# 2014 Managed Waterfowl Area Use Permit?



## propbuster (Mar 4, 2004)

From the new license structure being rolled out, it looks like the Managed Waterfowl Use Permit has been eliminated. I thought those areas were principally financed thru the sale of permits. Has the DNR said how the lost funds will be replaced? Money from Base license?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

propbuster said:


> From the new license structure being rolled out, it looks like the Managed Waterfowl Use Permit has been eliminated. I thought those areas were principally financed thru the sale of permits. Has the DNR said how the lost funds will be replaced? Money from Base license?


they aren't financed by the annual use. its actually not that much money.

if you really break down the new license structure, some tags we're increased, some were decreased but in the grand scheme of things the funds raised will be much greater as the heaviest hitters are the ones who got raised (i.e. deer as example).


----------



## bc21 (Dec 15, 2010)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> they aren't financed by the annual use. its actually not that much money.
> 
> if you really break down the new license structure, some tags we're increased, some were decreased but in the grand scheme of things the funds raised will be much greater as the heaviest hitters are the ones who got raised (i.e. deer as example).


Sounds about right. I can't imagine that the annual use fees account for a very significant amount of the total funds allotted to the state MWAs. These areas aren't cheap to operate and they're on a bare bones budget to begin with. Hopefully the restructuring of licensing fees will bring some more money to these areas. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

bc21 said:


> Sounds about right. I can't imagine that the annual use fees account for a very significant amount of the total funds allotted to the state MWAs. These areas aren't cheap to operate and they're on a bare bones budget to begin with. Hopefully the restructuring of licensing fees will bring some more money to these areas.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


correct.

i view the managed areas as no different than public parks. People use them all year round, majority don't pay a use fee...just the hunters... It was basically a tax. Everyone pays taxes in michigan for a reason. If the state would manage our taxes right and appropriate funds correctly, hunters should not have to pay a TAX to hunt...we already buy our licenses. Over taxing hunters will just lead to less usage/participation. Proven.

you can make that fee $50 each and when its all added up at the end of the season...it doesn't even pay area managers salary.

hopefully the new license structure fixes some of the funding for the DNR. They need it.


----------



## goosehunter31 (Sep 22, 2009)

so theres no longer a fee to hunt managed areas or they are increasing the hunting license fee?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

goosehunter31 said:


> so theres no longer a fee to hunt managed areas or they are increasing the hunting license fee?


actually, waterfowl license should be cheaper if i remember right.

deer hunting tho and non-resident fees went up I believe.


----------



## furcula (Oct 31, 2011)

The dailies and annuals have been eliminated so the plan is that all you will need are your $11 base license, $12 waterfowl license, HIP survey, and federal stamp to hunt at the managed areas = $38 whereas this year we paid $15 small game, $5 waterfowl, $13 annual waterfowl area use permit, $15 federal stamp = $48 (if my figuring is correct). 

http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_14518_65243-305249--,00.html

Here is a link to the new license structure compared to the old.

-Mark


----------



## charcoal300zxtt (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm happy that it's cheaper, but why would they eliminate the daily and annual fee's for hunting the MGA Ive never heard anyone complain about paying that and hell to me it seems like a small price to pay to lease thousands of acres. I understand that that they will make up the money elsewhere and that it was a miniscule amount but for them to make it cheaper on us?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

furcula said:


> The dailies and annuals have been eliminated so the plan is that all you will need are your $11 base license, $12 waterfowl license, HIP survey, and federal stamp to hunt at the managed areas = $38 whereas this year we paid $15 small game, $5 waterfowl, $13 annual waterfowl area use permit, $15 federal stamp = $48 (if my figuring is correct).
> 
> http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_14518_65243-305249--,00.html
> 
> ...


yep that sounds about right, thanks mark



charcoal300zxtt said:


> I'm happy that it's cheaper, but why would they eliminate the daily and annual fee's for hunting the MGA Ive never heard anyone complain about paying that and hell to me it seems like a small price to pay to lease thousands of acres. I understand that that they will make up the money elsewhere and that it was a miniscule amount but for them to make it cheaper on us?


so just because you were used to paying it...it should be the norm? like i said, we all pay michigan taxes...we all should enjoy what the state has to offer equally. If they restructure the license system and waterfowlers get a break, i welcome it. Our numbers have dwindled and slapping fees on every little thing we do is not the way to raise our numbers. Offering a inexpensive choice in hunting the smartest thing they can do.


----------



## charcoal300zxtt (Sep 8, 2011)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yep that sounds about right, thanks mark
> 
> 
> 
> *so just because you were used to paying it...it should be the norm*? like i said, we all pay michigan taxes...we all should enjoy what the state has to offer equally. If they restructure the license system and waterfowlers get a break, i welcome it. Our numbers have dwindled and slapping fees on every little thing we do is not the way to raise our numbers. Offering a inexpensive choice in hunting the smartest thing they can do.


What i was trying to say is that its not normal and seems odd, that's all.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

charcoal300zxtt said:


> What i was trying to say is that its not normal and seems odd, that's all.


yeah i hear ya. I guess i just watched all the debates closely as the license increases were fought for over the last 5-8 years. Everyone knew we needed to do it but until this last attempt, they were fruitless...they just threw major increases at it without thinking it through. 

Example: If you remember a few years back they changed trailer plates from annual to a one time fee. Although it raised a substantial amount of money on the short term, it failed miserably in funding the long term. I'm betting they would take "do over" on that piece...

this time around on hunting licenses..along with some really great changes in DNR and how it functions, this is a good long term solution without instilling a ton of pain to the hunters....and especially duck hunters. I'm not complaining and hope none of us do. Complaining would be like saying "i don't pay enough taxes, i want more taken out of my check..." lol.

also keep in mind how far the DNR has come. DNR hasn't been dangled as a tool to pass legislation in 3-4 years...no funding crunches and hostage taking like it was in like 08/09 era. They've (state) had a budget ready 6mo ahead of time the last 2-3 years and it lets the DNR plan and upgrade costly items...just look at all the improvements that have been happening late at SGA's and parks across the state.


----------



## LakeEffectMDHA (Dec 15, 2011)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> yeah i hear ya. I guess i just watched all the debates closely as the license increases were fought for over the last 5-8 years. Everyone knew we needed to do it but until this last attempt, they were fruitless...they just threw major increases at it without thinking it through.
> 
> Example: If you remember a few years back they changed trailer plates from annual to a one time fee. Although it raised a substantial amount of money on the short term, it failed miserably in funding the long term. I'm betting they would take "do over" on that piece...
> 
> ...


 
The recreation passport Ron Olsen from the Parks Division brought to Michigan was radical and one that should be highly applauded. The next step in the funding fight is to make the Rec Passport opt out instead of opt in. The State's where it has been most successful I believe it was an opt out structure. We have arguably the best State Park system in the country with some of the best views and ease of access there is. Sad to think even when someone isn't using those they don't pay the whopping $10 for the funding.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> non-resident fees went up I believe.


Ha!


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

I read this:

http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-1...5249--,00.html

It seems that they don't want out of state people to hunt here. I'm not sure that's a good thing..........


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Shlwego said:


> I read this:
> 
> http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-1...5249--,00.html
> 
> It seems that they don't want out of state people to hunt here. I'm not sure that's a good thing..........



The link is dead. 

What brings you to the conclusion that you have drawn?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

BFG said:


> Ha!


i know bfg, this didn't work out for the out of staters. thats the only part i don't really agree with.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

My son-in-law lives in Ohio. He hunts deer and waterfowl in Michigan. He will be saving money with the restructuring of our hunting license fees.


----------



## deadduck365 (Nov 5, 2010)

I heard they just haven't put the daily and annual Into the system yet. We are one of the cheapest out of state hunts in this country for deer. I welcome any raise to out of state hunters. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Sparky13 (Sep 22, 2013)

furcula said:


> The dailies and annuals have been eliminated so the plan is that all you will need are your $11 base license, $12 waterfowl license, HIP survey, and federal stamp to hunt at the managed areas = $38 whereas this year we paid $15 small game, $5 waterfowl, $13 annual waterfowl area use permit, $15 federal stamp = $48 (if my figuring is correct).
> 
> http://www.mi.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_14518_65243-305249--,00.html
> 
> ...


So the waterfowl license is actually more if you usually don't buy the management use permit 

Sent from my PC36100 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

deadduck365 said:


> I heard they just haven't put the daily and annual Into the system yet. We are one of the cheapest out of state hunts in this country for deer. I welcome any raise to out of state hunters.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


i'm referring to the out of state waterfowlers. guys like bfg live on the border of ohio and bounce around a lot....kinda screws that guy.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

stacker said:


> I can afford to go where I want to hunt. There are many that can. Money is not the issue, the raising to such a high level tells me that you do not want me there, so I will go to north Dakota or Arkansas or Missouri, get the picture now? I will not spend the 500 extra dollars in your state and the 3 guys with me will not as well.
> 
> 
> Michigan is a fair duck hunt, not outstanding by any means. If you want to raise your prices to look like a outstanding destination, you better not disappoint when the travelers get there. I will just go a bit farther and get to the real killing fields.


Fair points. But where were you when the DNR was asking for input? Or the legislators were holding public hearings? This was not done in secret. It was very well publicized for almost 2 years. Yeah I know you don't live here. But if you feel that strongly about it, you have a phone...you could've called the DNR, or the legislators that sponsored the bills, and voiced your opinions. Sorry...but it's spilled milk to complain now IMO.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

when anyone hunts out of state...you have to make a decision. is it worth it? sometimes it is...sometimes it isn't. michigans prices for non-residents are pretty inline with most other non-residents prices as a whole. The fishing might be little higher but hell, we are the great lakes...have more boats in our state, more fisherman...more of everything fishing than just about anyone....and are considered a big destination state for fishing.

how much does a elk tag cost in colorado? how much is duck in nodak or arkasas/LA. deer tags in kansas/nebraska/indiana? are we that far off with the new prices? just because it used to be cheap or inexpensive don't make it ok?

all that being said, i really don't know how to side with it, i do know that our DNR has been cash strapped for a long time and if they continued down the same path we we're gonna start losing a lot of what michigan public access.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ...michigans prices for non-residents are pretty inline with most other non-residents prices as a whole. The fishing might be little higher but hell, we are the great lakes...have more boats in our state, more fisherman...more of everything fishing than just about anyone....and are considered a big destination state for fishing....


This is a great point. Leading up to the legislation, there were a lot of reports and analysis the DNR did regarding what other midwest states charged, and at the time Michigan was like second lowest for out of state hunters. So they kind of averaged up what everyone else was at, and came up with some new prices. We may very well be a bit on the higher end of the midwest states now, but they did that on purpose knowing darn well it may be 20 more years before the legislators are willing to look at increases. Remember, raising license fees here isn't an easy thing...practically takes an act of god. So they were planning for the next decade or so. We'll probably be looking back in another 20 years saying "man, the licenses haven't been raised since 2014!"


----------



## stacker (Oct 24, 2013)

Everyone makes good points. Lets just focus on waterfowl. 163 to hunt ducks in Michigan. 65 to hunt North Dakota. I love hunting the grocery stores in michigan, but do I like it 100 dollars more? I have been to North Dakota as many have. I think you see more birds there in one day than all season in many places. 100 dollars less? Hmmm..... That's all I gotta say about that! Just feeling a bit bent over right now and don't like it.


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

stacker said:


> Everyone makes good points. Lets just focus on waterfowl. 163 to hunt ducks in Michigan. 65 to hunt North Dakota. I love hunting the grocery stores in michigan, but do I like it 100 dollars more? I have been to North Dakota as many have. I think you see more birds there in one day than all season in many places. 100 dollars less? Hmmm..... That's all I gotta say about that! Just feeling a bit bent over right now and don't like it.


Pointless to argue those two. They are the #1 and #2 posters in the waterfowl forum. Look at how many posts they have accumlated. 

Were I you, I would hunt other states. Thye fowling here is not even close to spectacular, even in the managed uniits. You can have good days here, but being a non-resident it's not likely to be on the "in" crowd to know when and where. And we all know to look at kill boards at the GMU's, such as Shiawasse is a sin. It is sad, but MI is simply not a flyway for the most part. We make the best out of it, but a lot of residents travel out of state to hunt ducks. If i were you, save your money as a non resident of MI. Unless you are here for sentimental reasons.


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

stacker said:


> Everyone makes good points. Lets just focus on waterfowl. 163 to hunt ducks in Michigan. 65 to hunt North Dakota. I love hunting the grocery stores in michigan, but do I like it 100 dollars more? I have been to North Dakota as many have. I think you see more birds there in one day than all season in many places. 100 dollars less? Hmmm..... That's all I gotta say about that! Just feeling a bit bent over right now and don't like it.


not sure where your getting that info. this years licenses for ND will be as follows......yes, they had an increase this year also.

Nonresident waterfowl zone hunting license $100.
Statewide nonresident waterfowl license from $150.
Nonresident swan license from $25 to $30
Nonresident crane license from $5 to $30
Another $15 for general game and habitat

My license this year will be $195 (statewide waterfowl, swan and general game and habitat. you can cut $50 from that if you go with the zone waterfowl license). That would still be $145. remove the swan license and your at either $165 or $115 *MINIMUM
*

where are you getting your $65 number. I been goin out there for 9 years now and its never been that cheap?

and Belly.....why do you got to stir it up like that. this was a discussion not an argument !!!!!


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

Wingmaster22 said:


> and Belly.....why do you got to stir it up like that. this was a discussion not an argument !!!!!


Huh ? Did you read all the posts made on this thread ? And my post was very unarugmentative. I was agreeing with the OP. He was told he should have been more involved in the decision making process even though he is not a resident..... I mean there is a leg to stand on if you are a resident and not involved, but a non resident ? Really ? My gosh, not everyone is attached to the MDNR at the hip, and surfs the web for changes in hunting regulations all year long. Especially a non resident. I would hold them to ZERO expectation of getting involved. I might be hunting in California this season but I am sure not montitoring the regs all year just to see if they change something that will impact me. I don't get it I guess, I can't for the life of me figure out how someone could tell a non resident they should be involved in our politics for regs. And on the I think the third page you might want to re-read some responses... kinda argumentative you ask me. The poor OP is much better off hunting where the birds are. From a value persepctive, it is not worth the cost to hunt here as a non resident. If you place more traditions, or sentimental value on hunting here, then it is not even an issue to be debated on this forum...


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Bellyup said:


> my post was very unarugmentative.


lol right.

hey the guy doesn't have to lobby to get cheaper out of state costs...thats up to the local gov. to decide and dictate. that OS'r can either pay the costs, complain about the costs (maybe send an email to someone important with his feelings about it) and simply not go there.

all of us that stay in tune to out of state hunting definitely pay attention to their regs...specially enough to voice opinions (like this guy is) about it and he has a right to do so. I do it all the time with nodak regs because i hunt there a lot...very similar situation.

and belly. gimme a break dude. your posts have 0 constructive elements to them..its all whining and complaining as usual.


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

Bellyup said:


> Huh ? Did you read all the posts made on this thread ? And my post was very unarugmentative. I was agreeing with the OP. He was told he should have been more involved in the decision making process even though he is not a resident..... I mean there is a leg to stand on if you are a resident and not involved, but a non resident ? Really ? My gosh, not everyone is attached to the MDNR at the hip, and surfs the web for changes in hunting regulations all year long. Especially a non resident. I would hold them to ZERO expectation of getting involved. I might be hunting in California this season but I am sure not montitoring the regs all year just to see if they change something that will impact me. I don't get it I guess, I can't for the life of me figure out how someone could tell a non resident they should be involved in our politics for regs. And on the I think the third page you might want to re-read some responses... kinda argumentative you ask me. The poor OP is much better off hunting where the birds are. From a value persepctive, it is not worth the cost to hunt here as a non resident. If you place more traditions, or sentimental value on hunting here, then it is not even an issue to be debated on this forum...


most of the post is fine, I actually enjoyed some of it. the beginning is what caught my eye, the quote is below. definitely some bait thrown out to the two biggest posters on the waterfowl forum. wonder who that could be? you just can't resist, kinda like the little kid who's mom caught his hand in the cookie jar....arms up saying "who me"???



Bellyup said:


> Pointless to argue those two. They are the #1 and #2 posters in the waterfowl forum. Look at how many posts they have accumlated.


point is you could have gotten your point across without the above statement but you just couldn't do it. dude your so predictable its damned near silly.


----------



## stacker (Oct 24, 2013)

Wingmaster22, Gotta ask....... no dak charges OUTASTATE waterfowl hunters, ducks only, 115 for 2014. Michigan is 163. 


You been to nodak, which is better? Does the quality of duck hunting in Michigan warrant such a heavy handed raise?


I know, if I don't like it, don't come. I am fine with that. I hope all the mom and pop shops that have out of staters staying by them are good with it as well.


Have a nice day!!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

stacker said:


> Wingmaster22, Gotta ask....... no dak charges OUTASTATE waterfowl hunters, ducks only, 115 for 2014. Michigan is 163.
> 
> 
> You been to nodak, which is better? Does the quality of duck hunting in Michigan warrant such a heavy handed raise?
> ...



couple things.

1. its apples and oranges. with michigans i believe you get small game then waterfowl stamp/tag or whatever. you can shoot grouse, duck, pheasant, rabbit, squirrell, etc... 

nodak its $140 this past season just to shoot duck. its another 85$ to shoot pheasant.

2. nodak just bumped all their licenses I think about 15% across the board.

3. like wingmaster pointed out there is different options and you can pick a single zone that limits you to 1 week (can't hunt same zone 2 weeks) for 85+15 ($100) fee. 

4. which brings up my last point, you are limited to 14 days of waterfowl hunting for $140 or $100 with whichever choice you make. Michigans out of state is a fulll 60 day license.

so yes, michigans license a deal by that standard...and to be honest, michigans duck hunting is some of the best in the nation. It all depends on what kind of ducks yer going for...I find it hard to believe there is a better state for layout big water hunting or flooded corn managed areas (maybe missouri). Most goto nodak for the freelance of private...field or marsh hunts.

and Stacker, just so you know i'm not against you or wish you have to pay more at all...i feel for ya on this. I just know the financial struggles the DNR has had during late 2000's and it was a major struggle due to funding. I wish you paid less and I paid less....and the General Fund increased its funding to the DNR instead.


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

stacker said:


> Wingmaster22, Gotta ask....... no dak charges OUTASTATE waterfowl hunters, ducks only, 115 for 2014. Michigan is 163.
> 
> 
> You been to nodak, which is better? Does the quality of duck hunting in Michigan warrant such a heavy handed raise?
> ...


its all good stacker. i understand its a big jump in fees for an OS. and i do love nodak. just wanted to point out that your example was a little off, that's all. i do believe the new Michigan OS license costs are closer to the average in the Midwest and that they were to low. remember we hadn't had an increase in a whole bunch of years.


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

A license increase for the NR's and APR in the NW12. Theres gonna be B&C bucks runnin all over the woods in just a few years and then we'll be able to increase the price even more cause everybody will want to hunt all the monster bucks up there. Great plan.


----------



## stacker (Oct 24, 2013)

With so few OS licenses sold every year anyhow the DNR is not reaping the rewards by making the OS license so much. What they are doing is fooling around with the economic impact of the traveling hunter to a local economy. I have to say, the grocery store is a unique hunt style, the first year I did it was 1980. This is marketable until they get over run.


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

The way I figure it, a non resident can get small game, waterfowl, and a deer tag for a full season of hunting for $183. 
Where else can you go for that price and get that variety of hunting?


----------



## stacker (Oct 24, 2013)

nuff daddy, a traveling hunter usually comes for a 7 day stay, it is his vacation destination. He is specie specific, and all the extras that come with the license mean nothing to him. They are a feel good by the DNR. When there hunt is done, they leave and do not return. Vacation time rarely dictates that much time off. The 3 day tickets they used to sell made me want to visit out of state locations. I doubt I would visit strictly for waterfowl.


----------



## Nuff Daddy (Dec 5, 2012)

I might be way off on this, but I would bet 90% of Nonresident hunters come from the south border states to hunt several times through the year. Michigan is far from a destination state for most types of hunting. I don't think many people other than border states visit Michigan for the sole purpose of hunting.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Bellyup said:


> ...He was told he should have been more involved in the decision making process even though he is not a resident..... I mean there is a leg to stand on if you are a resident and not involved, but a non resident ? Really ? My gosh, not everyone is attached to the MDNR at the hip, and surfs the web for changes in hunting regulations all year long. Especially a non resident. I would hold them to ZERO expectation of getting involved. I might be hunting in California this season but I am sure not montitoring the regs all year just to see if they change something that will impact me. I don't get it I guess, I can't for the life of me figure out how someone could tell a non resident they should be involved in our politics for regs....


You're DEAD wrong. The DNR did listen to non-resident concerns. They have the stats of the conversations to prove it. And just because YOU choose not to stay involved doesn't mean others can't. You like to lay back and blame everyone but yourself. Supposed you did hunt in California...you'd better watch the regs from a distance because they CAN impact you big time. Case in point...I hunt Nodak and have since the late 90's. in the early 00's they were proposing limits on the number of non-resident waterfowl licenses. The farmers we hunt with told us we had better get involved or it was not going to be good for us. We all did...every one of us...wrote letters to the ND legislators, made phone calls, you name it. Guess what...they backed off. So don't say a non-resident can't have an impact...THEY CAN AND DO!!!

I get really tired of your pessimistic attitude about the DNR and politics in general. The system can and does work IF YOU GET INVOLVED!!!! If you lay under your rock and do nothing, then don't complain because you have no credibility and NO ONE will listen to you.


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

just ducky said:


> You're DEAD wrong. The DNR did listen to non-resident concerns. They have the stats of the conversations to prove it. And just because YOU choose not to stay involved doesn't mean others can't. You like to lay back and blame everyone but yourself. Supposed you did hunt in California...you'd better watch the regs from a distance because they CAN impact you big time. Case in point...I hunt Nodak and have since the late 90's. in the early 00's they were proposing limits on the number of non-resident waterfowl licenses. The farmers we hunt with told us we had better get involved or it was not going to be good for us. We all did...every one of us...wrote letters to the ND legislators, made phone calls, you name it. Guess what...they backed off. So don't say a non-resident can't have an impact...THEY CAN AND DO!!!
> 
> I get really tired of your pessimistic attitude about the DNR and politics in general. The system can and does work IF YOU GET INVOLVED!!!! If you lay under your rock and do nothing, then don't complain because you have no credibility and NO ONE will listen to you.


I am involved, you just don't see it   I don't talk about it. I volunteer for clean ups at managed units, I volunteer to DU projects in the areas, I put out nesting poles for ducks, you just choose to overlook these facts becasue I don't post about it on here. I feel actions speak louder than typing... I have penned many letters to the DNR expressing my opinions on changes. I have even emailed the CWAC individually and called many of them. I don't go to the meetings becasue i am represented by my CWAC member, I follow the DNR guidelines... we have a Rep and I use it. 

Oh, and obviously some will listen to me, you and the Kid ALWAYS reply to my posts... and wingmaster calls me the silly one.... you guys take bait like a horny guy takes to the strip clubs.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Bellyup said:


> I am involved, you just don't see it  I don't talk about it. I volunteer for clean ups at managed units, I volunteer to DU projects in the areas, I put out nesting poles for ducks, you just choose to overlook these facts becasue I don't post about it on here. I feel actions speak louder than typing... I have penned many letters to the DNR expressing my opinions on changes. I have even emailed the CWAC individually and called many of them. I don't go to the meetings becasue i am represented by my CWAC member, I follow the DNR guidelines... we have a Rep and I use it.
> 
> Oh, and obviously some will listen to me, you and the Kid ALWAYS reply to my posts... and wingmaster calls me the silly one.... you guys take bait like a horny guy takes to the strip clubs.


But you tell the guy from Ohio it won't do any good for him to voice his opinion so don't bother! yeah right man...you're involved alright. Keep talking, because NO ONE is listening.


----------

