# 20 Member Work Group



## Musket

Hello everyone
For those of you who are interested in becoming a member of the 20 people to be chosen for the new work group can find the application at the link below. Thank you.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363-235225--,00.html


----------



## tallbear

Names where announced Thursday at the NRC meeting. I was one of the 20 that was chosen.


----------



## Musket

Hey Tallbear, thats good to hear. Please keep us informed on the group's recommendations. 
Thanks Musket.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Tallbear, I am looking forward to meeting you as I too have been invited to the bear rountable. I have ask to represent the majority of bear hunters who DO NOT belong to a bear hunting organization. I think this is crucial in the current atmosphere of special intrest groups seeking entitlements to our wildlife resources. I don't care who you are or how much property you own or how many taxes you pay you are not "entitled" to a "return on your investment"! any more than any other resident of this state. These meetings are open to the public so I hope many of the visitors of this site will attend one or more of these meetings. Originally these meetings were to be held in conjunction with the NRC meetings but this has been changed, I believe to discourage public attendance. The times and dates are as listed...All meetings will be held at the Ralph A. MacMullan (RAM) Center in Roscommon. The dates are June7-9 and August 9-11. Although I don't believe the public will be able to participate I hope to see many people interested in bear hunting in attendance. Thanks.


----------



## Spartan88

da Appleknocker said:


> I don't care who you are or how much property you own or how many taxes you pay you are not "entitled" to a "return on your investment"! any more than any other resident of this state.


That is good to know, but I hope you keep the same personal standards when you look at the population data in White Oak.


----------



## greencreekx181

there are some large blocks of private land that need to reduce the bear population so there should be extra tags for those areas .its not a return on a investment .its called responsable game management.in our 30,000 acre gated comunity we are over run with bears and need to reduce the population.and the only way to do that is with private land bear tags for the area.


----------



## Bearboy

Bears want to eat...that is why they are there.


----------



## Spartan88

greencreekx181 said:


> there are some large blocks of private land that need to reduce the bear population so there should be extra tags for those areas .its not a return on a investment .its called responsable game management.in our 30,000 acre gated comunity we are over run with bears and need to reduce the population.and the only way to do that is with private land bear tags for the area.


Yes, but its the much hated club country Appleknocker has a problem with. So much for having an open mind going into this...


----------



## Spartan88

Bearboy said:


> Bears want to eat...that is why they are there.


You crack me up yooper...


----------



## da Appleknocker

FYI, I own property in three Michigan counties and lease property in a fourth. I DO have a big bear problem on my Marquette lodge property and it is not a self created one either. How do I manage too many bears? I offer anyone who wants to hunt on my propoerty the access to do so. In fact I have a sign at my drive that I am kmown for that reads TRESSPASSERS WELCOME. I don't hate anybody. I just believe in Karma and that noboby should be rewarded for a self created problem and there are other remedies.


----------



## da Appleknocker

First of all let me be perfectly clear, I will go into these discussions with an open mind as I did on the Michigan Deer Advisory Team. When presented with the facts, (TRUTH, not something that I perceive as someones agenda) I can be very open. Many people think that the MDAT had nobody speaking up for the little guy concerning deer management. Well they were wrong. I strongly argued that social science should not be included as a legitimate science under 1996 proposal G. I consider social science politics. I fought to keep the DNR-E from determining hunter ethics through regulations. I argued against using the name Citizen Deer Advisory Team as there were few actual citizens involved in the process. I argued against the OBR, market hunting and QDMA involvement in deer management. I also argued against Deer Range Improvement Program funds being used on private property when out public forest are in such a deplorable condition. Sooooo, I will go into these discussions with an open mind, mindfull of what is good for the resource and the bear hunters of this great state.
I know that there are some BIG clubs in Michigan and I think that is fantastic if that is your cup of tea. Not everyone can afford to join one or would want to even if we could. But dont tell me that you have a bear problem on your 48 Sq. Mi. of club property. Bears range up to 25 miles and will be drawn to where the best and abundant food is. Please dont treat me like I was born yesterday. Draw a radius of 25 miles from the center of your club and make a circle. You are actually shooting bears drawn in to your club from over 2000 Sq Mi of NEL Michigan, unless you have fences to keep them out and in that case you hunt in a GAME RANCH. Why do you have such great hunter success? Let me explain, you are more experienced than most hunters or can hire guides that are. You have more dedicated and committed bear hunters and are highly organized. You spend a lot more time, energy, money and bait religiously. So dont try to pretend you have such a big bear PROBLEM. The only problem that I see is that you are too efficient. If you are killing that many bears on your club Im surprised that you have any bears left. They are certainly coming from someplace else.


----------



## LarryA

Personally, I hate to see private clubs get any more special treatment than they already get (baiting) ... that was seen with my own eyes. I have a buddy who's wife got a warning for her bird feeder in their front/side yard not 40 feet from hounds in their pen. Then there are these big money clubs who are over looked for their indiscretions.

The day that the private clubs started having more rights than the average hunter was the day we started to head down the same path as Europe. Hunting will be reserved for only the wealthy.


----------



## Bearboy

Its plain to see that common sense is amusing in your mind. Troll


----------



## Mickey Finn

greencreekx181 said:


> there are some large blocks of private land that need to reduce the bear population so there should be extra tags for those areas .its not a return on a investment .its called responsable game management.in our 30,000 acre gated comunity we are over run with bears and need to reduce the population.and the only way to do that is with private land bear tags for the area.


Nonsense! Just open the gate. We'll help ya out brother.


----------



## greencreekx181

letting people come in and hunt has been talked about. the area is made up of several differnt land owners so its not a club just a large block of private land .i cant speek for anyone else but for me the biggest thing is trust. how do u let strangers who u no nothing about have acess to your land? as far as abuntant food is concernt what should we do kill off all the natural food , put up nets so the fish cant make it up stream .


----------



## swampbuck

greencreekx181 said:


> letting people come in and hunt has been talked about. the area is made up of several differnt land owners so its not a club just a large block of private land .i cant speek for anyone else but for me the biggest thing is trust. how do u let strangers who u no nothing about have acess to your land? as far as abuntant food is concernt what should we do kill off all the natural food , put up nets so the fish cant make it up stream .


 take a deposit or charge for access.......But really what damage do you think they are going to do.


----------



## tallbear

Glad to see some hunters interested in what the workgroup will be looking into. 

If you can't make the meeting, fell free to stop by "after hours" and I'l be glad to talk with anybody about what was discussed that day. Looking forward to "helping out".


----------



## Nimrod1

Mickey Finn said:


> Nonsense! Just open the gate. We'll help ya out brother.


Mickey, 
I'll put you on the list, don't worry the list is long enough you will have plenty of time to save up your points. I have someone hunt my property every year. It is the only avenue open to me at this point. It really is kind of nice the way I get to pay for the property, pay the taxes, then give up my use of it so someone else can go hunting. Amazing how many "buddies" you can have when you want someone with a tag to hunt your property.

New idea:idea:

Do you think I could still put a hunter on my property every year if I just ask them to pay the taxes for the year? Not a chance. Everyone wants the free ride.


----------



## Nimrod1

swampbuck said:


> take a deposit or charge for access.......But really what damage do you think they are going to do.


Ok, so now we enter into the area of having to claim the income, or our friends at the IRS will be after us. How about trashing the cabin, tractor, generator........

Bigger issue is if they get hurt on your property and hold you liable.


----------



## da Appleknocker

In my experience in life I have found there are only two kinds of people on this earth, givers and takers. The problem we seem to be developing, with the help of the liberal government, is an entitlement culture. Gimme, gimme gimme with no consideration of who will pay the bill. Lets stop thinking about whats in it for me or how can I come out ahead. If you practice good wildlife management, good for you. If you do it for the wrong reason, your bad. Lets all learn how to be givers, it may be more satisfying than you thought. If its liability you are worried about thats why they sell insurance.
Please give me your thoughts on nusience bears, bear diseases and private property licenses. :help: I need your help!


----------



## Tom Morang

da Applenocker......................


It's going to be impossible to resolve these kinds of wildlife management conflicts and issues without the use of social science.


----------



## swampbuck

Nimrod1 said:


> Ok, so now we enter into the area of having to claim the income, or our friends at the IRS will be after us. How about trashing the cabin, tractor, generator........
> 
> Bigger issue is if they get hurt on your property and hold you liable.


WOW.........Glad I dont live in your neiborhood.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Tom I must respectfully disagree. Since the passage of proposal G in 1996 things have actually gone backwards in my humble opinion, let me explain. What was the intent of P G? I voted for P G and my intent and the intent of everyone I talked to was to get social science (i.e. politics) OUT of wildlife management. The only reason Michigan hunters fought to put P G on the ballot was to defeat another ballot on the same ballot. This was P D, a socially conceived political agenda that had no place in wildlife management. 
We hire scientist and wildlife biologist that go through years of schooling and training in the science of wildlife biology and wildlife management, and then we tie their hands with social science. This does not make any sense, let them do their job and stay out of their way. Most of the problems we have today in our wildlife management whether it is deer bear or whatever are because social science has interfered. There has been a blurring of the lines between legitimate wildlife management and social agendas. We need our wildlife management VOID of special interest and that is why I oppose the current rash of Memorandum of Understanding agreements that the DNR-E has been signing with every Tom, Dick and Harry they can find. 
As I participated in the Michigan Deer Advisory Team discussions, consensus was critical between participants, most of whom were NOT trained biologist or scientist. I was taught the scientific process is one of discovery and fact NOT consensus. If there is consensus it should be between the experts not untrained agenda driven sport? Hunting groups. But the manipulation of the scientific process for social, political or agenda driven reasons (social science) is not new. What is alarming is the extent that it is now happening in Michigan and the potential if not certain impact it will have or is having on our wildlife management. It is going to change if not destroy our traditions and heritage of hunting as we know it if it isnt stopped. 
The integrity of the scientific process as it relates to wildlife management is more important than ever. We must NOT allow its manipulation. The manipulation must be stopped NOW. The ultimate result of social manipulation of wildlife management is the loss of credibility with the hunters and public in general. Once this trust is gone it is very difficult if not impossible to regain. In the last year I have attended 12 of 17 informational public meetings held around the state by the DNR-E. I have seen, heard and felt the erosion of public trust in our DNR-E. I blame this erosion of public trust on social science creeping into the Department. Its not too late, lets all work together to reverse this trend by eliminating social science, politics and special agendas from the DNR-E and our wildlife management.


----------



## Tom Morang

Without social, political, and natural science Wildlife Management by man can not work. I agree that there should be a balance......but......... who will decide what that balance should be?

Managing wildlife is the easy part. Whether you believe it or not the human dimension in wildlife management is vital for our wildlife management system to work.


----------



## Tom Morang

da Appleknocker said:


> Tallbear, I am looking forward to meeting you as I too have been invited to the bear rountable. I have ask to represent the majority of bear hunters who DO NOT belong to a bear hunting organization. I think this is crucial in the current atmosphere of special intrest groups seeking entitlements to our wildlife resources. I don't care who you are or how much property you own or how many taxes you pay you are not "entitled" to a "return on your investment"! any more than any other resident of this state. These meetings are open to the public so I hope many of the visitors of this site will attend one or more of these meetings. Originally these meetings were to be held in conjunction with the NRC meetings but this has been changed, I believe to discourage public attendance. The times and dates are as listed...All meetings will be held at the Ralph A. MacMullan (RAM) Center in Roscommon. The dates are June7-9 and August 9-11. Although I don't believe the public will be able to participate I hope to see many people interested in bear hunting in attendance. Thanks.


By representing this group on a committee or work group you are in fact practicing social science as it pertains to wildlife management. I think that is a good thing.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Thanks Tom. Perhaps my passion has driven me way to deep into this subject. I like you and agree with you to a point. I too believe social considerations should be recognized but not written into the plan or given the same weight as science. I believe many of the discussions and disagreements in these forums are social issues based on opinions and experiences but should be seperate from legitimate science based management. Considered but seperate, as I said before the line has been blurred.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Please give me your thoughts on nusience bears, bear diseases and private property licenses. :help: I need your help![/QUOTE]
The first meeting is at the NRC meeting Thursday July 8th in Lansing. They changed their schedule again.


----------



## da Appleknocker

da Appleknocker said:


> Originally these meetings were to be held in conjunction with the NRC meetings but this has been changed, I believe to discourage public attendance. The times and dates are as listed...All meetings will be held at the Ralph A. MacMullan (RAM) Center in Roscommon. The dates are June7-9 and August 9-11. Although I don't believe the public will be able to participate I hope to see many people interested in bear hunting in attendance. Thanks.


 This has changed again. First meeting Thursday july 8, at the NRC meeting. The meeting will start at 10:30 till 12:30. I still hope I see many of you in attendance.


----------



## swampbuck

Do you know if the later meetings will still be at the ram center ?

Nuisance bear.......Generally unless a person is doing something intentional or careless most problem bears will move on. If the nuisance persist and relocation is not an option, Then I could understand a control permit being issued. The bear should be turned over to the dnr, to prevent abuse of the rule.

Bear disease.....I am not aware of any current problem. While bear can carry tb they can not spread it.

Private land permits....Unlike deer were everyone can get a license, It take five years or more to get a permit in the NLP. Private land owners should not be able to SHOULD NOT have the option of redilly accessable tags for this PUBLIC RESCOURCE.

Bear naturally disperse and I do not believe an overpopulation exists unless the property owner is doing something to cause the overpopulation. At any rate The landowner if not drawn for a permit has the option of allowing others to hunt those bear whether for free or for a guide/access fee.

In the case of this proposal It is very clear from the posts by the club guys that this is an attempt to monopolize a public rescource.

In regards to the Meeting being held at the NRC MEETING. I am concerned with NRC chairman Charters involvement in this proccess. It appears that he is using his position to further a cause for his buddys in club country. Maybe you should ask his comments on this.......

Here is the email....
We need to get this out to as many people as possible.

Gentlemen,
I am still in Oklahoma doing deer stuff but need your help. Spoke to Keith Charters today and it appears there will be a vote on 2010 bear regs next week. The proposal is to divide bear permits in such a way to get more permits into the hands of private land owners, particularly in club country. For whatever reason the word is out and people are calling this the "Turtle Lake Proposal" which is not the case at all. This is an attempt by the NRC to force the DNR to manage bear numbers on private lands. Several orginizations are against the proposal and are burning up the phone lines fueled by mostly hound hunting groups. I don't begrudge them the right to pursue their sport however, private landowners have entirely too many bear, at least in my opinion. The proposal is biologically sound but politically a handful. When they enter the testimony phase all they have to report is negative calls. If you guys would send out an e-mail blast to everyone you know and have them call in support of private lands preference we should shorten the draw system to every 3 years at most and 2 years at best until the numbers are under control. At Mr. Charters request , we need to flood Lansing with phone calls supporting the new change. This is our last chance and the DNR is attempting to fly it under the radar. If you would have everyone you know call 517-373-2352 and simply state we support the change. There are only two ladies answering these lines so if there is a busy signal it's important to keep trying, they are expecting our calls. I would like to have several hundred positive calls placed in the next few days if possible. I am about out of the politics, but if you guys will help, we can get this resource back in the hand of the hunters. Good luck and I will continue the fight.
Thanks, 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=331355

Here is an article from M.O.O.D...........This makes it clear that the DNR does not believe there is an overpopulation and does not support this proposal. Why is Charters and the NRC ones again going against the DNR biologist who are paid to do the job. There is not one biologist on the NRC, not one member qualified to make those decisions.

http://www.michiganoutofdoors.com/news-blogs/comments/bear_decision_process_is_flawed

Also again I question using data privately funded and controlled by the very group who stands to gain from the proposal..........Last time I checked it was a public resource.

I am sure the leader of the study hired by TLC, Mr. Sconamilia from Argentina put a lot of effort into that study.......Do they even have American Black Bear in Argentina..................


----------



## da Appleknocker

Great Post Swampy, and to answer your last question, No then they would be Argentinian (is that a word) black bears.


----------



## jeffm

greencreekx181 said:


> as far as abuntant food is concernt what should we do kill off all the natural food , put up nets so the fish cant make it up stream .


Yah ok, whatever :lol:

I know the area way to well, 28 yrs ago moved up here from Troy, been hunt'n those area's and helping downstaters that own sections over their for alot of years, give me a break, I was gonna keep my mouth shut ever since this white oak thing came up but I just cant set and listen to this B.S anymore.

Jeff May
989-965-0661


----------



## da Appleknocker

I hate to look too stupid Jeff, but do you mean Red Oak. I can't find anything in the bear digest indicating a white oak district. Can someone help me out here.


----------



## jeffm

da Appleknocker said:


> I hate to look too stupid Jeff, but do you mean Red Oak. I can't find anything in the bear digest indicating a white oak district. Can someone help me out here.


(Yes but no) sorry about that Appleknocker, the first few lines here explain why I called
it White oak. 

This is just a small part of it below that I copied and pasted for a ref.
Here is the link for complete paper.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/05-10_Bear_Regs_INFO_with_lifetime_change_2.5_311371_7.pdf

MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
___________________________________
(ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSION)
Bear Quotas and Regulations
Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment No. 5 of 2010
Page 2
March 8, 2010
Several options were developed and discussed during last year&#8217;s regulations cycle. During those
discussions, the Wildlife Division committed to conducting two surveys. One would determine the
success rate of hunters within an area in the northeast portion of the Red Oak BMU that is
predominately (95%) private land. In one of the options presented during the 2009 bear hunting season
regulations cycle, this was referred to as the &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study area. Survey results from Red Oak
BMU hunters show that approximately 430 hunters hunted within the &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study area in
2008. Overall, there was little difference between hunters within the White Oak study area and
those in the rest of the Red Oak BMU. Success rates were only marginally higher (28% versus
26%) within the &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study area when compared to the remainder of the Red Oak BMU.
Hunter effort was slightly lower in the &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study area than the Red Oak BMU (14.6 days
per harvested bear compared to 19 days per harvested bear). This survey was also conducted in
2009. Results from the 2009 survey are still preliminary, but show a larger difference in hunter
success (40% versus 26%) and days to harvest and bear (10.8 versus 19.1) between the &#8220;White
Oak&#8221; study area and outside of &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study area. In general, landowners seemed satisfied
with bear numbers in the White Oak study area.
The second survey evaluated landowners&#8217; social values and concerns regarding bears in the &#8220;White
Oak&#8221; study area. Results of this survey showed that landowners are generally satisfied with the
number of bears and with the present bear management framework within the &#8220;White Oak&#8221; study
area. A moderate number of landowners have experienced some sort of damage caused by bears
in the last five years (32%). A high proportion of landowners recognized that simple techniques
were able to resolve most bear related problems (75%). Landowners also felt that they were
responsible for resolving their bear problems (68% of landowners). At this time, survey results
do not suggest a direct resolution of the Red Oak BMU situation. Two options are presented for
consideration to begin to address within BMU bear density differences. Genetic research
continues within the Red Oak BMU to look at bear densities and source-sink dynamics.
Implementation of Option 1 or 2 will allow evaluation of these techniques concurrent with this
research.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Thanks Jeff, this information helps a lot.


----------



## greencreekx181

28 years isnt that long . weve been hunting there since the fiftys and my family was hunting there before michigan was a state. you dont know much about the area im in.last year ther were 5 guys hunting a 320 acre area and all were successfull. and that didnt put a dent in the bear pop .you have no idea how many bear are on the rest of the 30,000 acres. this year if i get a tag i will be baiting a section that hasnt been hunted in decades.mabye if there wasnt so many blueberrys, strawberrys, blackberrys,rasberrys,chokecherrys, acorns,apples,ect. there wouldnt be so many bears by us.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Green, maybe if you don't get a permit you could enjoy the hunt through the eyes of someone less fortunate.


----------



## jeffm

I was getting off topic sorry


----------



## beer and nuts

What is so hard in allowing guided hunters in on some of the private property IF you have a bear problem??? Whats that big piece of private land that allows elk hunters?

Hire informed-trusted guides, allow so many hunters in, charge them a normal guide fee...and your bear problems are over! Can anyone explain why they don't do this?


----------



## Mickey Finn

beer and nuts said:


> What is so hard in allowing guided hunters in on some of the private property IF you have a bear problem??? Whats that big piece of private land that allows elk hunters?
> 
> Hire informed-trusted guides, allow so many hunters in, charge them a normal guide fee...and your bear problems are over! Can anyone explain why they don't do this?


What? :yikes: After all the bother of fencing them out. Just let them in?:lol:


----------



## beer and nuts

How does a property the size of TLC with very few members, that claims to have a problem with bears, get enough bears harvested then??? The only way is to allow outside hunters into the property to harvest what needs to be harvested!

OR

Is this potential rule change, a way in allowing their "special" members to get a bear permit EVERY YEAR or whenever they want in a DMU that at times can take 3-5 years! Again NOT solving the suppose bear problem because so few members on this huge property wouldn't put a dent in the overpopulation!!


----------



## rwenglish1

any updates?


----------



## moreychuck

greencreekx181 said:


> 28 years isnt that long . weve been hunting there since the fiftys and my family was hunting there before michigan was a state. you dont know much about the area im in.last year ther were 5 guys hunting a 320 acre area and all were successfull. and that didnt put a dent in the bear pop .you have no idea how many bear are on the rest of the 30,000 acres. this year if i get a tag i will be baiting a section that hasnt been hunted in decades.mabye if there wasnt so many blueberrys, strawberrys, blackberrys,rasberrys,chokecherrys, acorns,apples,ect. there wouldnt be so many bears by us.


you are wrong about jeff he spends some time out in the woods he isnt my buddy or anything but i have met him hunting several times
this is america and everyone has a right to public land and GAME england has hunting for the rich part of the reson for the blood spilling for our freedom
god bless america have a happy 4th everyone


----------



## moreychuck

Nimrod1 said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Do you live/hunt in the proposed White Oak area?


i see you have cheboygan as location odd jeff has phone number in his reply a local would know where 989 area is


----------



## tallbear

rwenglish1 said:


> any updates?



First meeting is this Thursday before the NRC meeting.


----------



## Mickey Finn

tallbear said:


> First meeting is this Thursday before the NRC meeting.


Here's hoping it goes well. have a safe trip.

ATB


----------



## tallbear

Mickey Finn said:


> Here's hoping it goes well. have a safe trip.
> 
> ATB



Not looking forward to it.......More on that after the meeting.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Thanks for bringing this to the top. The first meeting will be Thursday July 8th before the NRC meeting. It will run from 9:00 until 12:00 in the morning. It is in room 203 at the Lansing Center and is open to the public, I hope to see many of you there if you can make it. Thanks.


----------



## da Appleknocker

Just a reminder


----------



## tallbear

da Appleknocker said:


> Thanks for bringing this to the top. The first meeting will be *Thursday July 8th* before the NRC meeting. It will run from 9:00 until 12:00 in the morning. It is in *room 203 at the Lansing Center* and is open to the public, I hope to see many of you there if you can make it. Thanks.



9:00 a.m. John Madigan: Introductions:Review of Workgroup Charge
How Workgroup Recommendations will be used

9:15-9:30 Director Humphries: History of the Issue

9:30-10:00 Dan OBrien: Black Bear Disease Concerns

10:00-10:15 BREA K

10:15-11:15 Scott Winterstein: Black Bear Data Sets and Inference

11:15-11:45 Ann Nieuwenhuis: Moderated Questions and Answers

11:45-12:00 John Madigan: Wrap Up and Agenda for Second Meeting


----------



## tallbear

Meeting today was for information to the group. The two presentations were on disease in bears and analysis of past data.

No disease that is significant to the population.

Past data shows more research is needed for area specific population levels to be determined.


Next meeting is in Escanaba in Aug. where agencies from Minn. and Wis. will be sharing information from their bear management plan.

Not much discussion on what will be done for Michigan bears at this meeting. The Aug. meeting looks to be more of the same.


----------



## Mickey Finn

tallbear said:


> Meeting today was for information to the group. The two presentations were on disease in bears and analysis of past data.
> 
> No disease that is significant to the population.
> 
> Past data shows more research is needed for area specific population levels to be determined.
> 
> 
> Next meeting is in Escanaba in Aug. where agencies from Minn. and Wis. will be sharing information from their bear management plan.
> 
> Not much discussion on what will be done for Michigan bears at this meeting. The Aug. meeting looks to be more of the same.


Thanks for the update.


----------



## Nimrod1

moreychuck said:


> i see you have cheboygan as location odd jeff has phone number in his reply a local would know where 989 area is


Sorry Morey, but what is your point? Back in post #54 Jeff explained where he hunts, and its not in the "white oak" area. Having a 989 area code does mean that an individual lives or hunts in a particular area.


----------



## Nimrod1

tallbear said:


> Meeting today was for information to the group. The two presentations were on disease in bears and analysis of past data.
> 
> No disease that is significant to the population.
> 
> Past data shows more research is needed for area specific population levels to be determined.
> 
> 
> Next meeting is in Escanaba in Aug. where agencies from Minn. and Wis. will be sharing information from their bear management plan.
> 
> Not much discussion on what will be done for Michigan bears at this meeting. The Aug. meeting looks to be more of the same.


Thanks for the update.


----------



## tallbear

*Next meeting*............​
August 11, 2010

9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Escanaba Public Schools
1500 Ludington StreetEscanaba, Michigan 49829​​*Agenda*

​ 9:00-9:05 John Madigan: Introduction

9:05-9:50 David MacFarland: Bear Management in Wisconsin

9:50-10:05 Q&A

10:05-10:20 BREAK

10:20-11:05 David Garshelis: Bear Management in Minnesota

11:05-11:20 Q&A

11:20-11:50 Ann Nieuwenhuis: Recommendations Process

11:50-12:00 John Madigan: Wrap Up and Agenda for Third Meeting


----------



## Mickey Finn

Thanks tallbear!


----------



## da Appleknocker

Just bringing this back to the into seeing distance. I hope many of our UP posters can attend this meeting.


----------



## tallbear

Presentations by Mn. and WS. DNR on nuisance bears and general bear management. Very good presentations and some good ideas that Michigan should consider. 

They gave the group some time to discuss changes and more will come on Sept. 9th in Lansing. 

Yes, they scheduled the next meeting during the second week of bear season for "bear hunters" to stop what they are doing (bear hunting) to come to a meeting to "talk" about bear hunting. Sounds like government as usual.


----------



## Spartan88

Any update on this? Did the group see the TLC study data?


----------



## Mickey Finn

What became of this group. Can anyone update us?

ATB


----------



## hubbarj

Mickey, this is a dead issue. I talked to a couple of people that were in the work group last night at the UP bear hunters banquet and they stated why it is no longer being discussed. It is not my place to explain why so I hope that maybe someone from the work group could explain the situation.


----------



## Mickey Finn

hubbarj said:


> Mickey, this is a dead issue. I talked to a couple of people that were in the work group last night at the UP bear hunters banquet and they stated why it is no longer being discussed. It is not my place to explain why so I hope that maybe someone from the work group could explain the situation.


OK Thanks.


----------



## swampbuck

Glad to see that the TLC proposal is dead. GREAT NEWS!!!


----------



## tallbear

The Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) will hold its regular monthly meeting on *Thursday, March 10*, at the Lansing Community College M-Tec/West Campus, located at 5708 Cornerstone Dr. in Lansing.

At 8:30 a.m., the NRC Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a meeting in Rooms M124 and M124A. *The committee will receive a presentation on proposed changes to bear hunting regulations*


----------

