# Michigan veternarian shut out of MDAT meeting



## bradymsu

Pinefarm said:


> Brady,
> Your PM box is full.


It's empty now.


----------



## Pinefarm

When you open your PM box, you can check the boxes of what you want to delete on the far right of the PM title, then scroll down and check delete. To delete sent messages, you'll see a big red line at the top of your messages. Under it, go to sent messages. Delete unwanted ones the same way.


----------



## Splitshot

Brady,

The meetings the DNR sets up around the state for all outdoor issues is a convenient way to continue the trend toward social solutions in managing our wildlife. After they make the pre determined decisions all they need say is you should have been at the meeting and you could have had your voice heard.

There is no excuse with the Internet today not to conduct these meetings on line in discussions just like we have here and let everyone have a chance to put their two cents in and at the end of a reasonable discussion period take a poll. If the discussion had to do with hunting only allow those with a valid hunting license to vote in the poll, if it is a fishing issue only those with a valid fishing license could vote. I do think the discussion should be open to everyone. That way thousands of people could participate in the discussion and let their voice be heard instead of just a few people who can make the meetings.

Besides then we could see how the vote really goes, especially if people had to use their real names.

I am not suggesting that we should make decisions based on a poll, because it is clear what will happen if we use social science to manage our wildlife but the poll would make it clear to everyone which direction the public prefers and it beats the hell out of these little back room deals.

Besides if the DNR has two choices neither of which will harm the resource the poll could be a good gauge as most of the people working in the DNR want to make the outdoor experience for outdoor people as full filling as possible.

The current trend within the DNR is to make moral decisions and then look for people to defend that position. Many in the DNR think chumming is an immoral way to get the fish to feed. The outlawed it using the excuse that spawn is a vector for spreading VHS. Then they allow spawn as long as it is in a spawn bag. They outlaw baiting because it brings deer together which could spread CWD but food plots are acceptable. 

We all know politics are involved in some DNR decisions, but The Resource Sellouts whose mission statement is to never compromise science now that they are out from under all political influence is difficult to reconcile. The only conclusion one can make for these X DNR professionals in defending these decisions is the truism that these practices are not conducive to fair chase therefor it is okay to compromise science to support these beliefs and pressure their colleagues past and present. It is the old axiom For the Greater Good and ex assistant fish chief Dave Borgeson is the poster child of this self righteousness.


----------



## Tom Morang

I see you identify and accuse people of wrong doing by name but hide behind a screen name yourself Splitshot.


----------



## Linda G.

Jeff and the folks on Beaver Island are interested in the long term health of their deer herd as much as everyone else. More so than many people in some ways, cause they're willing to put their reputations, time, and personal funds on the line to do so. I commend Jeff for his efforts to get the DNR to reconsider their current policies. 

And I don't believe it's about baiting, I believe it's about the public's right to help our deer herds during severe northern winters when we no longer have very much at all in the way of natural habitat.


----------



## Splitshot

Hey Tom, 

If I had it to do over, I would use my real name. For your information it is Ray Danders and I live in Irons. I'm in the book. Not hiding behind anything.

What I say on here I would say to Dave Borgeson, or anyone else I call out. They want to know who I am all they have to do is ask just like you did.

Now if I said anything that was untrue or misleading, bring that up instead of some off the wall comment like I'm hiding.


----------



## Tom Morang

Thanks for standing up Ray. Not many here will do that.

I think I know Dave well enough to say he is anything but a " resource sellout". He is passionate about the resource and knows that social science is a part of the big picture. Whenever a decision is made dealing with natural resouces there will always be some people not satisfied with the decision. 

That's where politics and politicians (social science) come in to the picture eh Ray?

Best Regards,
Tom


----------



## e. fairbanks

I am EARL FAIRBANKS, DVM/ BOUGHT MY FIRST DEER LICENSE AT CHRIS LISTS STORE IN IRONS, IN 1936. HAVE HUNTED DEER IN THE NLP FOR 72 YEARS. 67 years as a veterinarian, 25 years w/the bovine TB and Brucellosis Eradication Programs as well as large animal practice.
VETERINARIANS HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL ASPECTS OF ANIMAL DISEASE.
Am amazed by the concept exhibited on these pages that wildlife personel, DNR employees,Politicians and people of the media are more qualified as animal disease experts. Would assume the good Dr. Powers, BEAVERVET, may also have the same conclusion.
Am also concerned that posts on WILDLIFE DISEASES seem to be moderated to discussions about (CHANGE THE SUBJECT) BAITING,FEEDING, FOOD PLOTS, ETC


----------



## bradymsu

Linda G. said:


> And I don't believe it's about baiting, I believe it's about the public's right to help our deer herds during severe northern winters when we no longer have very much at all in the way of natural habitat.


It's actually not about baiting nor about winter herd mortality. It's about the democratic process and good government.

There are plenty of strong scientific and social arguments that can be made in favor of eliminating both baiting and supplemental feeding. Yet, the decision to ban baiting and supplemental feeding wasn't made on the basis of these arguments but instead on the questionable threat baiting and feeding have on the potential of spreading CWD in Michigan.

Whether one disagrees with Dr. Powers or supports his arguments, the bottom line is that we live in a democracy that should have open and transparent government. And if the MDAT team is going to have the MDNR make a presentation to it on CWD, it has an obligation to allow dissenting voices to be given eqaul time at the same meeting. That isn't happening here and as a result, the MDNR and MUCC shouldn't be surprised when little serious consideration is given in the future to a resulting deer management plan that comes out of this process.

While Rep. Sheltrown strongly disagreed with MBH on the crossbow issue, the MBH was given an unlimited amount of time over several committee hearings to make its case. There were no five minute restrictions, there were no committee members sleeping or typing on their blackberries. Instead, there was a very active back and forth discussion between committee members and both MBH and crossbow proponents. It's because many of the House Natural Resources Committee members and the Senate Hunting and Fishing Committee members actually hunt and fish.

Attempting to silence the opposition's arguments through refusing to allow equal time to be heard, attacking their credentials, or through personal attacks rather than focusing on their arguments in themselves is very harmful to the democratic process, resulting policy and the public's faith in the integrity of government. Whether we agree with baiting or not, whether we agree with Dr. Power's arguments or not, we should all agree that he has a right to be heard in the same forum as those he disagrees with.


----------



## Pinefarm

Good government also requires full disclosure from it's participants, so that any underlying financial motives can be ruled out.

Are there closed sessions in the House of Representatives? If so, I'd like access to them.

Do these rules for the House always apply?

i) Tape recording, camera, or other electronic equipment for documenting the proceedings shall not be permitted in the closed session.

(ii) Attendance at the closed session shall be limited to committee members, other members of the legislature and legislative staff at the discretion of the chairperson, and staff members from the department designated by the director.

(2) A person who discloses or causes to be disclosed confidential information to which the person has gained access at a meeting held under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who keeps a confidential record or file, or a copy of a confidential record or file, at the conclusion of a closed session held under this section, which record or file is obtained at that meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


----------



## bradymsu

Pinefarm said:


> Good government also requires full disclosure from it's participants, so that any underlying financial motives can be ruled out.
> 
> Are there closed sessions in the House of Representatives? If so, I'd like access to them.
> 
> Do these rules for the House always apply?
> 
> i) Tape recording, camera, or other electronic equipment for documenting the proceedings shall not be permitted in the closed session.
> 
> (ii) Attendance at the closed session shall be limited to committee members, other members of the legislature and legislative staff at the discretion of the chairperson, and staff members from the department designated by the director.
> 
> (2) A person who discloses or causes to be disclosed confidential information to which the person has gained access at a meeting held under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who keeps a confidential record or file, or a copy of a confidential record or file, at the conclusion of a closed session held under this section, which record or file is obtained at that meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


Pinefarm, the only meetings of the House that are closed that I'm aware of are partisan caucus meetings where Democratic members and Republican members meet seperately in their caucus rooms. Those meetings are also closed to staff. All committee meetings and full House session meetings are open to the public and the opportunity to testify is open to everyone. We don't even impose time limits on testimony any longer because it appears that time limits violates the Open Meetings Act.


----------



## Whit1

bradymsu said:


> .......*there were no committee members sleeping or typing on their blackberries.*
> 
> 
> For those of you who might consider Brady's comments to be farfetched he is correct. I sat through a public comment at an NRC meeting in February and saw this very thing going on. Commissioners Madigan, Wheatlake, Chaters, and Richardson were paying attention and did some give and take, but as for the other two...................
> 
> As for CWD and gaining knowledge that meeting also presented the opportunity to hear a DNR/Dept of Ag presentation on the regulating and inspection of cervid farms and to say the present system and practices are flawed is to give much more credit where very little indeed is due.


----------



## bradymsu

Pinefarm, let me add that as the House Natural Resources Committee chair, Sheltrown feels an obligations to go the extra mile and do outreach to sportsmens in this state on issues being brought up before the House that affects them. That, along with my own personal interests in outdoor sports, is why I'm on here. Anyone on this site is welcome to raise questions on any natural resources bill in the House and I'll answer them honestly to the best of my knowledge. That, of course, isn't to say that we're always going to agree. As you might expect, I sometimes personally don't even agree with Rep. Sheltrown's positions on certain issues.


----------



## Pinefarm

Since these meetings are about a whole host of deer management issue's, not just baiting, which is all this current debate is really about, will the public be allowed to voice opposition on all issues?

If so, there's lots of guys that believe that the insurance companies run MDNR. Should they be allowed in? There's many that believe certain state Rep's were bribed with crossbow dollars. Do we allow them in? There's some that believe MDNR secretly brought in CWD to raise funding and ban baiting, do we allow them in?

While I'm cetain Dr. Powers is a great vet, exactly what are his credentials as a deer disease expert above countless other private individuals who favor the bait ban?

One doesn't usually trust the opinion of an ear, nose and throat doctor, while a great doctor, if he requires a heart stent.

If Dr. Powers was a certified wildlife biologist, then there may be a stronger leg to stand on. But even then, this particular meeting is closed.


----------



## bradymsu

Pinefarm said:


> Since these meetings are about a whole host of deer management issue's, not just baiting, which is all this current debate is really about, will the public be allowed to voice opposition on all issues?
> 
> If so, there's lots of guys that believe that the insurance companies run MDNR. Should they be allowed in? There's many that believe certain state Rep's were bribed with crossbow dollars. Do we allow them in? There's some that believe MDNR secretly brought in CWD to raise funding and ban baiting, do we allow them in?
> 
> While I'm cetain Dr. Powers is a great vet, exactly what are his credentials as a deer disease expert above countless other private individuals who favor the bait ban?
> 
> One doesn't usually trust the opinion of an ear, nose and throat doctor, while a great doctor, if he requires a heart stent.
> 
> If Dr. Powers was a certified wildlife biologist, then there may be a stronger leg to stand on. But even then, this particular meeting is closed.


Yes, allow them in. If the Michigan House, Michigan Senate and NRC is willing to listen to these people why should the MDAT team not be willing to do the same. If they aren't willing to allow public comment, even the more bizzare public comment, should they expect any credibility for their resulting recommendations?

As for certain state representatives being bribed with crossbows dollars, I'm more than open to discussing that here, now or whenever. Same thing goes with HB 5058 (Oscoda Township land transfer), HB 4323 (ORVs on county roads), the Grayling amusement park or any other issue in which Sheltrown has been accused on this forum of being bribed in exchange of his support of an issue. The line of thinking here seems to be that if one can't or won't focus the discussion on actual issues, they'll attack the other person's qualifications, credibility or ethical integrity regardless of the lack of any evidence or truth in those attacks.


----------



## fairfax1

The opening position of this thread....correct me if wrong.... is that an uncompensated advisory group should allow one individual who has an opinion on one slice of the groups' area of interest to have time on the agenda to contradict another invitees' opinion. And that to not allow this man...or any of the public who wants to opine....well, that contradicts "democratic process and good government."

I cannot agree with that position in this case. The group is an invited and volunteer advisory group of folks who have an interest in or an expertise about one or many aspects of deer/societal issues. They can and should solicit information from those who they feel are qualified or at least can offer illuminating insight into relevant issues. Let them use their own criteria in selecting outside informants.

They may very well have another...more qualified....individual in mind who will speak to the issue this particular veterinarian wants to address. If so, let them make that choice, rather than being stampeded by public opinion or the spokesman for an influential politico. 

This is a mini-hissyfit about who gets to speak before an advisory group. It stems from the fears of a special-interest group that their opinions won't be heard. It is not "_about the democratic process and good government." _

Let this non-governmental body do their own due diligence and come up with their own advice rather than being pressured by special interests who may ...for a whole variety of reasons, good or suspect.....want their 'interest' to prevail.


----------



## Pinefarm

I do not believe for a second that any person was ever bribed for xbows. That's Area 51 stuff. If people can't see that, like it or not, all states are moving towards xbows as the population ages and deer populations surge, I don't know what to say.

The xbow becoming a bigger influence was as clear as deer rules eventually drastically changing to meet new needs. And many still obviously don't see that and want the old status quo.

My point was, there's always somebody with a conspiracy out there that MDNR is hiding something or covering something up. I don't think they deserve anything more than the great access to the system they are already granted.

Again, this is all about the bait ban. And the bait ban will have positive results on antlerless harvest, hunter conflict, deer movements etc that outweigh repealing the ban. Disease spread may have been the threshold for the ban, but as far as deer management goes, the bait ban is the best thing that's happened for Michigan deer hunters in a long time.

Bring bait back would be like Ford re-introducing the new 2010 Pinto as a way to "save the company". I can't think of a worse idea than inviting the gorilla back into the room when it's taken decades to get rid of him.


----------



## bradymsu

fairfax1 said:


> The opening position of this thread....correct me if wrong.... is that an uncompensated advisory group should allow one individual who has an opinion on one slice of the groups' area of interest to have time on the agenda to contradict another invitees' opinion. And that to not allow this man...or any of the public who wants to opine....well, that contradicts "democratic process and good government."
> 
> I cannot agree with that position in this case. The group is an invited and volunteer advisory group of folks who have an interest in or an expertise about one or many aspects of deer/societal issues. They can and should solicit information from those who they feel are qualified or at least can offer illuminating insight into relevant issues. Let them use their own criteria in selecting outside informants.
> 
> They may very well have another...more qualified....individual in mind who will speak to the issue this particular veterinarian wants to address. If so, let them make that choice, rather than being stampeded by public opinion or the spokesman for an influential politico.
> 
> This is a mini-hissyfit about who gets to speak before an advisory group. It stems from the fears of a special-interest group that their opinions won't be heard. It is not "_about the democratic process and good government." _
> 
> Let this non-governmental body do their own due diligence and come up with their own advice rather than being pressured by special interests who may ...for a whole variety of reasons, good or suspect.....want their 'interest' to prevail.


Fairfax, if this was a private group coming out with a private recommendation, I would agree with you. But, it's not. The facilitator of this group is a public employee acting in the scope of his public employment. MUCC is receiving public funds to help organize the MDAT. This is a public process, not a private process, and consequently should be open to the public. From MUCC's website:


"Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) has agreed to assist in the development a robust public input process that will facilitate the creation of a strategic deer management plan. The public input process is being organized by MUCC and includes a broad spectrum of stakeholders, while the Department of Natural Resources and other researchers will provide scientific support. 
A statewide Michigan Deer Advisory Team (MDAT) has been formed to oversee the public engagement process and develop recommendations for deer management strategies, based on the scientific information presented at the Deer Symposium and public input from around the state." 

This sound a lot to me like a strategic deer management plan is going to be put forward by the MDAT with the claim that it was based on public input. This is going to lack credibility if some of these meetings are closed to the public and testimony is limited to selected viewpoints.

It's interesting though that you view Dr. Powers as a "special-interest group" and my bringing this issue to public attention as a "mini-hissyfit". I think it's easy enough for most hunters here to realize what's going on.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

So all I gather from this thread is that a political lacky of a lazy hunting state rep who don't know how to hunt any other way than sitting over a bait pile is having a hissy fit about some vet(if I need my dog nuetered I'll give him a call), who thinks he knows more about CWD then actual wildlife/whitetail biologists, not being able speak at a meeting...how far off am I? 

I'm with Pinefarm on this one...this whole issue just comes down to baiting. 

Hunting is not a right, therefore baiting was not a right. So those who think their right was taken away are sadly mistaken.

If Sheltrown really wanted to leave a legacy, he'd draft legislation that would GUARANTEED hunting opportunities. In other words, MAKE HUNTING A RIGHT. 

The DNR are doing the correct things to make sure whitetails are here and thriving for generations to come...however a healthy whitetail herd means nothing if we don't have the RIGHT to hunt them.


----------



## bradymsu

GVDocHoliday said:


> If Sheltrown really wanted to leave a legacy, he'd draft legislation that would GUARANTEED hunting opportunities. In other words, MAKE HUNTING A RIGHT.


This idea has been proposed by Sheltrown and others in the past and legislation has been introduced. This would mean a Constitutional amendment that would need to go before the public for approval. It would mean a number of different hunting groups would need to come together and spend several hundred thousand dollars in advertising to get this passed. Are you aware of any pro-hunting organization in Michigan that is strong enough to take a leadership role on this and that has the money to spend to move something like this?

On the other hand, Wayne Pacelle and the sad looking little kittens from HSUS have been showing up on TV quite frequently in Michigan over the past three months with fundraising ads. What do you think it would mean for Michigan hunting if hunters lost a ballot issue like this on the heels of the dove hunting loss?

As far as Sheltrown being lazy, give me a break. Whether you agree with him or not, show me one other legislator doing as much as he has over the past few years on hunting opportunity and gun-rights issues. I'll agree that 90% of legislators do anything they can to avoid controversy and collect their paychecks. Sheltrown is not one of them as a search of his name on this website will show. Sheltrown has come out with two proposals to adequately fund the Game and Fish fund since the last licence fee proposal failed. No one else has even come out with one. Both Sheltrown and every member of our office staff will purchase a deer license this year. Show me one other legislative office that can claim that. I've already purchased a combo license to support the department even though I know I won't use half of it. I also purchased an all-species fishing license this spring even though I don't go out for trout or salmon. And I have never baited deer.

Once again, we see personal attacks rather than a focus on the issue at hand. This issue is not baiting, it's about developing a strategic deer management plan to guide future public policy while shutting the public out of portions of the plan development process.


----------



## tommy-n

Hunters and fisherman are some of the most opinionated people, until we can put our personal feelings aside and ban together how much do you really think we can accomplish ?

If all outdoors people banned together we would be so powerfull even gov Jenny would be blown away


----------



## anon12162011

I know at the June NRC meeting there was a presentation on the Michigan Deer Advisory Team and what the process is/has been so far.I believe there are something like 25-30 groups that sit on the panel, not just 2 or 3.I do know that part of the MDAT process between now and the final Deer plan are several public comment periods/town hall meetings....just not sure when they are going to be held in the process.


----------



## fairfax1

_"This sound a lot to me like a strategic deer management plan is going to be put forward by the MDAT with the claim that it was based on public input. This is going to lack credibility if some of these meetings are closed to the public and testimony is limited to selected viewpoints."_

Duly noted; however, would add that not every meeting for every advisory group need be 'open to the public' in order to meet a transparency threshhold. I think your charge of lack of credibility is a tad premature. Let the cake bake......and then, as the post from the Delta Waterfowl poster above notes there will be an opportunity for that public input.

_"It's interesting though that you view Dr. Powers as a "special-interest group" and my bringing this issue to public attention as a "mini-hissyfit". I think it's easy enough for most hunters here to realize what's going on."_

I'm not sure I understand what the realization is that most hunters here have. Though judging by some of the more angst-ridden posts in this thread the term _'hissy-fit'_ doesn't seem to be a stretch. 
Then, Dr.Powers as a special interest "group".....well, it ain't necessarily he as a single individual, but rather the anti-bait ban 'group' that has hoisted him as a spokesman. And make no mistake about it, this discussion here is motivated by the anti-ban sentiment. CWD is not the driving issue here. The more histrionic posts on this thread come from individuals who have posted before about their unhappiness about the ban. So know thee by they company. 

CWD, as such, is having virtually no impact on hunters throughought Michigan, save for the hunters of the hot-zone near the Kent county farm. But, what has had an impact is the ban against baiting. That is the elephant in the room. Without that ban there would have been minimal controversey over the disease; as there was little over the hemorrhagic outbreak in southeastern Michigan last year. So let us not be coy here, the bait ban is what this is all about. And the anti-ban segment wants to put an articulate Dr.Powers in front of any venue they can in an attempt to prevent their sentiments from fading away. Too, his veterinary credentials adds some gravitas to an argument that is most often characterized as simple sourness over losing a favorite hunting tactic. 

Again, let the cake bake. There will be time for any and all perspectives on the states' deer issues to be put forward...by somebody.


----------



## Pinefarm

If the person in question was only a vet, I may feel a little differently. It's his other major business that would likely financially benefit from the bait ban being lifted, potentially in the many $10,000's a year, that keeps my red flag in the air.
The cloud of conflict of interest for personal gain overwhelms any data that might possibly be presented.

My guess, this is probably the 2nd biggest reason he's not welcome there, behind his lack of credentials as a deer biologist.


----------



## Beavervet

jimmyg said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I am always looking for good stories, and it looks like your research and viewpoint needs to be talked about. Besides, I am always looking for a reason to get back to your neck of the woods. Lets talk soon and see about getting a story on Michigan Out of Doors before the deer season starts.
> 
> Thanks for all the time and effort you put into helping the folks up there on the island.
> 
> Jimmy Gretzinger
> Michigan Out of Doors TV


Jimmy,
That sounds great. What I have been trying to do all along with this issue is to show that there is a tremendous amount of very current information from very highly qualified scientists in this field that clearly contradict the work of Dr. Mike Miller from Colorado, a state which allows winter feeding of deer in the face of CWD infection as it considers nutritional stress a far greater threat than CWD is even in a positive state. Wisconsin's CWD Strategic Advisiory Group, an independent body appointed by the DNR in Wisconsin has studied this disease as objectively and as thouroughly as anyone came to basically the exact same conclusions that I did after years of study. Here is a excerpt I recieved from one of their leaders "
_It is a shame that the MI DNR appears to be traveling down the same road to CWD and deer mis-management as the WI DNR. The letter you received from Russ Mason is evidence that the multitude of mistakes WI has made in CWD management policy have not been observed by the neighboring agency in MI. I could quote from similar WDNR documents here in WI that were written by our agencies "experts" seven years ago when CWD was first discovered here. I say discovered, because our own state officials now admit that CWD has been in WI decades at least, yet they originally preached the same dooms day scenario as Dr. Mason. The exact argument made to justify the deer eradication efforts in WI are now contained in Dr. Mason's letter to you. The only difference is that WI used the CWD areas out west in CO and WY. I can write the last sentence in paragraph 4 of Dr. Mason's letter as, "By that means, it is my sincere hope that Wisconsin will never find itself in the position to embrace as inevitable the bleak, divisive situation in which Colorado now unfortunately finds itself."_

_Seven years and over 35 million dollars later, CWD has not wiped out the WI deer herd, and CWD prevalence rates are the same. Hunting culture and traditions have been seriously damaged or destroyed, not by CWD, but by the management policies and scare tactics used to justify them by our own DNR. I have way too much information on this subject to relate by email, including scientific publications, personal accounts, and experiences accumulated from 7 years of struggle with the WI DNR and the State's CWD management policies. Dr. Mason's use of the Pat Durkin media account is symbolic of his lack of knowledge about the WI SAG proceedings. I know Mr. Dukin personally, and Pat has written this article from second hand accounts of what actually happened when the "Technical Advisory Team" was "silenced". The truth of the matter is that when the meetings and decisions made by the SAG were not going in favor of the WDNR's management plans the technical team was disrupting the proceedings with back of the room conversations, ridicule of SAG decisions, and not following Robert's Rules of order for a legal meeting. We only voted to keep them in order, and when they did not get their way they left the proceedings like a children having a temper tantrum after being disciplined. I would like to discuss more with you by phone if you have time? Please send me your phone number, and I will give you a call._

_The bottom line is that deer are a public resource living primarily on private property. Until these state agencies learn how to work with and for the public instead of forcing regulations and policies down their throats deer management will remain a problem regardless of CWD. "_

A lot of you are taking shots at me and that is totally fine with me, I am simply trying to get a much more realistic and practical interpretation of this disease than is being presented to you and being used by MDNR to advance its anti-baiting and feeding agenda. If you actually look at how much deer are artificially fed using scientific deer interaction statistics and Michigan Farm Bureau feeding estimates you will see that a feeding and baiting ban will influence about 0.2% of the social interactions (i.e. potential nose to nose contact of deer). And CWD has spread almost entirely in areas of the country that do not have baiting and feeding methods commonly practiced, so all of you need to take 10 paces back, quit listening to the "russian roulette" nonsense of MDNR and look at how much damage this disease has actually done and consider that Miller's theory is way out in left field when it comes to the practical evaluation of any contagious disease that has ever affected Deer species in the wild.

*Both Sides of the Fence: A Strategic Review of Chronic*
*Wasting Disease Management Costs and Benefits*​*A Report Prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Federation*
*by*​*Dr. Paul C. James*

This is another report that extensively analyzes the body of knowledge to date on CWD and once again blows Miller's theories out of the water, why doesn't MDNR use some of this information instead of just more Miller, Miller and Miller. 

Dr. Eric Schauber and Dr. Alan Woolf in 2002 also showed that Miller's model is flawed and missing key disease transmission components.

Dr. Frank Bastian at Louisiana State is doing work that shows that CWD may in fact be caused by a bacterium that lacks a cell wall that invades normal nerve tissue and that prions are a marker and a symptom of the disease and not a cause, and that he believes that ticks transmit these bacteria?

Dr. James Kroll, considered one of the most knowledgeable specialists on White-tailed Deer has very similar positions on this disease that I do as well.

When scientists start saying things like, "Everyone that gets infected will die", the population will suffer catastrophic death loss in 50 years, they are ignoring the fact that if only a small percentage of a population is able to develop resistance, the species will not only survive, it will thrive, and resistance to CWD infection, as has been clearly demonstrated in other TSE's can occurr, all of these theories of Miller are blown out of the water.

I will be glad to email any of you supporting documents whenever you wish.

Thanks

Jeff Powers DVM


----------



## Liver and Onions

GVDocHoliday said:


> ...how far off am I?........


Quite a distance in my opinion.

L & O


----------



## Beavervet

Pinefarm said:


> If the person in question was only a vet, I may feel a little differently. It's his other major business that would likely financially benefit from the bait ban being lifted, potentially in the many $10,000's a year, that keeps my red flag in the air.
> The cloud of conflict of interest for personal gain overwhelms any data that might possibly be presented.
> 
> My guess, this is probably the 2nd biggest reason he's not welcome there, behind his lack of credentials as a deer biologist.


Pinefarmer wants you all to know that I also own a retail Do It best Hardware store on Beaver Island that derives about 0.1% of its income from the sale of shelled corn and other feed products. That apparently makes me biased. So what does that say for the governmental specialists who can potentially recieve federal funding for the implementation of CWD assistance programs and the governmental scientists who are paid to study the disease?


----------



## swampbuck

Some of these post's are sickening.......We have a Rep and staff member who come on here looking for our input, And acting on it, And some of you continue to bash them personally. WHEN HAVE WE EVER HAD A HOUSE CHAIR WHO WANTED THE OPINION OF THE HUNTING PUBLIC! NEVER! Whether you agree with Rep. Sheltrown and Brady on this issue is beside the point, Everyone should recognize by now that he is making an effort, Which is more than any one else has ever done. Can you name the previous chair and one thing he got done for us.......just one?

Rep. Sheltrown and Brady have been involved in far more issues that effect all of us that have not been discussed on this board. I am sure there is something in the past for every one of us. I also know that the Rep. has taken up causes that he didnt support to begin with, And he did so based on public request and research not money. I e-mailed Rep Sheltrown when he introduced the original HB 5741 and suggested full inclusion, He did not support it at all. But you know what based on public support and research He ended up taking up the cause.

As I have said before while you may disagree sometimes, and I do also. He is a fine Representative whom the voters have supported overwhelmingly. (as was his brother) In 1 1/2 years the term limits will take him out. Then you wont have anyone to listen to your bitching anymore, Because the next guy probably wont give a damn just like the previous ones. Show some Respect and appreciation It could be far worse.


----------



## .480

So it is better for 100,000 deer to die from starvation in any given year,

then to allow supplemental baiting and feeding to continue?


Just how many deer have died in Michigan from cwd? 0

The deer in question was killed because it was acting strange.
And due to way the MIDNR has handled this whole cwd issue I don't believe that this deer even had cwd.

How much money did MIDNR receive after "the positive cwd deer was discovered"???

If we were to believe the MIDNR then HOW CAN ANY DEER STILL BE ALIVE IN COLORADO WHERE CWD HAS BEEN FOR OVER 50 YEARS????????

LET DR. POWERS SPEAK, LET THE TRUTH OUT.

As the old movie line goes "You can't handle the truth!"


----------



## traditional

jimmyg said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I am always looking for good stories, and it looks like your research and viewpoint needs to be talked about. Besides, I am always looking for a reason to get back to your neck of the woods. Lets talk soon and see about getting a story on Michigan Out of Doors before the deer season starts.
> 
> Thanks for all the time and effort you put into helping the folks up there on the island.
> 
> Jimmy Gretzinger
> Michigan Out of Doors TV


Jimmy,

I do not watch your show regularly. If you give Dr. Powers a chance to voice his opinion please PM me as to the date which the show will air. I will be sure to watch it. 

Thanks


----------



## e. fairbanks

A SEARCH FOR THE WORD "OPINION" ON THE INTERNET TURNED UP 163,000,000 RESPONSES. THE ONE BY WIKIPEDIA OFFERS A REASONABLE DESCRIPTION. APPARENTLY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ARE SOMEWHAT INFLUENCED BY THEIR OWN OPINIONS.WE ARE BUT POOR MORTAL HUMANS, WE BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE DESPITE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. CONSTANT REPITITION OF MIS-INFORMATION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME CAN MAKE IT GOSPEL TRUTH, EVEN IN THE MINDS OF US WHO SHOULD "KNOW BETTER"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opinion&printable=yes
read it; it cant hurt you, and it is extremely doubtful that it will have any lasting effects


----------



## Linda G.

If I were Jeff Powers, I would have taken a lot of offense at the insinuation that he would profit from sales of bait and wildlife feeds from his store on Beaver Island. 

I would be the first to tell you, and I'm only on that island a couple of times a year, that 99% of the FEED that is purchased for Beaver Island's deer is purchased by the Beaver Island Wildlife Club from Gruler's in Charlevoix, Michigan. I'm sure Al Gruber would be happy to corroborate that. 

Because the club did that until this past fall on an annual basis, nobody else on that island who lives there during the winter months purchases any wildlife feeds at all, except for their bird feeders in front of their house. They already contribute, heavily, on an annual basis to the club to make sure their deer are fed during severe winters. 

How do I know this besides being on that island in the fall once or twice a year? For several years, when we could afford it, the Traverse Bay Chapter of MWTHA contributed 4-5 tons of shelled corn annually for the wild turkeys of Beaver Island to the club, and since that also came from Gruler's, Gruler's would wait until it was ALL paid for, including the feed the club ordered, then put it on the boat to the island...I made sure the TB Chapter had ours ready when the club was ready. 


But what about baiting, you might say...well, I've been on that island a LOT in the fall, and have never once seen bait sold in town or placed out in the woods anywhere. There is very little need for bait on that island, to be honest, and those who hunt the island know it, because until snows get deep in December/January, there's always a plentiful hard mast crop and wild apple crop, with occasional rare exceptions. 

This is not about bait...repeat...not about bait...

As for his credentials, I would venture the opinion, knowing Jeff's credentials, that he is just as qualified as Dr. Steve Schmitt, who is also "just" a veterinarian, who all have basic biologist training to become animal doctors. Most vets have MORE training than wildlife 
biologists, unless the biologist has a PhD. in some specialized field. 

And for those of you who think the DNR was right to do what they did to the wildlife of northern Michigan last winter over one pen raised deer raised by people have questionable credentials and motivation, you should have been up here in March when our winter severity index went through the roof...and the deer died because there is no longer, at least on our public lands, the type of habitat needed to maintain good deer populations.


----------



## cadillacjethro

It amazes me that some here would not want as complete a debate as possible.


----------



## Liver and Onions

cadillacjethro said:


> It amazes me that some here would not want as complete a debate as possible.


I'm surprised that you're amazed. Go back and look again at the source of those posts.

L & O


----------



## cadillacjethro

Liver and Onions said:


> I'm surprised that you're amazed. Go back and look again at the source of those posts.
> 
> L & O


What I said was tongue in cheek for the posts here. You would think a committee put together to discuss a topic would want all available information. That is unless decisions and opinions are already formed. A complete waste of time and energy if that is the case.


----------



## fairfax1

Which post or poster stated they wanted an incomplete debate? You zoomed me on that one.


----------



## fairfax1

A poster above states..."_This is not about bait...repeat...not about bait..."_

OK, then.....what is it about? 

If it is just about CWD, then where was the outrage from these same posters...and the good Doctor....on the hemorrhagic outbreak mentioned earlier? what about the equine-linked disease near GR two or three years ago?

It is about the bait ban. Period. 

Without the ban no one cares ...much....about deer diseases. To claim otherwise seems, to me, to be disingenuous.


----------



## Pinefarm

If I were MDNR biologists, I would have taken a lot of offense at the insinuation that they are governmental specialists who can potentially recieve federal funding for the implementation of CWD assistance programs and the governmental scientists who are paid to study the disease? 

Nobody is taking shots at you, sir. You injected yourself into this by design IMHO. You rasie a stir then claim you are a victim being silenced. You are no victim here.

My question was that, in a debate about supposedly not getting the whole picture, that we we were not getting the whole picture. 

You should have mentioned any other interests in this "debate", for lack of a better word, right off the bat. 

I hope you don't mind me offering another point of view on how you handled it. I assume not, that's what you're doing with MDNR. 

With such a focus on baiting for some, one wonders if it's either needing bait to kill deer or something else is the motivation. Eliminating the "something else" makes the picture clearer now.

I do thank you for your disclosure. 

But this debate is the old "are you still beating my wife" program. Create a situation where, at a MDNR closed meeting where deer experts will explain the policy, have a laymen ask to be invited where you know you won't be and then complain of a coverup when not allowed in. IMHO

It's a good way to get press. Go everywhere spreading the message and complain about not being able to spread your message. You should be in politics. 

The dissemination of opinion is alive and well. It's here, at NRC meetings, on the radio, on other sites, etc.

One issue at hand is this... "not the appropriate place to discuss alternate theories or to debate the merits of the DNR's management actions."

It is not the place. M-S is an appropriate place. MOODTV is a good place. MUCC's magazine is a great place.

The purpose, IMHO, is to disrupt the meeting by a layman refuting the bait ban with supposed equal footing with MDNR. And yes, since the ban is the only major change so far and the hot button for many, it's about ALL bait. 

Go here and tell me this isn't about the bait ban. Scroll the whole thing...
http://www.theoutspokensportsman.net/drpowerscwdpresentation.htm

Read this again and tell me that all this isn't about the bait ban. Looking at the 2008 harvest numbers, there's certainly no justification for bringing bait back.
How hunters in a state like Michigan hunt over bait causes overpopulation. Hunters without bait will kill more antlerless deer. We'll see that over time.




Jeffrey F. Powers D.V.M.

President, Beaver Island Wildlife Club

26259 Main Street

Beaver Island, MI 49782



November 4, 2008



Department of Natural Resources

Natural Resources Commission

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, Michigan 48909



Dear Commissioners,



Last month I attempted to communicate to you some of the scientific arguments that make it clear that Chronic Wasting Disease has NEVER caused the type of catastrophic losses in deer populations you and your governmental scientists continue to attempt to convince the citizens of the great state of Michigan, and* the extremely minimal impact that feeding and baiting* has on disease transmission of this and other significant White-tailed Deer diseases.

I have asked repeatedly for one scientific study that factually shows Chronic Wasting Disease is linked to *baiting and feeding *of deer and since there is no such study I have received nothing of the kind.

Your scientists continue to spread nonsense at various meetings and legislative hearings such as deer will always *eat the entire apple *when it falls naturally from a tree, last week Senator James Barcia and I visited several apple trees that were littered with partially *eaten apples *from Deer. When this scientist was questioned by the senator he admitted that he had never spent any time in a deer blind. Other comments like CWD infected deer are more likely to get in car accidents, I guess these scientists haven't consulted Wisconsin on this matter when after spending $35 million dollars testing over 140,000 deer they have not been able to find this correlation.

At some point it is your responsibility to interject accountability into the management of this matter, and I call on you to conduct an INDEPENDENT investigation of the actions of the Michigan DNR which are attempting to promote a proven false Russian roulette policy to satisfy some internal agenda. You could start this investigation by questioning some of the INDEPENDENT members of the Wisconsin CWD Stakeholders committee, who will tell you of the years of wasteful management that occurred in Wisconsin as a result of the same fear mongering that your governmental scientists are using in this case. Wisconsins CWD infection rate is less than 3%, and almost all of that is in one area, and in speaking to their head biologist yesterday, very few if any of these animals ever appear clinically ill. He also told me that the disease has likely been there for over 30 years, which if you examine the epidemiological pattern of the disease that is very likely, yet the deer population in Wisconsin is one of the densest in the nation.

You owe it to the citizens of the State of Michigan and you certainly owe it to those that have had *their livelihoods severely damaged *based on the actions of the Department of Natural Resources to objectively criticize the incorrect management path that will lead to increased deer overpopulation, and diminished hunter participation which will then cause a REAL crisis in the management of the deer herd in the State of Michigan.



Sincerely,

Jeffrey F. Powers D.V.M.

President, Beaver Island Wildlife Club


Then you mention this...
"...being used by MDNR to advance its anti-baiting and feeding agenda." 

What agenda is that? The plan known to all from like 2002?


So, if CWD isn't going to spread that badly, what's your complaint? Why change anything then? Antlerless kill went up without bait. 

Remember, this isn't about bait.  If a bait ban helps even a little for disease spread and accounts for more antlerless deer killed, isn't that a good thing? Why repeal the ban then? 

And if not about the money, then it's not about the money. So, why repeal the ban again?

If not about bait, maybe make MDNR a promise in writing that you won't bring up baiting or feeding, because your complaint has nothing to do about bait.

Dr. Powers, don't take this the wrong way, but we've dealt with a few regular complainers seriously PO'd about the bait ban here since the ban. Many of them are posting on this thread, minus 3-4 regulars and haven't heard the caw of the angry flock yet. To me, your info available all over seems to show you're just another one but with a bigger megaphone and you've become their last great hope, in their minds, that they will once again be able to sit over a bait pile and wait for deer to shoot and do nothing much else required to be consistently successful, if you can just charge into that meeting and muddy up the MDNR presentation. Or better yet, make MDNR walk out in protest and you give the sole presentation. IMHO

That's what most of your supporters are hoping for. This has nothing to do about "good government" or freedom. Your supporters in your effort are mostly about a good warm deer blind with windows, an office chair and a bait pile.

As mentioned, without the bait ban, this would be no issue. When someone says it isn't about the bait ban, it's about the bait ban. 

My sense is, MDNR is going to stick to their policy for meetings just like they stuck to the bait ban. So, all this trumped up, flag waving public tantrum will do is further divide hunters and do more harm as those hooked on bait still deal with withdrawl for the next year or so and await the next round of meetings. 

What's next, PETA and HSUS wanting a seat to bash MDNR policy at a closed meeting about MDNR policies set years ago? Or claiming putting out deer bait is a protected form of speech?

Luckily here, nothing has been edited. You can say whatever you wish as long and reasonable and adult. Any nasty name calling will be dealt with.

I take shots about everyday from the anti-ban folks here. You can't let it bother you. 

I'll get hit with terms of being a purist, elitist, snob, rich landowner, etc. 
What I am is a deer hunter. I got several bowhunting spots all trimmed and ready this week. I'll be done with all blinds in about 2 weeks. I've scouted the spots and everything is on go. The only thing that could alter the situation was if my neighbors dumped bait near the line, ruining the deer movement in the area. 

For many here, instead of still stewing about the bait ban, get out and get your spots scouted and ready for Fall. Then you won't even need bait.


----------



## cadillacjethro

fairfax1 said:


> Which post or poster stated they wanted an incomplete debate? You zoomed me on that one.


When differing opinions are not allowed to speak, what would you call it? If there is someone with the credentials and conclusions as Dr. Powers at the meeting(s), and is allowed to present, then we have an unbiased conclusion. Isn't that what we are shooting for in the first place?


----------



## traditional

cadillacjethro said:


> That is unless decisions and opinions are already formed.


I agree.

The first post is about letting Dr. Powers voice be heard.

You can twist this in any direction you want. The bottom line is, Do you think Dr. Powers opinion should be heard?


----------



## Splitshot

Tom Morang said:


> I thought this thread was about Dr. Powers.


First of all the discussion is about Dr. Powers not being able to gain access to a meeting to give his point of view about baiting so this discussion is about politics as much as anything else. I brought up the issue of how and why some of these decisions are possibly made and used the perfect example of chumming. 

In an effort to defend your friend and deflect the question you made a statement about how dedicated he was and never anything to defend his actions. I answer your query and you come up with one of the most disingenuous statements I have read on this web-site.

It is connected Tom. If you take issue with any of my facts, at least be honest about it and say you cant defend them.

For several years I have been calling for an on line forum to discuss outdoor related issues. My position is if 99% of the hunters are against a DNR policy the DNR should still make the science decision. In the fifties they did it with killing does. Public input should be taken only if it is one of the options supported by science.

After reading Tonys post I have a little more respect for MUCC trying to get more people involved. MUCC however has the same problem with regard to its members. Many have lost faith in the leadership. It is difficult to give up power and let MUCC members decide a course of action and what issues MUCC should fully support. When they finally get it that the Internet is a much better, easier, modern way to get input from members and let the members feel like their voice means something I will gladly sign up again. In fact I look forward to it.

It would be hard for MUCC to support antler restrictions if 60% of the members voted against it or to support a baiting ban if 60% of the members opposed the ban. MUCC is a social organization. The DNR could use a similar web-site to get public input but their decisions should still be made based on scientific data on what is best for the resource.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Jeff:

I'm working on a CWD story for Michigan Out-of-Doors Magazine. If you want to shoot me an e-mail with contact info, I'd be happy to do an interview and see where it fits into the story. Story is focusing on the fact that there is conflicting science on CWD -- which, in itself, makes it a very tough thing to know what's right and wrong in terms of response. 

Anyway, e-mail is [email protected]


----------



## MOODMagazine

Splitshot: I know you want the online voting/polling option. It's a good idea. Like all good ideas, they take longer to implement than to conjure. So, I hate to say it because it's sound like a tired excuse BUT I'm working on it. Truly.


----------



## tommy-n

Thanks for filling in some of the gaps and clearing things up a little


----------



## Ranger Ray

MOODMagazine said:


> Jeff:
> the fact that there is conflicting science on CWD -- which, in itself, makes it a very tough thing to know what's right and wrong in terms of response.
> 
> Anyway, e-mail is [email protected]


In these cases where science conflicts, transparency is of the utmost importance.


----------



## William H Bonney

Beavervet said:


> Just so all of you understand how this all started, here is the letter written from the Michigan United Deer Hunters to Jordan Burroughs the facilitator asking for my participation in an evening discussion put on by MDNR about CWD
> 
> "_Jordan, what is the status of the CWD discussions on Monday evening after dinner in St. Ignace? I have been reading everything I can find on-line about CWD. I think it is imperative to include all sides of the issue in these discussions. I have contacted Dr. Jeff Powers of Beaver Island and he has agreed to participate in this discussion if invited. His e-mail address is __[email protected]__. I believe his expertise on this subject would add credibility to the discussions. There are many in my organization that feel the MDNR is taking a stand behind out-dated and agenda driven science. By listening to all available science and opinions can only be benificial to all in attendance._
> _I would be willing to pick up any meals and lodging expenses for Dr. Powers._
> _Thank you for your consideration._
> _Curtis M Stone, Michigan Deer Advisory Team_"
> 
> And here is the response from Jordan Burroughs:
> 
> _Hi Curtis,_
> _RE: Chronic Wasting Disease discussion at the July MDAT meeting:_
> _The DNR will provide a presentation that summarizes the most current and accepted scientific information on CWD (much of which comes from the leading and most experienced researchers on the subject) followed by a discussion by the DAT. The intention is not to have a recommendation on CWD; instead, the DNR would like to hear the DAT members' perspectives. _
> _For consistency and in the interest of efficiency, we are not allowing any DAT members to bring in their own speakers or experts. As always, all DAT members are encouraged to read up on the topic and to provide their organization's perspective on the topic during the discussion._
> _See you next month._
> _Jordan_
> 
> .


Well,,, there goes the sliver of credibility I had left for the MUCC.... :lol:


----------



## bradymsu

MOODMagazine said:


> So Bradys assertions that MUCC is keeping people out is 100 percent, completely false.


Where did I ever make this assertion? No where in this thread did I ever blame MUCC for the decision to not allow Dr. Powers equal time at the July MDAT meeting. In fact, I believe I said that this decision was made by a public employee acting in the capacity of his public employment. No one at MUCC is a public employee.

As far as the Oscoda land transfer goes, I wasn't even aware that MUCC continued to oppose it. My understanding from committee testimony was that MUCC would be neutral on the proposal if the bill were amended to have the funds from the sale go to the Game and Fish fund. Sheltrown consequently amended the bill on the House floor before it passed with over a 2/3 vote.

As far as MUCC and sound scientific management goes, all I have to say is.... crossbows. This is one the biggest natural resource issues the NRC and the Legislature has dealt with this past year and MUCC's position was purely based on politics, not sound scientific management.

Focus on the issue at hand... not allowing equal time for dissenting opinion at the July MDAT where CWD will be discussed as part of the formation of a strategic management plan.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Brady, I think we caught the jist of it. Sounded to me like there was some finger-pointing. At any rate, I wanted to make sure that it was very clear where things stand. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for the misinterpretation. But there should be none now that, hopefully, I've clarified. Although Bonny's response has me a little confused. How does Jordan Burrough's response have anything to do with MUCC?


----------



## William H Bonney

MOODMagazine said:


> Brady, I think we caught the jist of it. Sounded to me like there was some finger-pointing. At any rate, I wanted to make sure that it was very clear where things stand. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for the misinterpretation. But there should be none now that, hopefully, I've clarified. Although Bonny's response has me a little confused. How does Jordan Burrough's response have anything to do with MUCC?


I don't think it does. But you come in here, calling the guy a flat out liar without knowing all the facts, basically on MUCC's behalf. This is the last place you wanna come into shootin from the hip.


----------



## swampbuck

Splitshot said:


> It would be hard for MUCC to support antler restrictions if 60% of the members voted against it or to support a baiting ban if 60% of the members opposed the ban. MUCC is a social organization. The DNR could use a similar web-site to get public input but their decisions should still be made based on scientific data on what is best for the resource.


 Over 60% of MUCC members supported full inclusion at the MUCC convention. They maintained their opposed to crossbows position in opposition to the majority of their own members wishes...............THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY !


----------



## Whit1

swampbuck said:


> Over 60% of MUCC members supported full inclusion at the MUCC convention. They maintained their opposed to crossbows position in opposition to the majority of their own members wishes...............THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY !


 

It is MUCC's stated policy that any changes in the organizations stand on such issues (as it was told to me) requires a 2/3 majority of those voting at the state convention. I believe the vote came out to be 57% in favor of changing MUCC's stand on the issue.


----------



## swampbuck

Whit1 said:


> It is MUCC's stated policy that any changes in the organizations stand on such issues (as it was told to me) requires a 2/3 majority of those voting at the state convention. I believe the vote came out to be 57% in favor of changing MUCC's stand on the issue.


 What percentage voted to ESTABLISH that position ?

Tony, Thats a generous offer to include Dr. Powers' info in an article.....Hows that unbiased crossbow article you said you would write last year coming?


----------



## MOODMagazine

Actually Bonny, I believe you're the one not presenting facts. To say that MUCC didn't allow public input is a lie. Which is precisely what I stated. I guess maybe I'm missing something with what you're arguing.

The crossbow article will be in the October issue just as I said. It doesn't make much sense to talk about crossbow use before the fall when folks are looking for fishing articles in the summer.

I believe that 57% number is correct on the crossbow vote from, what, three years ago? Which means it's a very contentious issue and -- as I said before -- it's ridiculous that we continue to fight over it. It's the law now. At the last convention, MUCC's members voted to table two resolutions regarding crossbows. Why? Because the members realized how divisive the issue is and that continuing to bicker over it does no one any good.

The Humane Society of the United States has a staff member in Lansing. I think we probably have better things to work on -- all of us -- together. If you want to keep arguing, keep complaining about ancient history you are free to do so. I'm interested in working with those that want to kick the anti's back to Washington or California or wherever it is the came from.


----------



## Splitshot

MOODMagazine said:


> Splitshot: I know you want the online voting/polling option. It's a good idea. Like all good ideas, they take longer to implement than to conjure. So, I hate to say it because it's sound like a tired excuse BUT I'm working on it. Truly.


Thanks Tony for the update. I hope it happens. I believe many people believe like Swampbuck and how can you blame him. MUCC is a much needed organization and has the capacity to help protect sportsmen's and sportswomen's outdoor heritage.

If it takes two thirds of the membership to get them to support and lobby for a particular issue that is fine with me. At the current time the club representatives represent themselves and not the wishes of the membership on some issues. I beleive there are a lot of us who are willing to support MUCC if they have a voice. Please keep us posted.

I also believe this concept would work well for our elected representavites as well. Only allow voters from a district to voice their opinion and act accordling. That way we have a record that will help determine if the particular politican is acting in the best interest of their constituency and not special interest. What do you think Brady?


----------



## Pinefarm

MOOD,

Thank you for the great clarification of the chain of events. You "rested the case". This whole "bait ban haters not allowed to speak" hoax has been nothing but a McCarthyism sham, as mentioned before.

What you may not understand is, bait ban derangement syndrome makes some people almost rabid and illogical. They've not only staked their hunting philosophy around bait, but they've wedded that to their online reputations on repealing the ban. They are dug in until the day they get ticketed for baiting and it becomes public. IMHO

And they attack anyone who understands that a Michigan deer world, in 2010 and beyond, without the cancer of baiting is far better off.

Don't bother trying to convince them. Just establish who they are and what their real agenda is...themselves.


----------



## 6inchtrack

Tony
Please do not make any recommendations on my behalf. My whole family followed my grandfather and separated ourselves form MUCC more than 20 years ago.

Pinefarm
Ban me if you feel you need to, but after reading this thread, I find you doing the same things that you claimed that I was doing that had made you mad. So, sometimes Pinefarm, sometimes.

For the record, let Dr. Powers speak.

6


----------



## Pinefarm

6inch,

I happen to LOVE this thread and the comments. I hope it stays open for a long time. This thread is turning into a "Battle of Midway" for those trying to bring baiting back and they're the Japanese fleet. 

More threads like this and the anti-bait ban folks will meet their Stalingrad. IMHO

Threads like this reveal the motivation for many, if not most who are against the ban. 

So, I couldn't be happier with how this thread is turning out.


----------



## Beavervet

Since this thread is being watched by many people, perhaps it could become very constructive by being a place to post suggestions for the upcoming MDAT meeting in a few days. 

The biggest problem I have seen in my area this spring on Beaver Island and in Northern Michigan as a whole in talking to DNR Wildlife Biologists, is that the very harsh winter and cold and wet spring has had a very detrimental effect on deer numbers and may have potentially hindered fawn survival. All the more reason for an increased emphasis on habitat work on both public and private lands to improve nutrition and habitat to aid the herd through tough times. Our local DNR biologist was here this past week and he informed us that funds for this work are very tight, if available at all. I would like this issue to recieve more important emphasis, particularly in Northern Michigan, Upper Peninsula and Island habitats that may have marginal soil resources.


----------



## Pinefarm

Beaver,

If you'd like, why don't you make your full presentation here in this forum, but in a new thread and I'll then close it so there's no comments afterwards, if you like, and I can also then make it a sticky for a couple months. Or I can leave it open for you.

If interested, let me know when you post your presentation and I'll do whatever you like at that point. I can leave it open, close it or whatever.

If I leave it open, you could then answer any questions at that point.

If you like, I could moderate it in such a way that only serious questions are asked and that there be no jabs or digs, like what is often allowed here, since it's such a hot topic.

You have my guarantee that I'll moderate without bias. If a pro-ban poster makes a dig or a slam, it'll be edited or removed.

The mod staff can moderate it like a professional meeting and no BS will be tolerated, from those for or against the ban.

It will be moderated and edited to be seen in a respectful manner, from all who ask questions or make comments.

Frankly, you'll probably get a bigger audience here.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Tom Morang said:


> I'm convinced a study on the opinions in this thread would be a great homework assignment for students enrolled in a class pertaining to Natural Resources Management-The Human Dimension.
> 
> That's about it.


Ah yes, the human dimension. A simple observation of life is lesson for most. I still cant figure out what is of more importance. The understanding of the human dimension for those managing our recourses, or for the people that depend on the decisions of those managing. I would think them both important. Of course one will always think themselves void of such issues and of no need of critique from their peers. Those that seek truth in decision making, fear no question or debate. Those that don't, have executive order.


----------



## Pinefarm

Deer management isn't just "deer management". Deer management is as much deer *hunter *management.

The science behind deer management is like the practices and game plan before "the big game". Deer hunters are the players who execute the game plan and win or lose the game for the manager/coach staff.

But the players are only as good as the game plan.


----------



## Tom Morang

Ranger Ray said:


> Ah yes, the human dimension. A simple observation of life is lesson for most. I still cant figure out what is of more importance. The understanding of the human dimension for those managing our recourses, or for the people that depend on the decisions of those managing. I would think them both important. Of course one will always think themselves void of such issues and of no need of critique from their peers. Those that seek truth in decision making, fear no question or debate. Those that don't, have executive order.


You are correct Ray, both are important and necessary. There lay the answer. In my opinion Natural Resource Managment has to use the proper blend of Biological Science, Social Science, and Political Science in order to be effective, practical and accepted by people of the state.


----------



## William H Bonney

Pinefarm said:


> Deer management isn't just "deer management". Deer management is as much deer *hunter *management.
> 
> The science behind deer management is like the practices and game plan before "the big game". Deer hunters are the players who execute the game plan and win or lose the game for the manager/coach staff.
> 
> But the players are only as good as the game plan.


Wow,, I likey..  Good analogy Bob. Kinda like Millen and the Lions, eh?? :evil:


----------



## Pinefarm

Bringing back baiting is like bringing back Millen.


----------



## William H Bonney

Pinefarm said:


> Bringing back baiting is like bringing back Millen.


Awww,, he wasn't _that_ bad.. :lol:


----------



## traditional

Pinefarm said:


> You have my guarantee that I'll moderate without bias.


I invite you to explain the last two sentences in Post 95.


----------



## Pinefarm

That is merely my opinion. I said moderate. My opinion is my POV. I moderate with a completely different standard.

If you notice, be it here or the management forum, I rarely if ever moderate anything. It's only when the jabs get too crude or personal when I even think of closing a thread.

I not only like the opposing position on bait and QDM, I use them because those folks often make my points for me. The anti-ban and anti-QDM posts are very useful to me. 
So editing them is the last thing I want to do.

If I were a boxing ref, I like to let the guys "fight". It's only really low blows that get called. I'll usually even allow blows a little below the belt.

Notice the slams against me that I allow. On many other sites, when the mod staff is slammed, that member is banned immediately. But I have a thick skin, as long as it isn't a super low blow. In some 5 plus years I believe I've only banned 1 member and warned 1 member of such action.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Pinefarm said:


> That is merely my opinion. I said moderate. My opinion is my POV. I moderate with a completely different standard.
> .......


I disagree with Pinefarm a lot, however I think he moderates with an even hand. A few times he and other moderators close threads just because they are getting long or boring. I see no reason to close any thread unless the tone becomes uncivil. 

L & O


----------



## Pinefarm

L&O,
The reason behind that is usually because we have so many threads to attend to, once a thread hits 6-10 pages, guys start pulling quotes from other guys and going line for line rips and the thread is way, way off topic, we'll close them because they usually turn sour on a personal level and we have lots of other threads to attend to.


----------



## swampbuck

I.M.O. The crossbow issue and others including this one was a real eye opener, It clearly demonstrated that the MUCC and its partners including the MBHA do not represent the sportsmen or their own membership. The leader represent only themselves and the special interest groups they are affiliated with. They have demonstrated this clearly and continue to do so to this day.

They should not be in any official position to make recommendations on deer management or any other issue regarding all the outdoorsmen of this state. They are clearly a special interest group who should NOT have access to public funds. They can not be trusted to render an unbiased opinion.

At one time in the past The MUCC as well as its affiliates were a valued asset in this state. The current leadership has destroyed the credibility and value of those organizations. There may be a place for such an organization in this state.....But not the current form of MUCC.

I support the bait ban due to disease and personal disdain for the practice. BUT for the MUCC to exclude the opposing opinion because it doesnt fit their plan is another example of why the need to go away.


----------



## Tom Morang

Swampbuck says:

"I support the bait ban due to disease and personal disdain for the practice. BUT for the MUCC to exclude the opposing opinion because it doesnt fit their plan is another example of why the need to go away."

You are mistaken.

I think you missed reading this post by Tony Hansen:

"The DNR facilitates the meetings. We are NOT the organization that decides how the meetings are ran or who is or is not allowed in at this stage. So Brady&#8217;s assertions that MUCC is keeping people out is 100 percent, completely false. MUCC would certainly be interested in hearing from anyone with credentials in wildlife disease. But we can&#8217;t make that happen in the framework of the DAT meetings because it&#8217;s not our place to do so."

Read the signature line.


----------



## e. fairbanks

BAITING DEER UP HERE IN THE TBIZ IS JUST AS POPULAR AS IT EVER WAS. WHAT IS THE POINT IN PRETENDING THAT US MIGHTY HUNTERS WOULD STOP. 
Am reminded of a quotation from Shakespeare regarding the virulent attacts on "anti-baiters"-- "methinks he doth protest too much"


----------



## Pinefarm

Who's the group protesting again? 

Those who have problems with baiting on multiple levels are quite content with the bait ban. In fact, it's the best thing to happen to benefit Michigan deer hunters since allowing elevated stands for firearms and dumping the Sunday hunting bans. IMHO 
It's 20 times better, actually.

The protesting is coming from those who want baiting back, for varied reasons. One can't protest something that he's overjoyed about.

Now, people like me may protest the current buck tag system and the current firearm opener timing. That's a protest. We're protesting a status quo that we believe is outdated and fundamentally flawed in favor of a modern, arguably proven approach. We believe the Michigan status quo dictates that hunters kill more bucks and less doe's, by default due to the design of the rules.

Now, if the position of those who want bait to return is altruistic because they believe that baiting will kill less bucks and more antlerless deer, then a 5 year period to compare the numbers is something to be considered. 

However, I contend that those who want bait to return are not doing so for altruistic motives. Counter that to those who are willing to limit everyone's buck tags, including their own, for the greater good. 

And as far as attachment to a sacred date made up in the 1920's, that baffles me. I believe many, if not most other states vary their opener dates without incident or protest. Memorial Day, Labor Day, Trout Opener, Bass Opener, Small Game Opener, Thanksgiving, etc. all fall of different dates and people have no conniption and are able to cope with that without incident. Yet Nov.15 is deemed "too big to change", with virtually no merit other than emotional nostalgia, with nostalgia famously described as being just a mild form of depression. 

What may be illuminated is that there are clearly different "camps" in regard to hunter management philosophy. One camp looks back to the past and the other looks forward to the future. That may be the biggest thing we learn from these exercises.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> Who's the group protesting again?
> 
> Those who have problems with baiting on multiple levels are quite content with the bait ban. In fact, it's the best thing to happen to benefit Michigan deer hunters since allowing elevated stands for firearms and dumping the Sunday hunting bans. IMHO
> It's 20 times better, actually.
> 
> The protesting is coming from those who want baiting back, for varied reasons. One can't protest something that he's overjoyed about.
> 
> Now, people like me may protest the current buck tag system and the current firearm opener timing. That's a protest. We're protesting a status quo that we believe is outdated and fundamentally flawed in favor of a modern, arguably proven approach. We believe the Michigan status quo dictates that hunters kill more bucks and less doe's, by default due to the design of the rules.
> 
> Now, if the position of those who want bait to return is altruistic because they believe that baiting will kill less bucks and more antlerless deer, then a 5 year period to compare the numbers is something to be considered.
> 
> However, I contend that those who want bait to return are not doing so for altruistic motives. Counter that to those who are willing to limit everyone's buck tags, including their own, for the greater good.
> 
> And as far as attachment to a sacred date made up in the 1920's, that baffles me. I believe many, if not most other states vary their opener dates without incident or protest. Memorial Day, Labor Day, Trout Opener, Bass Opener, Small Game Opener, Thanksgiving, etc. all fall of different dates and people have no conniption and are able to cope with that without incident. Yet Nov.15 is deemed "too big to change", with virtually no merit other than emotional nostalgia, with nostalgia famously described as being just a mild form of depression.
> 
> What may be illuminated is that there are clearly different "camps" in regard to hunter management philosophy. One camp looks back to the past and the other looks forward to the future. That may be the biggest thing we learn from these exercises.


I'm in the "camp" that likes things done right. Open and honest debate can do nothing but enhance the process known as fish/game managment. An old saying goes something like: The _*appearance* _of impropriety _*is* _impropriety. When everything is done in daylight, all cards on the table, it becomes much harder to question the decisions and motivations of those calling the shots. You would think one of these experts would have known that.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

The more I study about CWD, the more I become convinced that our state deer managers are ignoring sound science and are instead using CWD as an excuse to archive political objectives. It has also become obvious that much of what the DNR does in regards to deer management does not meet the sound science litmus test. 

There is no excuse for disallowing Dr. Powers from the MDAT. I would suspect that they just dont want to hear from someone that is knowledgeable, well prepared, and articulate and that disagrees with their agenda. It reminds me of when my wife testified at a NRC meeting many years ago. One of the commissioners chastised her for not respecting the expertise of biologists, to which my wife replied, I am a biologist. After that they didnt want to talk to her ether.


----------



## fairfax1

In post #115 this observation is made: _"I become convinced that our state deer managers are ignoring sound science and are instead using CWD as an excuse to archive (sic) political objectives."_

You know, we've heard this charge before. It always perplexes me. Just exactly which "_political objectives"_ are being achieved? 

It seems too apparent that any one of these various 'hot-button' deer issues has limited appeal on a 'political objective' basis. For state regulators in particular, they will always be damned if they do, damned if they don't no matter which side of which issue they support. That doesn't sound to me like a recipe for achieving political success.

Sure, there is some localized political traction to be gained where a politico has a constituency that vocalizes one way or the other...then the office-holder or wannabe ....can chime in on the side he thinks will get him favor.  But for a government employee? a State worker? What profit is there to them to foster an issue that brings nothing but heat and controversey down on them....and their bosses. It would seem to me to be pretty self defeating.

No disrespect intended, but I scoff at the charge that state biologists or veterinarians or DNR management would dream up CWD and the bait-ban as a tactic to achieve _'political objectives'. _ 

It's another version of the 'devil-theory'.....that any action that one feels disadvantaged by must have been initiated by evil forces with evil intent aimed solely out to do harm to one's interest.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

fairfax1 said:


> In post #115 this observation is made: _"I become convinced that our state deer managers are ignoring sound science and are instead using CWD as an excuse to archive (sic) political objectives."_
> 
> You know, we've heard this charge before. It always perplexes me. Just exactly which "_political objectives"_ are being achieved?
> 
> It seems too apparent that any one of these various 'hot-button' deer issues has limited appeal on a 'political objective' basis. For state regulators in particular, they will always be damned if they do, damned if they don't no matter which side of which issue they support. That doesn't sound to me like a recipe for achieving political success.
> 
> Sure, there is some localized political traction to be gained where a politico has a constituency that vocalizes one way or the other...then the office-holder or wannabe ....can chime in on the side he thinks will get him favor. But for a government employee? a State worker? What profit is there to them to foster an issue that brings nothing but heat and controversey down on them....and their bosses. It would seem to me to be pretty self defeating.
> 
> No disrespect intended, but I scoff at the charge that state biologists or veterinarians or DNR management would dream up CWD and the bait-ban as a tactic to achieve _'political objectives'. _
> 
> It's another version of the 'devil-theory'.....that any action that one feels disadvantaged by must have been initiated by evil forces with evil intent aimed solely out to do harm to one's interest.


Let me try to spell it out as simple as I can. The DNR has always been against baiting and used CWD as an excuse to ban the practice in the LP. The one CWD infected deer found in a pen in Kent Co. did not pose a risk to deer outside that area, yet the DNR/NRC went beyond their own CWD action plan and permanently banned baiting in the LP using that one case as the excuse. Now if the DNR was truly non-political, then they would have addressed baiting and feeding deer as a separate issue without using CWD as a BS shortcut. 

If they ever do find CWD in the wild herd, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the DNR will try to wipe out the deer population in that area where found and would also step up efforts to lower the state deer herd to a new low level. They would do this despite the science that contradicts that response and would also ignore the fact that those types of efforts have failed in other states and perhaps even made maters worse. So why then would they do that? The answer is simple --- Politics. The DNR has proven time and time again that they want the deer herd reduced to the lowest level possible statewide. They are under constant political pressure to do this by agriculture, timber and other special interests. If they find more CWD, then that will be their BS excuse to slaughter the deer herd.


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> No disrespect intended, but I scoff at the charge that state biologists or veterinarians or DNR management would dream up CWD and the bait-ban as a tactic to achieve _'political objectives'. _


How about personal vanity and protecting a reputation as a motivating force?

In the case of TB, you have a situation where a relatively unknown veterinarian who was employed by the DNR made a name for himself within the scientific community, not by conducting any substantive research but by coming up with a hypothesis based almost completely on speculation. Due to the fact that very little solid research has been conducted regarding this particular topic (Bovine TB infections in free ranging cervids), the hypothesis has gone largely unchallenged within the scientific community. Now instead of being a non-noteworthy mid-range public servant, the individual is perceived to be an "expert" on the subject of Bovine TB. He publishes papers, gets invited to symposiums all around the country, gets quoted in articles and manages to secure significant government funding for further exploration of the issue. If it turns out that his hypothesis was flawed and that he was wrong, all of the gold that he has built his career on turns to lead.

Would you say that an individual in that position would be open to investigating alternative explanations that contradict the hypothesis that he has built a career on, in a totally open and unbiased manner? Human nature being what it is, I kind of doubt it. Hence, it's easier to eliminate situations where opposing views have equal time to present an alternative viewpoint. 

The same is true to a lesser degree with an institution. If the DNR has decided to embrace a policy and it subsequently turns out to have been the wrong decision, they have egg all over their face. My guess is that they will go to great lengths to avoid allowing alternative views to be seriously heard & considered, if those views contradict established policy. Nobody likes to have to acknowledge having made the wrong decision and the DNR and the individuals employed by it are no different in that regard then anybody else. 

By the way, if you actually believe that the DNR does not engage in management decisions based purely on political objectives, let me disabuse you of the notion. You need look no further then the ridiculous limit that was placed a few years ago on the number of antlerless permits that an individual could purchase in a specific zone. It had no biological basis and in fact has a negative biological consequence. The motivation was purely political in nature, it was intended to placate some members of the legislature who had constituents complain that "all the deer were being killed off," despite there not being a shred of actual biological data to support that point of view. The DNR won't admit that, however, instead they give you a song and dance about limiting the number of permits making it somehow more fair for all hunters to be able to obtain one.


----------



## fairfax1

To the mods: I fully realize that I am simply pulling quotes from posts and then responding. Forgive me. The topic is old, tired, and is ground well plowed. But still, statements are made on these forums...particularly on a thread topic such as this...that seem, to me, to be broadside assertions with lines of reasoning that I just don't understand. So, in a way, my quote-pulling is an attempt to get some clarification. Anyway, that's my story....and I'm stickin' to it.

.................................................................
*
From post #117 above*: 
_"Let me try to spell it out. The DNR has always been against baiting and used CWD as an excuse to ban the practice in the LP."_

Well, if, as you state, they have always been against baiting doesn't that beg the question "Why?" I take it from your posts that your answer is _"because of political objectives__"._ And again, I have to ask what is the political "objective" they will achieve by initiating an action that was widely acknowledged would be controversial. 
Cutting to the chase....what exactly is the 'political objective' you decry?



_"If they ever do find CWD in the wild herd, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the DNR will try to wipe out the deer population in that area where found and would also step up efforts to lower the state deer herd to a new low level. ...... So why then would they do that? The answer is simple --- Politics."_

Help me with this one too. See above. What is the political gain here?

_"The DNR has proven time and time again that they want the deer herd reduced to the lowest level possible statewide. They are under constant political pressure to do this by agriculture, timber and other special interests. If they find more CWD, then that will be their BS excuse to slaughter the deer herd."_

I grow more perplexed. For an agency whose mandate is to protect and preserve our resources.....in short, the very reason for their very existence....you now assert they want to kill off the resource. Am I getting that right? Wouldn't that be self defeating? Wouldn't that eliminate their jobs? What will be their personal or institutional gain if they 'slaughter' off the deer herd, as you assert.

As far as the 'special interest'....are there not some agricultural interest who would want baiting to continue? And wouldn't the hunting community...at least those who feel they need baiting...wouldn't they too be a 'special interest'? In fact, I'd bet that that group...reportedley about 50% of the deer hunting community...could organize more 'political' votes than all the guys who cut & sell timber for a living, or for that matter, make a living off of 'agriculture'. 350,000 voting hunters would probably be a pretty big 'political objective' to needlessly alienate. Leastwise, it seems that way to me.

I am sure you are earnest and sincere in your beliefs. But your assertions seem to be based more on fear of politics, fear of organizations, or perhaps, fear that 'special interests' are somehow sinister, somehow detrimental to your own special interest. Or something like that.


----------



## Pinefarm

From post 58...

"Dr. Powers, don't take this the wrong way, but we've dealt with a few regular complainers seriously PO'd about the bait ban here since the ban. Many of them are posting on this thread, minus 3-4 regulars and haven't heard the caw of the angry flock yet."

That number just shrunk by 2! :lol::yikes:

Sorry, I couldn't resist having some fun with a good topic. It'll get lively now. 

Let's keep things civil.


----------



## bradymsu

MOODMagazine said:


> Although apparently there are those who seem to think MUCC is funded by the DNR. Which, of course, is false.ggggg


The only thing I've heard to this effect recently is that MUCC received a no-bid contract for the MDAT meetings. And that is unsubstantiated.


----------



## ridgewalker

I stand corrected, Tom. It was a joint effort between dnr and dept of ag. IMO they both botched the call that was made. That is why I feel that all perspectives should be considered at this new point in time. I have never known a discussion that is restricted to one point of view to accomplish anything even on this site. We learn from each other and can use the best of all points of view.


----------



## e. fairbanks

After the 11 pages dealing w/baiting, crossbows, chumming, etc, our mighty hunters generously contribute 1 whole page on the wildlife disease subject dealing w/"hunter introduced cwd" now we are right back to our "students of jurisprudence" 
please allow me to interrupt this vital discussion w/a few words from the great dr. Mike miller on the subject of "hunter introduced cwd"
(reply from dr. Dan obrien, wildlife veterinarian, mdnr wildlife disease lab. In answer to my question; "is any consideration being given to requiring that hunter killed carcasses/or parts from states or provinces where cwd is present in the wild must test negative for cwd before being imported into michigan ? If not why not? Other than politics?)
dr. Obrien sidesteps w/"finding the most effective strategies for enforcement of movenment bans remains an ongoing challenge across the country" 
dr. Mike miller of the co division of wildlife.easily the foremost authority in the world on cwd, has pointed out that "while it is probably prudent to recognize and attempt to manage these relatively small risks in some manner; safeguards should not be so onerous that they diminish our capability to control cwd-infected populations through harvest, because removing live, infected animals from these populations will likely be a much more effective strategy for controlling cwd than will control via focusing on select animal parts"
by "control" the good dr, miller's foremost consideration appears to be monetary rather than disease introduction to other states. Licensing hunters from other states contributes half of budget for coloradoes division of wildlife, the good dr. Wants to keep them coming.


----------



## Michihunter

OK I'll throw in my two cents on this subject. I'm curious as to the membership of this MDAT committee and their qualifications to advise on any "scientific" management policy. If the good Dr. has been discluded because of lack of qualifications(amongst other things) can someone please give me the qualifications of those currently on committee?


----------



## Ranger Ray

e. fairbanks said:


> our mighty hunters generously contribute 1 whole page on the wildlife disease subject dealing w/"hunter introduced cwd" now we are right back to our "students of jurisprudence"


Sorry if I missed your definition of who exactly "mighty hunters" refers to. Can you please explain to whom you are referring?


----------



## MOODMagazine

A no-bid contract? I guess so. No one put in a bid to organize and pay to get it started . . . only DNR money MUCC has seen was reimbursement for travel for the guest speakers at the deer symposium. We covered the costs of about half of that event -- unreimbursed, using the admission fees to recoup some of the event cost. Not sure if it covered all -- it certainly wasn't a profit.


----------



## Michihunter

MOODMagazine said:


> A no-bid contract? I guess so. No one put in a bid to organize and pay to get it started . . . only DNR money MUCC has seen was reimbursement for travel for the guest speakers at the deer symposium. We covered the costs of about half of that event -- unreimbursed, using the admission fees to recoup some of the event cost. Not sure if it covered all -- it certainly wasn't a profit.


Isn't MUCC a non profit group?


----------



## Splitshot

You need to read up on what a non profit is. Making a profit might be confusing, but non-profit companies raise money and there hopefully is some excess that can be used to expand the non profit. At the end of the year this money is not shared with the stockholders like it might be by a profit company. Making a profit on a single event has nothing to do with the profit status of an organization.


----------



## Michihunter

Splitshot said:


> You need to read up on what a non profit is. Making a profit might be confusing, but non-profit companies raise money and there hopefully is some excess that can be used to expand the non profit. At the end of the year this money is not shared with the stockholders like it might be by a profit company. Making a profit on a single event has nothing to do with the profit status of an organization.


You're absolutely right Splitshot. I spoke before clearly thinking about it.


----------



## xraps

Just wanted to thank bradymsu and Dr. Powers for their efferts. Just wondering if how much time will pass before we can replace the powers to be calling the shots with people who will make decissions based on what is best for the resource as well as those of us who enjoy them.


----------

