# GEMS and whose paying the tab?



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks for your efforts!

Decades ago when I first moved to the U.P., there was a previous initiative the used DRIP monies for establishment of tilled swaths through mixed aspen and red oak, planted with a mix of rye and clover. I used to hunt five of these in southern Baraga, Iron, Dickinson, and southern Marquette counties. The edges grew back in wild raspberry. They were fabulous places to hunt grouse on cold frosty mornings soon after first light. As others have said, I branched-out from these into similar habitat. These were allowed to literally whither and die in favor of large clear-cuts during the peak years of the pulp wood industry, which died back in the late 1990s as paper use fell-off world-wide.

The establishment of the GEMS initiative is a very welcome habitat enhancement effort that is highly worthwhile for the species and the habitat!


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes I remember that! Over by Genes pond was one I really liked.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

dauber said:


> Myself, my wife and one DNR biologist can take the blame for GEMS. It's a waste of my time to even try to discuss the differences in management, I've done it in many different forums to no avail for all those who "think" they already know.
> To answer the OP, first off the 3 of us to blame are all Yoopers and it made sense to start with our plans here, plus our influence was greater where we are. Secondly, you do "go to apple trees to pick apples", so if you are making and/or maintaining world class grouse and woodcock hunting you do it where potential is highest. Not unlike deer yard habitat work is done in .... you guessed it...deer yards.
> Third, there is a lot of resistance especially among grouse hunters, and more so LP grouse hunters.
> 
> Tourism is one of our objectives, being able to sell the concept that there are good sized areas with walk in hunting giving an out of state hunter at least a place to start I think has worked very well up here. Local businesses have really jumped on board and I have seen a big jump in out of state hunters in the ones I'm familiar with. I believe you may see a few more showing up in NLP in the future.




Thanks for your efforts in getting the GEM's off the ground.

My previous post may have come off sounding very negative, reading back it certainly wasn't worded very well, but that was not my intent. 

I'm a big fan of the GEMS and will go as far as to say it is probably the best thing to happen to grouse in my life time. And, possibly in the Michigan's lifetime. If the prescription to manage the GEMS holds true, I'd vote to make the entire state a GEMS unit.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

What I am trying to point out, and your missing my point. That if we do not make it easier for new recruits or youth hunters, and youths whose parents may not hunt, we as hunters will pay. More importantly the wildlife will end up paying dearly, without money or citizens fighting to keep fracking, selling off state land etc., etc.

We need more GEMS at least twice the amount that are in UP in NLP. Not only to help in keeping the area over hunted, but much more important to keep it convenient and affordable for those venturing or trying to hunt. Above all the biggest reason is to retain the hunters we have and boost new recruits. The biggest benefit which I and hope all of you agree, the improvement of habitat for all wildlife.


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

thelastlemming said:


> snip
> Unless someone can figure out a way to relocate the grouse and grouse habitat to southeast Michigan the DNR is forced to work where the birds are at not where the population centers are at.


There is plenty of habitat in the SE that had huntable numbers of grouse in the past. A complete lack of habitat management has eroded it. 


Lucky Dog said:


> snip
> I'm sure that if there were more good grouse hunting areas in the lower, there would be more GEM's in the lower.


There aren't any good grouse hunting areas south of the bridge. Everyone should stop even trying to hunt south and spend all their time north of the bridge. Since I really don't like to shoot grouse and woodcock, I'll take one for the team and stay south to hunt all that terrible grouse habitat south of the bridge.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Lucky Dog said:


> Thanks for your efforts in getting the GEM's off the ground.
> 
> My previous post may have come off sounding very negative, reading back it certainly wasn't worded very well, but that was not my intent.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the GEMS and will go as far as to say it is probably the best thing to happen to grouse in my life time. And, possibly in the Michigan's lifetime. If the prescription to manage the GEMS holds true, I'd vote to make the entire state a GEMS unit.


Wasn't referring to you Lucky Dog, although I guess you do fit the description of "old grouse hunter" haha. Had a couple old guys from downstate yesterday at Rec show I was working RGS booth complaining that they hate GEMS. They claim it's now too damn easy for new hunters.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

The more I learn the more I like it.Thanks dauber


----------



## JBooth (Sep 21, 2009)

my area chooses kirtland warblers over grouse. Plantation jackpine for days.


----------



## Gnoyes (Jan 23, 2013)

JBooth said:


> my area chooses kirtland warblers over grouse. Plantation jackpine for days.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but this is a common misconception with managed jack pine. Suitable nesting conditions for Kirtland's (which are ground nesters) only occurs on excessively drained Grayling sands. The areas managed for Kirtland habitat are always located on this soil group, and are much too droughty to support good grouse habitat and the plant species that grow there. 

Cross into an area of heavier and wetter soils near the jp and you'll probably find pockets of those plant species that support grouse. I'd agree that those pockets don't receive the management dollars that the jp does, but no amount of money could turn our jack pine plantations into good grouse and woodcock cover. 

It's all about the soil.

This is an informative thread, I'll admit I knew almost nothing about the GEMS program.


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

I really don't think you grasp the amount of land up north offers... I hunt the lower when time doesn't allow me to go north... I can tell you that the pressure in the lower is three fold if not more than the pressure on a convey in the north woods... there is just more habitat up north than below the bridge... not that the hunting is not good in the lower but the lack of pressure and habitat is so so so much better up north... if it was my business (grouse mgmt.) that is where I would focus...


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Gnoyes said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but this is a common misconception with managed jack pine. Suitable nesting conditions for Kirtland's (which are ground nesters) only occurs on excessively drained Grayling sands. The areas managed for Kirtland habitat are always located on this soil group, and are much too droughty to support good grouse habitat and the plant species that grow there.
> 
> Cross into an area of heavier and wetter soils near the jp and you'll probably find pockets of those plant species that support grouse. I'd agree that those pockets don't receive the management dollars that the jp does, but no amount of money could turn our jack pine plantations into good grouse and woodcock cover.
> 
> ...


Gnoyes is spot on. 

I was a soil scientist for 30 years and worked in this area. That's what I meant by you have to go to apple trees to pick apples. That jack pine area won't grow dense enough aspen for grouse.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Hunters Edge said:


> What I am trying to point out, and your missing my point. That if we do not make it easier for new recruits or youth hunters, and youths whose parents may not hunt, we as hunters will pay. More importantly the wildlife will end up paying dearly, without money or citizens fighting to keep fracking, selling off state land etc., etc.
> 
> We need more GEMS at least twice the amount that are in UP in NLP. Not only to help in keeping the area over hunted, but much more important to keep it convenient and affordable for those venturing or trying to hunt. Above all the biggest reason is to retain the hunters we have and boost new recruits. The biggest benefit which I and hope all of you agree, the improvement of habitat for all wildlife.


I would gladly support more GEMS in the lower as long as the DNR enrolls the same amount of acreage in HAP in the UP as there is in the SLP. That would seem like an equitable trade for everyone. The majority of the HAP land up here is only open for the sharptail season.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I would gladly support more GEMS in the lower as long as the DNR enrolls the same amount of acreage in HAP in the UP as there is in the SLP. That would seem like an equitable trade for everyone. The majority of the HAP land up here is only open for the sharptail season.


 If you contact the dnr you can probably sing yours up.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I would gladly support more GEMS in the lower as long as the DNR enrolls the same amount of acreage in HAP in the UP as there is in the SLP. That would seem like an equitable trade for everyone. The majority of the HAP land up here is only open for the sharptail season.


First why would you think 3% should have the same amount to use as the 97%?
Second HAP is private property open to to public hunting. Which the UP has more than HAP in the lower, it is called the commercial forest act that allows hunters on private property, which in essence is the same goal, access to private property.
Third you already got not only the same acreage of private property open to public hunting, actually more acreage of private property open to public hunting.
Fourth the reason HAP came about and why it is used in areas of sharptail, the land is not forest so the same use in areas in the lower that are not forest and can utilize the commercial forest act to allow access, HAP came about and used in those areas.
Five you do not get it. If you or me just think of ourselves we will lose in the end. We need to think of every way to encourage new hunters to the sport and even though wildlife habitat improvement should be everywhere, it is detrimental to keep it close to the 97% . It has the greatest opportunity for new recruits to hunting and conservation.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

brdhntr said:


> There is plenty of habitat in the SE that had huntable numbers of grouse in the past. A complete lack of habitat management has eroded it.
> 
> There aren't any good grouse hunting areas south of the bridge. Everyone should stop even trying to hunt south and spend all their time north of the bridge. Since I really don't like to shoot grouse and woodcock, I'll take one for the team and stay south to hunt all that terrible grouse habitat south of the bridge.


Yep, hunters today walk through timber, not knowing that in the 80s it was slashings. One of my favorite memories is 17 flushes in 2 hours and only about a 50 minute drive from the suburbs. Not sure GEMS could handle the pressure that close to urban living? 

They still could enhance the habitat like they use to. It was a great place to run the dogs back in the day. It had lots of pressure back then as well, so it may be able to handle it if it was managed for it.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

CFA land is not paid for by hunter dollars. HAP is hunter dollar funded. Big difference as you already know. CFA is for board feet of lumber not for early successional forest which are where game birds and animals thrive. 

In a perfect world the DNR would distribute hunter money equally in each county across the state. It's too bad they don't. Everyone has access to a car so they can drive anywhere they want, it's all Michigan. 

In case you forgot, GEM is Grouse Enhanced Management on land that the state already owns. Access, plantings and timber harvest practices make it favorable for native grouse and hunter alike.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

dauber said:


> Yes I remember that! Over by Genes pond was one I really liked.


There was another one to the northeast up off CR 438 that I hunted more frequently. When I was down that way(Gene's Pond) I hunted west of there all the way over to Peavey Pond more frequently...still do.



Hunters Edge said:


> First why would you think 3% should have the same amount to use as the 97%?
> Second HAP is private property open to to public hunting. Which the UP has more than HAP in the lower, it is called the commercial forest act that allows hunters on private property, which in essence is the same goal, access to private property.
> Third you already got not only the same acreage of private property open to public hunting, actually more acreage of private property open to public hunting.
> Fourth the reason HAP came about and why it is used in areas of sharptail, the land is not forest so the same use in areas in the lower that are not forest and can utilize the commercial forest act to allow access, HAP came about and used in those areas.
> Five you do not get it. If you or me just think of ourselves we will lose in the end. We need to think of every way to encourage new hunters to the sport and even though wildlife habitat improvement should be everywhere, it is detrimental to keep it close to the 97% . It has the greatest opportunity for new recruits to hunting and conservation.


First point, you left out the word not in your second to last sentence. It should read 'not keep it close to the 97%.'

Now, let's analyze your base argument using a different stratification approach. 

What proportions of the 97 and 3% you cite actually hunt, as well as work to instill a similar perspective in their children to continue the tradition? Now, let's continue to extend this analysis argument along the same lines, but break the resulting proportions (percentage of total that actually hunt, and instill the hunting ethic to their offspring) down again by subdividing that 97% of the State's population you cite so frequently in this thread among the folks in southeastern lower Michigan's heavily developed and industrialized southeastern 20% of lower Michigan, and the remainder of lower Michigan. HMMMM, I suspect the proportions that result still favor putting GEMS in northern lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. If I were the MDNR person in charge of GEMS sighting choices, I would spend my constituent's money on facilities to encourage hunting in areas where a semblance of a hunting tradition STILL exists and among a population that still maintains a land ethic.

Yes, you can start a "fire" without matches, but you still need a glowing spark to initiate the combustion.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Luv2hunteup said:


> CFA land is not paid for by hunter dollars. HAP is hunter dollar funded. Big difference as you already know. CFA is for board feet of lumber not for early successional forest which are where game birds and animals thrive.
> 
> In a perfect world the DNR would distribute hunter money equally in each county across the state. It's too bad they don't. Everyone has access to a car so they can drive anywhere they want, it's all Michigan.
> 
> In case you forgot, GEM is Grouse Enhanced Management on land that the state already owns. Access, plantings and timber harvest practices make it favorable for native grouse and hunter alike.


That's true but it is one h#$$-va lot closer to you and cork dust who live in the UP. It is very convenient for you your neighbors and family living in the UP. Seeing you openly wrote it was you, your wife and a DNR person who decided on locations, it could be convinced as inappropriate funding using public funds for the citizens of the state Michigan and using the majority of funds close to you? Not saying that it is, but it is looking more n more like it.


----------



## Mr. Uplander (Jul 6, 2015)

My God dude really?!? From the sounds of it, dauber has done more for us grouse hunters than most of us put together.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> There was another one to the northeast up off CR 438 that I hunted more frequently. When I was down that way(Gene's Pond) I hunted west of there all the way over to Peavey Pond more frequently...still do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let's break this down if 7% hunt of the general public means 21,770 average hunters in the UP, compared to 671,230 in the lower.

You also mentioned or implied there are more hunters in the UP. The problem with that all data even flatlanders driving north to hunt in the UP for deer hunting, does not come close to hunters numbers in NLP, let alone the hotspot or higher numbers of deer hunters in SL. All of which purchase a base license or small game license, which funds GEMS.

Let's take it further, out of the mouth of DNR, the base license added or increase was to get more hunters hunting small game and to recruit new hunters to hunt small game. Putting their dollars in areas they will not hunt or can not do to time or better yet lack of time, is not prudent to the goal set by the MDNR.

Also you implied " where semblance of a hunting tradition STILL exists". I say to you hunting anywhere in Michigan is a tradition. In fact Southeast Michigan was one of the first colony in which hunting and trapping started, so if tradition it would have started their.


----------



## Ky fastflyer (Jun 16, 2016)

Luv2hunteup said:


> The Feds manage for old growth forests but at times do have timber sales. The last big one in the EUP was in the mid 90s to late 90s.


This sounds all to familiar, DBNF is exactly the same way, and if they have a timber harvest proposal, by the time they have all the public meetings and after Heartwood whittles down the original version (or puts a halt on it altogether ), then maybe in 8-10yrs the loggers can start putting gas in the chainsaws...



dauber said:


> State forests in Michigan are grouped into compartments. These compartments are inventoried every 10 years and it is decided by wildlife biologist and foresters if any stands are mature and ready for harvest. That could be thinnings on hardwood or pine or clearcut on aspen or jackpine. Each stand in the compartment is looked at. In the yoop the usual aspen rotation is about 50 years. The GEMS compartments are inventoried every 5 years and the aspen rotation is cut to 40 years. That doesn't necessarily mean there is a cut every 5 years. The timber sale will be put up after ok'd thru compartment review process then sold to logger who then has a couple years to cut it unless they need an extension due to bad winter for logging or some other unforeseen problem.
> 
> Michigan is one of the only states the has an inventory system like this.


Are compartments a standard size or is it dependent on size or location of a state forest?

Secondly, you mentioned thinning of oaks, is that the typical prescription on average instead of clearcutting? 

In the Appalachian's, logging has a bad stigma, and clearcutting is almost sacrilegious..
I've never understood the thought process of people that claim they want to help wildlife, yet throw a fit at the mention of cutting a tree, pure selfishness imo...


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Ky fastflyer said:


> This sounds all to familiar, DBNF is exactly the same way, and if they have a timber harvest proposal, by the time they have all the public meetings and after Heartwood whittles down the original version (or puts a halt on it altogether ), then maybe in 8-10yrs the loggers can start putting gas in the chainsaws...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Compartments are variable in size from 500-7000 acres. Depending on topography, complexity, and ownership. 

I apologize if I said oaks, meant hardwoods which up here is maple, cherry, used to be beech, yellow birch stands are thinned. There are very few oaks in EUP. Oaks are managed different in NLP, mostly shelter wood cuts and stump sprouts. 

Oh anti logging is alive and well especially downstate here in Michigan. I few years back I attended a Sierra Club pushed public meeting in Grayling aimed at banning clear cutting. Let's say my questions and comments weren't well received by the crowd. Lol


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> What you have just typed is nowhere near what I stated...much like your rant directed at LivetohuntUP regarding a statement made by Dauber.
> 
> Yes, this is all a vast conspiracy to deny hunting access;we've tricked the MDNR Wildlife Division into sighting these units disproportionally nearer us, so we can hunt them exclusively while those that deserve them pay for most of their establishment, maintenance, and perpetuation.
> 
> ...


Is this the quote your referring to?



Hunters Edge said:


> That's true but it is one h#$$-va lot closer to you and cork dust who live in the UP. It is very convenient for you your neighbors and family living in the UP. Seeing you openly wrote it was you, your wife and a DNR person who decided on locations, it could be convinced as inappropriate funding using public funds for the citizens of the state Michigan and using the majority of funds close to you? Not saying that it is, but it is looking more n more like it.


If so actions speaks for itself.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

dauber said:


> Hahaha!!
> Sorry Luv2hunteup, I volunteer to take the blame and you get it! LOL
> 
> You want to know about misappropriation of funds...hell us Yoopers get screwed big time by State taxes! Damn near all of our taxes is spent Lansing and south.
> ...


The richest soil is buried under concrete. The second is SLP or even the thumb, for it was a swamp before drained, the bay area is as close as you can get as well. Overall NLP has much richer soil than the UP except EUP or Menomonee county, majority of up is a little too soil over shale, and may be the reason for the few oak trees. I would say not only the soil but less severity of winter in snow depths and more importantly average temps and length of severity, all point for NLP, CM, and SLP for picking apples as you refer to it.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Ky fastflyer said:


> Wow, if only I had Michigan's grouse hunters problems, I probably wouldn't be driving 11hrs up there or 17-18hrs to Mn. grouse hunting lol...
> 
> I understand we take things for granted, and we almost always are never satisfied, it's human nature, but, let me inform my northern grouse hunting brothers, y'all have got it made, so be thankful..
> 
> ...


Thank you for purchasing a non resident license and enjoying Michigans resources.

Understand that you and others have been coming for years and will continue, if, and that's the reason for the criticism on where the money was spent.

Not sure if Kentucky raised their deer license to include a small game license. That's exactly what happened here in Michigan. From the director's own mouth the reason for the increase is basically to get more hunting small game and to recruit youths to small game hunting. Data shows those hunting at a young age even if stopped for college or other reasons will come back to it later in life. Our hunting license sales are slumping even with those like yourself non residents who come here. Again I want to thank you again for your support of our natural resources.

So let's look at it like this. If your in sales and a very limited budget, would you use your advertising dollars in an area of 311,000 to sell them? Or use the same amount of money in an area reaching 9,589,000 to sell them?


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunter-over-the-edge, did you happen to notice he said he grouse hunted in Mn? 

By the way, I have never hunted grouse in any of the GEM units, too many other known grouse holding spots.


----------



## Ky fastflyer (Jun 16, 2016)

Hunters Edge said:


> Thank you for purchasing a non resident license and enjoying Michigans resources.
> 
> Understand that you and others have been coming for years and will continue, if, and that's the reason for the criticism on where the money was spent.
> 
> ...


You're welcome sir.
Can you remember when you were a kid, with the anticipation and excitement of Christmas, well, that was almost as good as coming up north grouse hunting in the fall for me..

As far as Ky and deer hunting, the non resident hunting liscense increased, but the deer tag itself is $35's the same as a resident.

I understand what you're driving at, as far as being fiscally responsible and earmarking tax dollars, based on population dynamics, but, here's something to ponder, Ky raised deer tags $5 a couple yrs ago along with non resident liscense, (as most know Ky has the name of being a big buck hotspot )there are 120 co's in this state, 90+% of those BC bucks are killed in 10% of those 120 co's in Western Ky, do I turn on the outdoor channel and see Dury outdoors or Michael Waddell hunting in the DBNF or anywhere in E.Ky,no, I never have. Why? Are they no big bucks in E. Ky? To the contrary, it's just Western Ky has the reputation of being a big buck producing area with several outfitters and alot of high profile publicity..

Much the same way the UP is compared to the NLP, when people talk about grouse hunting in Michigan, (non residents, tv, magazines, just like deer here), 90+% will say the Upper Pennsula, so therefore regardless of the tax differences, they are gonna create more habitat there, because they'll get the most bang for their buck, but if it'll make you feel any better those other 108 co's pay more taxes than those 12 here also...


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Hunters Edge said:


> The richest soil is buried under concrete. The second is SLP or even the thumb, for it was a swamp before drained, the bay area is as close as you can get as well. Overall NLP has much richer soil than the UP except EUP or Menomonee county, majority of up is a little too soil over shale, and may be the reason for the few oak trees. I would say not only the soil but less severity of winter in snow depths and more importantly average temps and length of severity, all point for NLP, CM, and SLP for picking apples as you refer to it.


Ya buddy!! hahaha. You now have REALY stepped beyond your knowledge. You are pretty much dead wrong with everything here Edgie. Lol!!

I am one of the 20 or so people who soil mapped all over the UP and NLP. I am the guy who says what is prime farmland, prime forestland, and soils of local importance are. I am the guy who took the tree growth vs soil type data. I am the guy who documented what tree and plant species grow on what soil types. 

Edgie you really have a knack of writing about things you know little about! You are a waste of time to reply too.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Ky fastflyer said:


> You're welcome sir.
> Can you remember when you were a kid, with the anticipation and excitement of Christmas, well, that was almost as good as coming up north grouse hunting in the fall for me..
> 
> As far as Ky and deer hunting, the non resident hunting liscense increased, but the deer tag itself is $35's the same as a resident.
> ...


I do not think you understand. If the license sales keep slipping there we be no state land or very little of it, for your grandchildren or great grandchildren to enjoy what you do today.

Just recently our governor almost sold some of that state land. The only reason it did not go through is citizens and American Indians, I would bet the majority were hunters.

The money generated from increased license sales, because every hunter and trapper has to buy a small game license, called today base license. This money was earmarked to increase hunting or to recruit new hunters. If this is not done the state land we have today in Michigan, will not be here for future generations.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

dauber said:


> Ya buddy!! hahaha. You now have REALY stepped beyond your knowledge. You are pretty much dead wrong with everything here Edgie. Lol!!
> 
> I am one of the 20 or so people who soil mapped all over the UP and NLP. I am the guy who says what is prime farmland, prime forestland, and soils of local importance are. I am the guy who took the tree growth vs soil type data. I am the guy who documented what tree and plant species grow on what soil types.
> 
> Edgie you really have a knack of writing about things you know little about! You are a waste of time to reply too.


Must be hitting real close to the truth because it resulted in you starting to calling names.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

dauber said:


> Ya buddy!! hahaha. You now have REALY stepped beyond your knowledge. You are pretty much dead wrong with everything here Edgie. Lol!!
> 
> I am one of the 20 or so people who soil mapped all over the UP and NLP. I am the guy who says what is prime farmland, prime forestland, and soils of local importance are. I am the guy who took the tree growth vs soil type data. I am the guy who documented what tree and plant species grow on what soil types.
> 
> Edgie you really have a knack of writing about things you know little about! You are a waste of time to reply too.


You better go back to school. Ask any farmer it is not just soil but growing season. Thus the reason for the need for shorter maturity in northern climates, which also in most cases less yield per acre. Not even considering survival rates.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Michigan sells state land every year. Most of it is land lock or removed from other parcels. To bad there is a mandate to increase state land in the SLP. Too bad they don't just keep the average average the same in each unit. The DNR has had to pass on some large chunks of land it the UP that came up for sale.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Michigan sells state land every year. Most of it is land lock or removed from other parcels. To bad there is a mandate to increase state land in the SLP. Too bad they don't just keep the average average the same in each unit. The DNR has had to pass on some large chunks of land it the UP that came up for sale.


You can thank Senator Tom Capserson for this current situation. His family owns a logging business. He sat on a big stick before coming to Lansing, hasn't been able to remove it since his arrival. Term limits will ease him back into the private sector.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Hunters Edge said:


> You better go back to school. Ask any farmer it is not just soil but growing season. Thus the reason for the need for shorter maturity in northern climates, which also in most cases less yield per acre. Not even considering survival rates.


You don't get it do ya. Can't just tell grouse habitat to grow where you want it or where the population is.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

dauber said:


> You don't get it do ya. Can't just tell grouse habitat to grow where you want it or where the population is.


These are your words "Can't just tell grouse habitat to grow". Sorry but that's the whole reason for Grouse Enhanced Management Sites or GEMS.

Again your words "or where the population is". Sorry but again provide habitat you got grouse, and once again the whole reason for Grouse Enhanced Management Sites.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

Hunters Edge said:


> These are your words "Can't just tell grouse habitat to grow". Sorry but that's the whole reason for Grouse Enhanced Management Sites or GEMS.
> 
> Again your words "or where the population is". Sorry but again provide habitat you got grouse, and once again the whole reason for Grouse Enhanced Management Sites.



If it's that easy why not in Indiana? Heck why not in Texas.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

dauber said:


> If it's that easy why not in Indiana? Heck why not in Texas.


They did not add a base license on Michigan hunting and trapping licenses to be used in Michigan to increase license sales or increase participation in small game hunting. We are talking about NLP and SLP all of which if the habitat is their holds grouse.

We are also talking about Michigan hunting licenses are diving and we need to do everything we can to stop the trend. Not spend the money for you, your family and friends, this only jeopardizes the issue. By pissing off the majority of those who still purchased hunting trapping licenses, counting on that money actually being used proportional within the state. In hopes making it easier to get their children or grandchildren hunting. Or better yet the money used as it was sold to us or the reason for the price increase.


----------



## Oger (Aug 28, 2008)

What the hell are gems


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

Your first post was bait and leaning non biased but as we see now your are biased and no matter what others have to say is irrelevant for sure.I don't believe you represent the masses as you think or portray yourself to be doing.I surely don't need you to represent my money and I am happy with what the DNR does with the funds they have.You are never satisfied with what they do.You have upset people with your condescending mannerisms and then blame others for their response as if it was unwarranted. Tisk.shame on you.Back seat driver!!Get involved if you truly think you can help.E-mail the DNR as I have and my daughter or put your boots on the ground and work it like Dauber has done.As for the stats on populations you provide is misinterpreted if you look at county populations the northern lower is not even 3 to one to the UP.60% of Michigan's population resides in 9 of the 83 county's so the money should go there?Step up and get involved but you will have to lose the condescending mannerisms or you won't get far


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

birdhntr said:


> Your first post was bait and leaning non biased but as we see now your are biased and no matter what others have to say is irrelevant for sure.I don't believe you represent the masses as you think or portray yourself to be doing.I surely don't need you to represent my money and I am happy with what the DNR does with the funds they have.You are never satisfied with what they do.You have upset people with your condescending mannerisms and then blame others for their response as if it was unwarranted. Tisk.shame on you.Back seat driver!!Get involved if you truly think you can help.E-mail the DNR as I have and my daughter or put your boots on the ground and work it like Dauber has done.As for the stats on populations you provide is misinterpreted if you look at county populations the northern lower is not even 3 to one to the UP.60% of Michigan's population resides in 9 of the 83 county's so the money should go there?Step up and get involved but you will have to lose the condescending mannerisms or you won't get far


Not condescending if anyone is, it would be someone thinking everyone is inferior and stooping to making up or calling them names. I do appreciate your input especially when their are several sites in the thumb that should have had the money invested in wildlife habitat enhancement, specifically for grouse.


----------

