


> No its not, it doesn't calculate those not receiving unemployment benefits..


That's what i said if you quit looking you are no longer considered unemployed, you need to look at the number of people that have left the labor force. The numbers are there, it's just how they are reported. It's all in the definition of unemployment, not the stats, blame the politician not the stats guy.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

pinman said:


> That's what i said if you quit looking you are no longer considered unemployed, you need to look at the number of people that have left the labor force. The numbers are there, it's just how they are reported. It's all in the definition of unemployment, not the stats, blame the politician not the stats guy.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


haha, your being sucked into his madness. fun eh? its the depends on what the definition of "is" is....


----------



## field-n-feathers

just ducky said:


> .....WHERE'S THE POPCORN EATING DUDE????


Not a dude and it's the wrong animal for this forum....But it's still funny.


----------



## just ducky

pinman said:


> That's what i said if you quit looking you are no longer considered unemployed, you need to look at the number of people that have left the labor force. The numbers are there, it's just how they are reported. It's all in the definition of unemployment, not the stats, blame the politician not the stats guy.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I'm not even going to comment on this issue (although in a previous position I dealt pretty intimately with State of Michigan labor statistics) because everyone knows that I'm always right...so why even comment?


----------



## SBE II

pinman said:


> That's what i said if you quit looking you are no longer considered unemployed, you need to look at the number of people that have left the labor force. The numbers are there, it's just how they are reported. It's all in the definition of unemployment, not the stats, blame the politician not the stats guy.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


been trying to do that but Shi Kid gets hangry when I do that..


----------



## pinman

SBE II said:


> been trying to do that but Shi Kid gets hangry when I do that..


Not true, you and belly both have been saying the dnr studies are wrong based on your own limited sampling. Thus showing your lack of understanding of statistics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SBE II

pinman said:


> Not true, you and belly both have been saying the dnr studies are wrong based on your own limited sampling. Thus showing your lack of understanding of statistics. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Haha okay..Shall we get another 30 going? They just touched 10% of the sample after the calculations and they controlled it by age demographic...This isn't a study being done on a product...It's about season dates..I'll take the odds in this one and bet all day until they choose to poll the entire demographic..


----------



## PhilBernardi

Anyone up for 50? :evil:


----------



## SBE II

PhilBernardi said:


> Anyone up for 50? :evil:


Bout due for a break and ready to start a thread talking excel boats because I'm in the market...


----------



## PhilBernardi

SBE II said:


> Haha okay..Shall we get another 30 going? They just touched 10% of the sample after the calculations and they controlled it by age demographic...This isn't a study being done on a product...It's about season dates..I'll take the odds in this one and bet all day until they choose to poll the entire demographic..


Pony up the money for the resources and they'll git'r done!


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Pony up the money for the resources and they'll git'r done!


But wait a second...I pay taxes...I buy licenses...why should I pay even more? The government OWES me a survey!


----------



## Bellyup

Holy crap people. They will need to bring in outhouses for this to go 50 pages ! 

Maybe we should do a poll on whether to take it to 50 pages or not ? :evil: 

Oh and Pinman, I don't understand the stats you speak of, I admited that long ago. Might want to brush up on the finer points on this thread ! All of my posts of course ! Trying to reach that magic number, but it is a real high bar set by the kid and JD. 

But looking at stats, the hell with 50 pages, lets take it over 10,000 views !!! That will be the stat to beat ! We are close at over 9K now ! What is that called Pinman ? Stratum or something ? 

We have already established the tennis shoe hunters will get what they want, when they want it. Now we need to sort out the real world of waterfowlers. 4 zones is not a possibility for 3 years, but I have seen the Kid and I think even JD say that is never happening, and also say that is what we should be working on for the next three years. hell, I dunno anymore. I just think a simple split would be the best compromise to all sides concerned, but from what I gather the heavy hitters on this site are totally against giving us 90 percenters a chance to have a crack at their birds. it might freeze up, the birds might move out, and it might be 50 degrees... nobody knows and nobody can predict that. All we have is stats from years past. And for the record, I have never been surveyed asking what season dates I would prefer. Y'all can say what you want as you are entitlted to an opinion, same as I am. but the fact remains, I don't think for a second that small of a sample can draw such an impactful resolution. I don't give a **** what your stat textbooks say.


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> But wait a second...I pay taxes...I buy licenses...why should I pay even more? The government OWES me a survey!


You're absolutely correct, your opinion matters...If I were a representative of a community I would surely want that...


----------



## pinman

SBE II said:


> Haha okay..Shall we get another 30 going? They just touched 10% of the sample after the calculations and they controlled it by age demographic...This isn't a study being done on a product...It's about season dates..I'll take the odds in this one and bet all day until they choose to poll the entire demographic..


And what's your point, do you think age is going to change what someone what's for season dates?

As far as the 10% sampling, increasing the sampling would only change the confidence interval, looking at the results i didn't see that it would make a lot of difference in any of the season date numbers.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> You're absolutely correct, your opinion matters...If I were a representative of a community I would surely want that...


and our schools need fixing, and our roads and bridges need fixing, and our health care system needs fixing, and we need better parks, and on and on....and the state should provide all of those things, AND MORE. But don't ask me to pony up one more dime....

Is there an emoticon of a broken record somewhere?


----------



## pinman

SBE II said:


> Haha okay..Shall we get another 30 going? They just touched 10% of the sample after the calculations and they controlled it by age demographic...This isn't a study being done on a product...It's about season dates..I'll take the odds in this one and bet all day until they choose to poll the entire demographic..


And by the way they did sample the entire demographic, they just used the age to make sure they were not skewed in there sampling.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky

I'm not touching those stats discussions...had enough of that back in grad school when doing my MBA. And Belly, you were right...stratum or strata is the correct term. DING!


----------



## pinman

just ducky said:


> I'm not touching those stats discussions...had enough of that back in grad school when doing my MBA. And Belly, you were right...stratum or strata is the correct term. DING!


Wade on in I'm not MBA at it, but i know enough that i wouldn't throw the stats out just because belly hasn't been surveyed. That would be a little self centered, or should i say belly centered.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky

pinman said:


> Wade on in I'm not MBA at it, but i know enough that i wouldn't throw the stats out just because belly hasn't been surveyed. That would be a little self centered, or should i say belly centered.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


no thanks. You and SBE just continue on with your debate. We're going for records here


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> and our schools need fixing, and our roads and bridges need fixing, and our health care system needs fixing, and we need better parks, and on and on....and the state should provide all of those things, AND MORE. But don't ask me to pony up one more dime....
> 
> Is there an emoticon of a broken record somewhere?


Wait a second cowboy..Didn't you support the fee increase for hunting licenses?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

SBE II said:


> Wait a second cowboy..Didn't you support the fee increase for hunting licenses?


JD, you gotta use short 5-7 word sentences, that way he can't pick anything out of them to disagree with.


----------



## Bellyup

Man, it looks like it is losing steam. It was over when JD dinged me for being right on some stats term. 

Maybe if I refer to the Kid and JD as rhetorical idiots it will contine some ? I have never called someone out like that though. its all about form on the forum. I am trying to reach for Caddis Effect but when i ride a bike all the flies off me is the wind ! No money flinging !


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> JD, you gotta use short 5-7 word sentences, that way he can't pick anything out of them to disagree with.


And if showed you a twinkie would you sit like a dog?


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Wait a second cowboy..Didn't you support the fee increase for hunting licenses?


yes I did and I'm happy to admit it. Did you miss my sarcasm in the other post that some people (I wonder who?) scream constantly about the government fixing everything, but aren't willing to pay anything additional because "they already pay enough"?I'll gladly pay more for licenses because it is sorely overdue. Apples and oranges. Too many words for you?


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> yes I did and I'm happy to admit it. Did you miss my sarcasm in the other post that some people (I wonder who?) scream constantly about the government fixing everything, but aren't willing to pay anything additional because "they already pay enough"?I'll gladly pay more for licenses because it is sorely overdue. Apples and oranges. Too many words for you?


Sorry there JD, can you deliver the minutes of this thread to me, it has only turned into a small novel..

Maybe you can ask CWAC for their approval to publish when you attend the August meeting.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Sorry there JD, can you deliver the minutes of this thread to me, it has only turned into a small novel..
> 
> Maybe you can ask CWAC for their approval to publish when you attend the August meeting.


I'd have to do the minutes in braille for a few of you


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

just ducky said:


> I'd have to do the minutes in braille for a few of you


----------



## SBE II

Shiawassee_Kid said:


>


Can't let this thread end this way, gotta stoke the fire..

Wow, how considerate of you to show us your paintshop skills, and utilize me. I bet you just learned how to color between the lines last week?

Since you were so considerate I decided to do some research, found this photo of you, I believe it was since the existence of MSF.


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Can't let this thread end this way, gotta stoke the fire..
> 
> Wow, how considerate of you to show us your paintshop skills, and utilize me. I bet you just learned how to color between the lines last week?
> 
> Since you were so considerate I decided to do some research, found this photo of you, I believe it was since the existence of MSF.


*tough guy, or nerd? Ya just never know what you're gonna get do you?*


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> *tough guy, or nerd? Ya just never know what you're gonna get do you?*


How much was that bridge ? Oh and I forget he supported some sort of ban on guns after all the tragedy in ct. Or I could take a jd line... Takes one to know one... Hahaha


----------



## SBE II

just ducky said:


> *tough guy, or nerd? Ya just never know what you're gonna get do you?*


Good point the granny ashin cigarette has me guessing..


----------



## just ducky

SBE II said:


> Good point the granny ashin cigarette has me guessing..


:lol::lol: funny, it took me a couple looks before I spotted the ciggy.


----------

