# 2014 Results are Online



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

https://secure1.state.mi.us/rssdraw/

I'll have to wait another year... :sad::sad:


----------



## woody32 (Apr 6, 2012)

I finally got my Baldwin tag....I'm so excited!


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Big zero for both this year. I really did not expect to draw either. I put in for first hunts for bear with 2 pref points. I won't hunt the third hunt in the UP again.


----------



## Scottygvsu (Apr 19, 2003)

I drew my red oak tag! Long time coming.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

No tag for me. 4 points.


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Scottygvsu said:


> I drew my red oak tag! Long time coming.


How many points did you have? Last year everyone with 6 pts drew a red oak tag. I have 6 points now but didn't get a tag. I thought I was a shoe in. I knew they reduced the tag numbers this yr for Red Oak, but I still thought I would be good being that everyone with 6 points last year got a tag. Ohh well, at least I don't have to haul bait up there every week.


----------



## pikenetter (Mar 28, 2009)

woody32 said:


> I finally got my Baldwin tag....I'm so excited!


 denied with 11 points how many did you have??


----------



## KalamazooKid (Jun 20, 2005)

Matthuntsall said:


> How many points did you have? Last year everyone with 6 pts drew a red oak tag. I have 6 points now but didn't get a tag. I thought I was a shoe in. I knew they reduced the tag numbers this yr for Red Oak, but I still thought I would be good being that everyone with 6 points last year got a tag. Ohh well, at least I don't have to haul bait up there every week.


Did you go in with 6? Or, do you have 6 now (after the draw)?


----------



## KalamazooKid (Jun 20, 2005)

pikenetter said:


> denied with 11 points how many did you have??


In 2013, 63% with 11 pts drew, 100% with 12 pts.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2013_Bear_Drawing_Statistics_425352_7.pdf


----------



## woody32 (Apr 6, 2012)

I went into the draw with 12pts. I thought i would have drawn last year....so i know the feeling! Thirteen years to get a tag was a long wait. Hope I can find bears


----------



## rein1 (Jun 30, 2008)

Baraga here I come ,,,,, Hank get the bait out


----------



## Scottygvsu (Apr 19, 2003)

Matthuntsall said:


> How many points did you have? Last year everyone with 6 pts drew a red oak tag. I have 6 points now but didn't get a tag. I thought I was a shoe in. I knew they reduced the tag numbers this yr for Red Oak, but I still thought I would be good being that everyone with 6 points last year got a tag. Ohh well, at least I don't have to haul bait up there every week.



I had 6 points before applying, so 7 chances I guess. They did lower the quota so I was pleasantly surprised when I drew.


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Scottygvsu said:


> I had 6 points before applying, so 7 chances I guess. They did lower the quota so I was pleasantly surprised when I drew.


Yea I think they lowered it by 75 permits this year I heard. I guess I misunderstood the system a little. I thought I had 6 points as of last year, but I guess I only had 5, and now 6 and this unsuccessful draw. I wish they have a clause for land owners. Because we own land up there and have had many encounters and problems with them destroying things around camp. My dad , mom and myself all apply for permits, but we only get one every so often. We usually let relatives or friends hunt it if they get drawn for a permit, but they just got one last year, so it looks to be deer only hunting this year. There is just so many bears around there, I cant believe they dropped the quota.


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Yea I think they lowered it by 75 permits this year I heard. I guess I misunderstood the system a little. I thought I had 6 points as of last year, but I guess I only had 5, and now 6 after this unsuccessful draw. I wish they have a clause for land owners. Because we own land up there and have had many encounters and problems with them destroying things around camp. My dad , mom and myself all apply for permits, but we only get one every so often. We usually let relatives or friends hunt it if they get drawn for a permit. My cousin hunted there successfully last year, so it looks to be deer hunting only this year. There is just so many bears around there, I cant believe they dropped the quota. According to last years results, anyone 6 points or higher would have got a license, even with the drop in quota 6 points should have been enough because last year even 12% of 5 point people still got tags. [/QUOTE]


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

Went in with 6 points for Red Oak and was unsuccessful this year. Last year 100% with 6 points drew.

This sucks.

7 points now. Another year...


----------



## brad arnett (Feb 13, 2006)

Same here. 6 pts going in and no red oak tag.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

No-no for me. 4 pp for bear. Should be bear hunting next year. 

Congrats on the baldwin tag. That's one heck of a commitment!!


----------



## Winterover (Jan 22, 2001)

Going to Bergland unit for the first hunt period. Drew with 4 points! :woohoo1::woohoo1::woohoo1: 
Let the countdown begin, only 72 more days


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

Over 9000 people applied for red oak...crazy when you think they only had 675 to give out, 2 years ago, 4 points was pulled at about 20% I think, this year 6 was 58%....at this rate with me having 6 next year I'm guessing 2016 will be my year....


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Atchison said:


> Over 9000 people applied for red oak...crazy when you think they only had 675 to give out, 2 years ago, 4 points was pulled at about 20% I think, this year 6 was 58%....at this rate with me having 6 next year I'm guessing 2016 will be my year....


can you link the drawing statistics breakdown? I have been looking for it.


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Firefighter said:


> Went in with 6 points for Red Oak and was unsuccessful this year. Last year 100% with 6 points drew.
> 
> This sucks.
> 
> 7 points now. Another year...


Really? I saw that 6 pts drew 100% last year too, wow they must have a ton of 5 and 6 point guys from last year. you had a 58% chance with 6 pts this year, next year looks even worse. with 370 guys who now have 7 points and 1200 (including myself with 6)
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2014_Bear_Drawing_Statistics_461143_7.pdf


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

srconnell22 said:


> can you link the drawing statistics breakdown? I have been looking for it.


675 tags issued
7+ points....... 139 for 139
6 pts.............. 530 for 902 58%
5 pts.............. 0 for 1231
4 pts.............. 0 for 1149
3 pts.............. 0 for 1075
0-2 pts........... 0 for 4774


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

srconnell22 said:


> can you link the drawing statistics breakdown? I have been looking for it.


http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_42807---,00.html


This is where I found it


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

Matthuntsall said:


> Really? I saw that 6 pts drew 100% last year too, wow they must have a ton of 5 and 6 point guys from last year. you had a 58% chance with 6 pts this year, next year looks even worse. with 370 guys who now have 7 points and 1200 (including myself with 6)
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2014_Bear_Drawing_Statistics_461143_7.pdf


I wonder if a few people will try other locations? A few years from now it will be like baldwin needing 12-13 points...


----------



## Old Shortstop (Jun 6, 2006)

Anyone know how many points it took to draw Gladwin unit?

D.P.


----------



## finsfursandfeathers (May 31, 2004)

Gladwin you needed 5 points to guarantee and only 26% with 4 points got a tag. I was not one of the lucky 26%.


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Atchison said:


> I wonder if a few people will try other locations? A few years from now it will be like baldwin needing 12-13 points...


F all that. There is some state land up there but it is not very good hunting (at least by me). All the good land is private, so those 12,000 applicants better know somebody. From the data it looks like there was a lot of people who had 4-6 points and didn't apply last year. I think you can skip a year or 2 without applying every year. I know my view may be bias, but I feel landowners should have some sorted weighted systems. When we have bears all over and cant draw a tag, just so some schmuck can drive up there and drop 1500 trucks loads of sweets on state land, just to shoot a 100 lb cub. We had Monsters coming in last year (for my cousin's hunt), it makes me mad when I see all the pictures at the gas stations and bait shops of small bears.....I mean really small bears......what a waste of a tag.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Matthuntsall said:


> F all that. There is some state land up there but it is not very good hunting (at least by me). All the good land is private, so those 12,000 applicants better know somebody. From the data it looks like there was a lot of people who had 4-6 points and didn't apply last year. I think you can skip a year or 2 without applying every year. I know my view may be bias, but I feel landowners should have some sorted weighted systems. When we have bears all over and cant draw a tag, just so some schmuck can drive up there and drop 1500 trucks loads of sweets on state land, just to shoot a 100 lb cub. We had Monsters coming in last year (for my cousin's hunt), it makes me mad when I see all the pictures at the gas stations and bait shops of small bears.....I mean really small bears......what a waste of a tag.



Interesting concept. I agree with you 100% about guys shooting black labs in bear season. Michigan kills way too many immature bear. 

Just curious, how much land do you own in the Red Oak unit?


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Atchison said:


> I wonder if a few people will try other locations? A few years from now it will be like baldwin needing 12-13 points...


Exactly, according to the above, there are well over 8000 people waiting for one of 675 Red Oak tags. It's gonna be a long wait. :sad:

It will probably like Shiawassee...........I finally got enough points for my second tag there, then they changed the system. 

Not sure where the shortage of bear is in Red Oak, it's certainly not in Kalkaska. We haven't had as many sightings, tracks, etc as we have the past few years. We are getting pictures every year now if sows with 3 cubs, this year one with 4 cubs.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

For Baldwin in 2015 there maybe at least 105 folks with 12 points or more. A couple of years back I figured this was going to happen when I crunched the numbers back then. Unless the DNR bumps up the tags....13+ points maybe needed soon.


----------



## Old Shortstop (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks for the information on the Gladwin unit. I ended up finding some info on the DNR site too. I have enough points to draw now so maybe next year I can take a bear off my own place. That would be very nice!

D.P.


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

Matthuntsall said:


> F all that. There is some state land up there but it is not very good hunting (at least by me). All the good land is private, so those 12,000 applicants better know somebody. From the data it looks like there was a lot of people who had 4-6 points and didn't apply last year. I think you can skip a year or 2 without applying every year. I know my view may be bias, but I feel landowners should have some sorted weighted systems. When we have bears all over and cant draw a tag, just so some schmuck can drive up there and drop 1500 trucks loads of sweets on state land, just to shoot a 100 lb cub. We had Monsters coming in last year (for my cousin's hunt), it makes me mad when I see all the pictures at the gas stations and bait shops of small bears.....I mean really small bears......what a waste of a tag.


I am from that area and agree on the landowner concept but it would only be weighted so much, everyone does deserve some opportunity as we all pay for the state land. I'd like to see more mature bears taken but remember a lot of people don't know how big a bear gets and you only have a week to hunt you can see why people shoot the first one they see. I know as soon as I do get my tag I'll be researching the areas I have access and try to avoid the state land.


----------



## ArrowHawk (Apr 1, 2003)

Got mine! Drew first hunt period for Newberry


----------



## Matthuntsall (Feb 21, 2013)

Atchison said:


> I am from that area and agree on the landowner concept but it would only be weighted so much, everyone does deserve some opportunity as we all pay for the state land. I'd like to see more mature bears taken but remember a lot of people don't know how big a bear gets and you only have a week to hunt you can see why people shoot the first one they see. I know as soon as I do get my tag I'll be researching the areas I have access and try to avoid the state land.


That's the catch of the point system. Guys spend years racking up points and they don't want to go home empty handed, so many shoot a cub or yearling (and some people just can't tell the difference between a small and large bear). Maybe there should be an option to only remove 1 or 2 points if you are unsuccessful so they wouldn't loose all of their points. They could most likely hunt again after 2 years. And maybe property owner gain twice the points as everyone else, but are restricted to hunting their land only. I agree that every person in the state should get a fair chance at a bear. But its also dumb to let great private land areas go unhunted when there are so many people who don't really have access to good hunting and don't know what they are doing, just so they can go sit in state land and either not see anything, or shoot a less than mature bear.....again...waste of a tag.


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

Matthuntsall said:


> I agree that every person in the state should get a fair chance at a bear. But its also dumb to let great private land areas go unhunted when there are so many people who don't really have access to good hunting and don't know what they are doing, just so they can go sit in state land and either not see anything, or shoot a less than mature bear.....again...waste of a tag.


So if someone with out land up there called you up and wanted access to your land are you going to offer it up?(Not calling you out just an example) 

Problem is to get access to land now a days you need $$$ which alot of people just don't have anymore, its like deer leases, people paying $5K to hunt a 5 acre parcel in macomb county, at that rate just buy property but people don't think that way, its all about right now, "I just paid $$ for this tag I'm going to fill it" - if more people hunted for the enjoyment of being outdoors and getting away from the daily grind vs "I have to b successful" a lot of things would be better overall.

If you have bears on your property and didn't draw (friends/family) maybe open it up to someone who doesn't have access this year, and if they don't get anything that is their fault not yours, and you can try again next year, solve two problems, you just have to make it clear "your property means only mature animals" - again I'm generalizing but I hope you get my point.

The removing only 2 points just puts them back in the pool quicker and doesn't allow someone who never hunted to get a tag quickly, the required amount of points would double. I do agree with the "landowner tag" - maybe its a separate hunt code that if you apply for that you can't apply for general hunt code, and so many are allocated to only those who own land in that region?


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Matthuntsall said:


> That's the catch of the point system. Guys spend years racking up points and they don't want to go home empty handed, so many shoot a cub or yearling (and some people just can't tell the difference between a small and large bear). Maybe there should be an option to only remove 1 or 2 points if you are unsuccessful so they wouldn't loose all of their points. They could most likely hunt again after 2 years. And maybe property owner gain twice the points as everyone else, but are restricted to hunting their land only. I agree that every person in the state should get a fair chance at a bear. But its also dumb to let great private land areas go unhunted when there are so many people who don't really have access to good hunting and don't know what they are doing, just so they can go sit in state land and either not see anything, or shoot a less than mature bear.....again...waste of a tag.


Sounds like your issue is with the clubs mismanaging their bear populations and hunter access, not with the state system for drawing tags.

New rule option: Landowner gets bear on-property-only tags based on percentage of land they own within the hunt unit. Your family has 80 acres in a unit made up of approximately 5,500,000 (give or take a few) acres in the Red Oak unit. Based on the amount of land your family owns within the unit, the property owner would draw a tag once every 68,750 years (give or take a few). That seems more than fair to me...

Or you can stick with the current program and alternate your family tags and allow friends to hunt it. Doing this would allow someone to hunt that ground every year and clear the bear out that way.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Atchison said:


> .....its like deer leases, *people paying $5K to hunt a 5 acre parcel in macomb county*.....


Is that true or just an example?:yikes:


----------



## Atchison (Feb 18, 2009)

TVCJohn said:


> Is that true or just an example?:yikes:


More of an example but you get the idea (I know someone who paid $3K for 7 acres though one year)


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Leave the point system alone.

Cub's should be obvious to anyone, beyond that it is impossible to judge a bears age by its size.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Atchison said:


> More of an example but you get the idea (I know someone who paid $3K for 7 acres though one year)


Ok....I know there are some monsters down that way hiding on small woodlots but $5000 for 5 acres seemed way too steep. $3000 for 7 is still too high...unless it is a high fence place.

I flew over some small plots when I was stationed at Selfridge and seen some whoppers. Heck....even the strip of woods between Selfridge and the interstate had a couple of bigguns in it. I seen a very large 10 pt walking the fence line one day.


----------

