# Proposed bear tags greater than bear numbers www.ccare.ws anouncement



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

hubbarj said:


> Spartan88, the 11,100 number is not rumor it came from the horses mouth. If you would like a copy of the email that was sent to us by the MDNRE I would be happy to email it to you if you would like.
> 
> John


My post above was directed at two people, they know who they are.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

to think that the MDNRE is using sound scientific data in proposed bear tag numbers is ludicrous. look at how they managed the deer herd in the northern part of the state. also,let us not forget that they tried to increase fees,due to a budget shortfall,then, an audit found a large supply of money stashed. I attended the bear user group meeting in December, all sportsman groups were represented,the overwhelming consensus was a lack of bear numbers.hap jones, perhaps you can post the minutes of the meeting,and expose the MDNR,as not managing the resources, in the manner you are paid to do.I hope we clean house,and eliminate the jobs of those who have been exposed,public outcry is growing, I hope everyone emails or attends the NRC meeting,demanding a reduction, statewide of bear tags to reflect the population.


----------



## jmc (Mar 8, 2004)

the red oak bmu,during the 2009 and 2008 bear seasons,had harvested more than the target quota,instead of reducing tags and evaluating whether that there are more bear,which less tags/higher success would mean,the MDNRE continues to attempt to ruin the last area where they have not decimated the bear numbers.where once was the best bear hunting,nationwide,the western up,the bear population is so poor,it is not worth the gas money to hunt there.please contact the MDNRE and demand that they reexamine their population model.unless they can supply a census that has been done recently,their computer model is flawed,and they dropped their estimated number merely to cover their own but.in order to sustain a hunt able population for future generations we need management now.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I was there as well. It seems to me I remember the same thing. Everyone is complaining about low bear numbers. All the big clubs are on the same page. I remember that representives from MUCC, MBHA, MHDF, The **** hunters group(sorry I forgot the name), a couple bow hunting groups, and yours truly. 

Bears are not hiding on private property in the UP. Nocturnal bear are a houndsmens wish, so forget that. The only folks that seem to think there are any bear remaining are bear pimps, and the clients that are so cleverly hoodwinked. Close proximity, and massive amounts of bait concentrate remaining bear. If I were a bear pimp, I could do it well.

Fix the bear problem and will be running hounds and hunting. Charlie


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Spartan88 said:


> My post above was directed at two people, they know who they are.


I know who you are directing it at and I am supporting them. I have sat in on meetings with them, MDNRE, State Reps. and many other people. Their numbers were not rejected by these people as wild rumor or speculation. They were not tagged as radical anti hunters by these folks as a matter of fact I would say they are very passionate hunters. They are concerned about a resource that is their main source of enjoyment throughout the summer and fall. If you would have wittnessed the decline of the population decline that has happened in the last 10 years throughtout most of the U.P. you would be concerned also.

John


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Well, I now know of one organization I will not be involved in this year.....


----------



## Hap Jones (Jan 29, 2003)

"Just received an email advising me Hap Jones' real name is Duane Etters MDNRE's bear biologist directly involved in this issue."

Roster,

You better go back and check your source again, because I can guarantee you I'm not Duane Etters! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

I don't even know why I waste my time trying to correct the misinformation you guys post on here. This thread only has 600 hits and 900 of them are from guys named Charlie.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Hap, Maybe you are not Dwayne Etter or Duane Etters, I really Don't care if your Chief Chemical Ali. I work long hours and when I am not working I like to hunt, you can assume that my hits on this thread are far less than 600. I sure am glad you are not part of the Wildlife division because you sure do like to overstate things. I am going hunting now. If I have time I might look for denning bear. Should I just look on private property this year? Or should I look in area's that wolves circled! Not really sure why Hap would try so hard to get me ruffled? Charlie
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Sorry about misspelling your name. We have documentation on the issues posted, much of which is posted on the CCARE site. Anytime someone wants to know where the details came from we readily provide them. The 11,100 revised statewide population estimate came from Adam Bump. It was written 1/28/10. It is the estimate prior to the 2009 harvest season (excluding cubs). According to your departments's figures 2,026 bears were harvested reducing the statewide estimated bear numbers down to 9,074 (excluding cubs). When we received Adam's letter with the revised estimate I called Mike Thorman about it. Mike was in Lansing at the time as I recall. He checked with your department...called me back and said "the number is correct and they have had the number for awhile." My question to you is...did you know of the 11,100 estimate in December when you were at the St. Ignace meeting?

All we are focused on is fixing what's broke. Welcome to the tea party.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

You guys make me embarrassed to be a Yooper!


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Why are we better looking?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Transplant!!


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Bearboy said:


> Why are we better looking?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nope....just have some hidden agendas that everybody sees through....including Guides, the DNR, the USFWS, Michigan Bear Hunters Ass., etc.

You preach and preach and preach yet.......never mind...I'm complaining to people who can't handle the truth.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Holy cow!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Uptracker,

No hidden agenda here. Licensing and regulating guides operating on public land is in the 2009 Bear Management Plan and is fully supported by all 18 members of the Bear Consultation Team representing 18 different user groups. No hidden agenda with MDNRE we post facts we can back-up. I do not recall posting anything about the USFWS, but have posted some on USFS relating to outfitter/guides being required to apply for a Special Use Permit...nothing hidden there. I have had some concerns with MBHA and expressed them openly. Recently learned from a couple MBHA directors I consider to be friends...MBHA will be at the NRC meeting in Lansing March 4 and will take a strong stand against the proposed number of harvest tags MDNRE wants to issue.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Point in case.....is Napolean Dynamite on the other end here?

Counciltation is actually spelled consultation....boy, you sure are the right guy for the job. Just the type we need representing the Michigan bear hunters.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Uptracker,

Thanks for pointing out my typo. Went back and fixed it.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

uptracker said:


> Point in case.....is Napolean Dynamite on the other end here?
> 
> Counciltation is actually spelled consultation....boy, you sure are the right guy for the job. Just the type we need representing the Michigan bear hunters.


Thats what you get for sounding it out. Happens to me all the time. It doesn't take away from Rooster's message. uptracker, your welcome to present anything to support your view. But knit-picking(sp?) someone's spelling is kind-of weak.

ATB


----------



## hank713 (Jul 31, 2005)

I have finally decided to make a post after reading markham's refering to anyone that help's a hunter get an animal he dream's of harvesting but cannot,due to the great distance of his unit and job requirement's do it themself as a "bear pimp" this is something he and I will discuss face to face at a later time.My family has helped hunter's,fisherman and trapper's since the early 1940's,long before a bearboy or rooster decided to make everything their own. I respect the animal's and all they represent,the last time I looked our hunting license purchase allowed the person the right to harvest a bear deer or whatever game he possed a tag for.You say I put out a ton of bait on a site that is idiotic,there is nobody I know of that does that.You make it sound like only bait hunter's use bait,again a false hood,the bait dealer's I buy from sell far more to houndmen than I buy,in fact I get alot of bait when I have mine delivered hauled for houndsmen as well,there is not a hound truck you see without a bucket in it.I can take anyone on a loop north of Kenton starting in JULY when there are "sweet" bait's on virtually every turn out and you I have no problem with that,but Markham and Hare seem to turn a blind eye to that. I bait on alot of private property but some how the dog's alway's run through it,there is a 120 acres field all PRIVATE down the road from us torn up each fall despite the fact it is all posted.The land north of m-28 from Kenton to Agate fall's and north of Trout Creek to 5 mile road is all private yet run almost daily with the dog's. I have picture's of dog's on a bait last year september 13th and 14th. I read there are "no bear" so I am wondering how you would explain all of the ribbon that makes the tree's look like Christmas tree's in multiple color's attached to them. I read on your personal website where you say you are a watch dog group making sure hunting is done the "right way" and making a person hunting a bait like they are doing something wrong,but shooting out of a tree is the right way.The last time I looked it was still the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE'S and not the markham hare department.Then you make a quote saying we make 40,000-60,000 dollar's where the hell do you come up with that.I pay for the motel which is all reserved for the guy's single room's $50 per nite cabin's $65.00 and a house which is $550, for 6 or 7 nite's and PAY even if the guy's leave early I still pay for ALL the nite's. The bait is not free,I buy from Chippeewa fall's wis. $175.00 per box PLUS $1.50 per mile bOTH way's delivered plus $50.00 per driver,if it is bought at co-op in Bruce Crossing it is $375.00,all of the scent's cost as well,then there is gas as well. We aslo buy the food and refreshment's as well.We also donate hunt's for FREE to service men and women,police officer's,firemen and children.I drew an Amasa tag last year and gave it including the hunt FOR FREE I make sure there is no profit made. I welcome the dnr to come over anytime and they do stop by.I have game camera picture's of 42 bear AFTER the season closed and into deer season from lastI know you will dipute those number's but I HAVE THE DISC" all with time and date..... there are alot of men and women in the service right now risking theri live's to make sure we have the FREEDOM to choose how we want to hunt the way we want and NOT the way charlie markham and rich hare want it done.I after reading o your personal website and here do believe your agenda is to get rid of baiting and have only hound hunting legal,and you refer to it in many post's the last one above that goe's something like this,get the terrible baiting stopped and we will be running hound's again. I have no problem with dog hunter's I have alot of people that I am rpoud to call friend's that do it,but I do have a problem with having accusations thrown at me.I wish I would not have had to write this,but it is time for all people that hunt over bait to start speaking our or markham will work hard to have it taken away.I know there will be alot of post's saying another baiter spouting off,but I do not do this for money I love being in the wood's.It is not charlie markham or rich hare's right to choose what is a trophy in another person's eye's,and if either one of you have ever taken a bear less than 150 pound's at any time you have NO RIGHT to say what another man or woman can take.
I will leave you charlie markham with 2 word's that tarnish saint hood.It is not a time to do what you are doing and causing a great split among hunter's.You are in your own way a very good anti,you will play right into p.e.t.a' hand's. I have made a pile fo friend's over the year's and that is my reward. I also believe in Karma,it will come back and bite you
STOLEN BOBCAT (not saying who)
Hank Pole lll


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

As I have written to you in past PM's, if guide's operated like you do there wouldn't be a problem. MDNRE would not address the uncontrolled guiding on our public land and it is that issue along with the serious decline in bear numbers in areas across the U.P. that got me to stand up for what I believe in. Seems like the last time you and I communicated you also expressed a concern over it. I am not against bear hunting over bait and would not be involved in ever trying to move against it. I would take an active role in supporting it if it ever does come under attack.

Hank, I took a lot of average bears years ago for the meat. Would not do it now because of the low numbers. New hunters are right to be proud harvesting a legal bear...its the operator's failing to teach their clients what's fair game and what's not. Far as I know you agreed on the 42 inch proposal we made to the NRC, to at least help better identify what's a legal bear and what isn't. Hopefully, weeding out unethical guides will help reduce a lot of the problems. 

You are correct in my referring to "bear pimps." I was wrong to use that phrase. I let my temper get the best of me. I will not use that phrase again.


----------



## jackbob42 (Nov 12, 2003)

I'm not going to take sides between houndsman and bait hunters because I believe in doing both.
However , no guide/outfitter is ever going to convince me that they're not making any money. If that were true , they wouldn't be doing it. Nobody is going to put in all that time and work for free. I don't care who you are. Common sense tells us all that , so claiming that they don't makes me wonder if they really think that we're that foolish to believe it. If they think think that , they should know that we're not the foolish ones. :lol::lol::lol:

One thing I do know for sure is that I don't see near the bear that I used to. However , I don't blame one group of hunters over the other. I blame the DNR. They've been giving out too many kill tags for too long. 
I'd love to see them stop giving out kill tags for the next 10 years.
I see only one reason why we can't keep enough bear around for all of us to enjoy and that is mis-management.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

once you cross our state line and go to wisconsin to bear hunt, it is like going to another world. life as bear hunter is just not fair if you happen to live in michigan.

uptracker, took your qoute and tweeked a little bit. maybe you will see in a different light but i doubt it.


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Good call dickey, Michigan bear management is broken and I just wish more people would see it. It is not like all of us with complaints live in the same area, it is a problem state wide. The decline in population in the last 5 to 10 years is amazing. Bait hunters and hound hunters alike need to fight these propased tag number or we are in big trouble.

John


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Mickey Finn said:


> Thats what you get for sounding it out. Happens to me all the time. It doesn't take away from Rooster's message. uptracker, your welcome to present anything to support your view. But knit-picking(sp?) someone's spelling is kind-of weak.
> 
> ATB


Actually, it's not weak...just another reason why someone in his capacity should not have any active involvement in any organization.

Do you think Pfizer would hire a Public Relations Director who could not spell "consultation"? How about Ford? or Walmart? or Chrysler? or Dow? or MUCC? or QDMA? or NMU? ................

One other thing. Everyone in here has to remember that 9.7 million of Michigan's 10 million people live below the bridge and read each and every iggnorant post coming from the U.P. Do you understand why these people think we are backwards, uneducated, have no electricity, use outhouses 12 months of the year, etc.? Think about what's happening here......and quit embarrassing others with dumb ulterior motives.

Anyways, I think this is a dead issue now that one of the strongest operating bear guides in MI has spoken and put this to bed.


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

jackbob42 said:


> One thing I do know for sure is that I don't see near the bear that I used to. However , I don't blame one group of hunters over the other. I blame the DNR. They've been giving out too many kill tags for too long.
> I'd love to see them stop giving out kill tags for the next 10 years.
> I see only one reason why we can't keep enough bear around for all of us to enjoy and that is mis-management.


Just an FYI,

In 2009, in the WUP, I saw three different bears on opening day in four hours of hunting. I shot the third.

I had a bait set up for a friend in the EUP in 2009 also. I didn't know he needed help until late in August, so I didn't even set it up until September 1st or 2nd. In the next seven days, I had 10 different bear hit that bait.....and I wasn't even all that "deep" or using quality baits. My friend shot a bear off that bait too.

I find that to be pretty good numbers....


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

uptracker said:


> Actually, it's not weak...just another reason why someone in his capacity should not have any active involvement in any organization.
> 
> Do you think Pfizer would hire a Public Relations Director who could not spell "consultation"? How about Ford? or Walmart? or Chrysler? or Dow? or MUCC? or QDMA? or NMU? ................
> 
> ...


You've gone from weak to mean. So, I'll let Rooster defend himself if he see's a need. I do, live below the bridge. This is not how I view Yoopers.

The DNRE is going to do what their going to do. Decisions are supposed to be based on science as opposed to public opinion. But that does not preclude us from open debate on these matters. If you want the upper hand in this discourse. Bring scientific facts. Not anecdotal evidence and insults.

By the way. It sounds like you had a couple real good baits.









ATB


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

uptracker,

I was going to just sit back and enjoy your posts, but then decided to make sure you understand, this issue is not going away.

Been meaning to ask, are you a bear guide? If you are, I apologize for coining the phrase bear pxxx. 

Thanks again for reminding me of my misspelled word. I've been out of school a lot longer than you.


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Ya know a lot of folks misspell a word now and then. Some even talk a bit funny. Does not mean they don't have any knowledge, and are ignorant. 

The guiding and obscene numbers that have been referred to does not encompass everyone. There are a few honest guides out there that do not exploit the resources. These folks are not the problem. There are folks like you Bob. That help others willing, and even loose money at times. Folks like you are not the problem. One person maintaining a lets say 12 baits for themselves, clients, or hounds. Is not the problem. It's the guys that are sticking out 50, 60, 70 maybe more baits, that become a problem. Doing so just to capitalize on others not having the ability to run baits. There is a huge difference. Nobody is going to maintain 50 baits just to help friends out. To hunt dogs over. To sit over in the hunting season. 

Bob, I have been a guide in WI for 20 years. I will tell you this. Not all bear guides do it to make profit. I have never made a profit bear hunting. Sure I make money, but spend a lot more. Sure I could make a profit. By taking more people out giving less of a personal expierence. Truth is I love to bear hunt. Would do it regardless. Yet take a few people out every year to help them out. Provide a quality outdoors experience. It does offset some of the costs though. With only 30 days to hunt in WI, and 365 to fish. My living comes from the fish. I know a lot of bear guides that do not make a profit each year. Would have to guess almost all of them that use hounds barely break even if lucky whether in MI or WI. Still I could run 50 baits, book 30 or more hunters and make a profit. It's not about the money for me and a lot of folks. Some folks it is a different story!!


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Here we go with the anti bear baiting proposal again......

....guys hunting with 12 hounds really exploit the resource?

You feel me?


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

uptracker said:


> Here we go with the anti bear baiting proposal again......
> 
> ....guys hunting with 12 hounds really exploit the resource?
> 
> You feel me?



Do you actually read what you are writing. As that really makes no sense!! Where are you getting the whole anti bear baiting proposal thing? 

Since the grammar is so pathetic. Not sure what that last part means. It's is not a complete sentence. Where either a question, or statement can clearly be assessed from it. 

Do you think Pfizer would hire a Public Relations Director who could not use correct grammar? How about Ford? or Walmart? or Chrysler? or Dow?

I guess we have come full circle again.:lol:


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

uptracker,

the last time i knew the commercial rules applied to the hound hunters that are doing it for a business also. every hound hunter that i know is in favor of this. so by your theory of the people that are for rules of commercial baiters are anti baiters, are the hound guys that are in favor of rules for the commercial hound hunter anti hound hunters?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Keep digging houndsman...keep digging.


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

Keep digging what ? 
You seem to be able to jump on a computer and stir the pot , but don"t seem to offer anything constructive . Why don't you give the rest of the bear hunting community some of your ideas ? Instead of just jumping on one user group in general ? 
Come on lets hear it ?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Andy,

I'm not the one jumping on one user group....

Why is it that I've had PM's patting me on the back the past few days? On top of that, no other bait guides have been chiming in....wonder why?


----------



## Steve White (Oct 8, 2009)

Again no clue about what is being said. This thread is about the proposal of more bear tags than there are bear. It is any wonder the commercial baiters have not said a word. Really you don't have any idea with all that vast knowledge? Let me help you with it, MONEY!!!! They want all the tags. Could really care less about the lack of game numbers. So long as you get a tag they can get paid for you to hunt. Not their problem if there is no game for you to harvest. Those bait hunts are not guaranteed harvest. They bait, and you pay to sit on it. Less tags means less paid hunters. 

Is this concept beyond the grasp of rational thought. MI game numbers are in the toilet. You seem to be willing to help pull the handle, and flush them completely.


----------



## Andy Drumm (Dec 23, 2008)

Up (whatever your name is ) No one has said to outlaw baiting ! all anyone has asked is that guiding be regulated ! But you seem to be able to only read what you want ! 
Congratulations on the pats on the back . I bet it makes you feel awesome that you found more anti dog hunting guys ..lol 
Believe it or not there are many areas within this state where so called "guiding" is out of control , and bears are over harvested because of excessive tags and the out of control guiding (by both hound and bait guides ) . 
if the regulation happens to work it will not only increase the quality of bear hunting , but help make sure that those who have to pay a guide , will get a quality hunt ! 
I spend a good portion of my year in the woods , alot of it looking for bear . The population in many areas through out the northern lower , and the UP is unstable .. Between bait hunting and hound hunting (Yes I do both) I have been after bears for going on 18 years . I know it isnt as long as some on here , but i have seen many areas suffer a significant population decrease once the guiding started . I my self have had "guides" threaten me for being on state land , because they had clients (this while hunting the red oak). I have had very well known "guides" threaten to run over my dogs if seen on CFA land in the Baraga BMU .. I have had "Guides" in the red oak(deadstream area ) tell me that they have not put 19 TON !! of bait out , and been doing it since April ,and they wont tolerate me being there (I was setting baits to bait hunt ) . But then on the same hand , I have met some who were very decent , and have spoken to some of them who support regulation ! To eliminate the "trash" guides . And support tag reduction , to help with quality bear hunting . Probably because if people have less tags being issued they will wait longer to get one , and many , if not most will pay a reputable guide when they get a tag .. 
Right now I am looking into trying to transfer my points to my son , so he can have his first bear hunt .. Most likely over bait . 
I support all methods of bear hunting , BUT I do not support over harvest and uncontrolled , so called , guiding ! 
I hope this maybe sheds some light on my views .. And why I am for tag reduction and regulation . 
Or you can keep thinking what you will , I am sure I wont loose any sleep over it ! Because many people feel the same way I do ! 
Oh yea ! I receive pm's and emails also lol


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Steve White,did you not read the post by Hank713 above he did speak up on the subject when you said no baiters have????


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

the proposed tags for this year are 12,300. the projected bear population is probably going to be some where around 10,000. so 2,300 people don't even have any kind of chance of seeing a bear let alone harvesting one. those 2,300 people are going to be going after a bear that 2,300 people have already laid claim to. so thats 4600 people that are pi**ed that they are getting set up on by other hunters or getting ran on by hound hunters. and people wonder where all the user conflicts and finger pointing is generated. and lets say a fluke happens and half of the tags are filled this year that would leave the bear population around 4,000 for the state. i dont know how any bait or hound hunter could find this acceptable


----------



## tallbear (May 18, 2005)

And what percentage of hunters harvest a bear? Seems I remember a number of 30%.





dickey3476 said:


> the proposed tags for this year are 12,300. the projected bear population is probably going to be some where around 10,000. so 2,300 people don't even have any kind of chance of seeing a bear let alone harvesting one. those 2,300 people are going to be going after a bear that 2,300 people have already laid claim to. so thats 4600 people that are pi**ed that they are getting set up on by other hunters or getting ran on by hound hunters. and people wonder where all the user conflicts and finger pointing is generated. and lets say a fluke happens and half of the tags are filled this year that would leave the bear population around 4,000 for the state. i dont know how any bait or hound hunter could find this acceptable


----------



## old professor (Oct 26, 2008)

According to the figures cited in post number one, the success rate in 2009 was 18.25%. The DNRE takes the success rate into account when setting license quotas. Yes, bear numbers are down, WHICH IS WHAT THE DNRE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE!!! Hunters want to see more bear but there are other stake holders such as farmers, home owners and others that want lower bear populations. I have had people come up to me and express the opinion that ALL the bears shound be killed! The DNRE has a thankless job trying to balance the differing demands on bear populations.


----------

