# House passes bill to end ban on baiting



## Jiggin Jay

See, hit em where it hurts (revenue) and the ban on baiting 
miraculously ends. 

https://www.wxyz.com/news/house-committee-approves-bill-to-allow-deer-baiting-in-michigan


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## MossyHorns

Jiggin Jay said:


> See, hit em where it hurts (revenue) and the ban on baiting
> miraculously ends.
> 
> https://www.wxyz.com/news/house-committee-approves-bill-to-allow-deer-baiting-in-michigan
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Did you read the article? The House hasn't even taken a vote on it nor have they decided if they will ever take a vote on it. 

Having politicians determine hunting laws is a BAD IDEA and may open a Pandora's box. How would you feel if the anti's got together and passed a Bill to eliminate hunting altogether? Game laws should be handled by the NRC and not politicians, which I thought we took a vote on many years ago to prevent this. Politicians meddling in our game laws will be a bigger threat to hunting than the number of crybabies who quit hunting, because they couldn't bait anymore.


----------



## DirtySteve

Jiggin Jay said:


> See, hit em where it hurts (revenue) and the ban on baiting
> miraculously ends.
> 
> https://www.wxyz.com/news/house-committee-approves-bill-to-allow-deer-baiting-in-michigan
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Actually it hasnt passed the house yet. The committee approved to send it to a house vote. Kind of a big difference. I would assume if the house approves it would need to go to senate if it hasnt been there yet. Then the governer has to sign it. Long ways to go still.


----------



## TIM-MAY

Proposal G is a referendum on Public Act 377 of 1996, which would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to grant the Natural Resources Commission exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game in this state. The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game.

This is not about baiting and feeding, but it is about protecting and defending scientific management and not setting a precedent that our legislators can just overturn things that they disagree on.


----------



## Spartan88

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It always has been, always will be. I am a Prop G supporter. But when NRC members are clueless to the rules they are making. And they have closed door meetings with special interest groups on wildlife management plans, this is not what the framers of Prop G had in mind. I want the NRC to do their job, not allow the state house to dictate game laws. IMO, the system is broken, it needs to be fixed.


----------



## miruss

MossyHorns said:


> Having politicians determine hunting laws is a BAD IDEA and may open a Pandora's box. How would you feel if the anti's got together and passed a Bill to eliminate hunting altogether? Game laws should be handled by the NRC and not politicians, which I thought we took a vote on many years ago to prevent this. Politicians meddling in our game laws will be a bigger threat to hunting than the number of crybabies who quit hunting, because they couldn't bait anymore


How is it any different then what the NRC has been doing now They have been making rules WITHOUT it being based on SOUND SCIENCE ! Bring on the vote for hunting the PEOPLE PUSHING THIS STUPID **** HAVE PISSED OFF ENOUGH HUNTERS THE VOTE WON;T GO THE WAY YOU LIKE ! You can only tell people they don't like to piss off quit hunting and they will but their vote for hunting will go with them! 


TIM-MAY said:


> The amendment also would require the Commission, to the greatest extent practicable, to use principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game.


 Can you show me any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAPRS are good for stopping CWD !! Remember that older bucks are more then does likely to have CWD !


----------



## MallardMaster

I'm just gonna grab a 30pk (this could take a while) and a jar of pickled bologna and sit back and watch this. We all have our opinions on this issue. At the end of the day, this is just another stake that is being driven in to the fracture between sportspeople to divide us further.


----------



## Boatalot

Jiggin Jay said:


> See, hit em where it hurts (revenue) and the ban on baiting
> miraculously ends.
> 
> https://www.wxyz.com/news/house-committee-approves-bill-to-allow-deer-baiting-in-michigan
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


This is very short sighted. The ban has been helpful to keep the herd healthier, larger bucks, and eliminating chronic waste. Do the research.

This is only from a few powerful businesses that are swaying the vote, but most true hunters know this ban is helping a quality and healthy deer herd thrive. The big bucks are coming back.

KEEP THE BAN= Keep the big bucks/ healthy herd.


----------



## Josh R

miruss said:


> How is it any different then what the NRC has been doing now They have been making rules WITHOUT it being based on SOUND SCIENCE ! Bring on the vote for hunting the PEOPLE PUSHING THIS STUPID **** HAVE PISSED OFF ENOUGH HUNTERS THE VOTE WON;T GO THE WAY YOU LIKE ! You can only tell people they don't like to piss off quit hunting and they will but their vote for hunting will go with them!
> Can you show me any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAPRS are good for stopping CWD !! Remember that older bucks are more then does likely to have CWD !


Is it better to have politicians voting on what we can and can not hunt or is it better to have the NRC do that? That's the main question at hand.
I do not want HSUS paying off a whole lotta politicians and stop hunting and fishing, that's one thing I know for sure. 
You do have some valid statements tho

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Scout 2

Boatalot said:


> This is very short sighted. The ban has been helpful to keep the herd healthier, larger bucks, and eliminating chronic waste. Do the research.
> 
> This is only from a few powerful businesses that are swaying the vote, but most true hunters know this ban is helping a quality and healthy deer herd thrive. The big bucks are coming back.
> 
> KEEP THE BAN= Keep the big bucks/ healthy herd.


What is a true hunter


----------



## Scout 2

Josh R said:


> Is it better to have politicians voting on what we can and can not hunt or is it better to have the NRC do that? That's the main question at hand.
> I do not want HSUS paying off a whole lotta politicians and stop hunting and fishing, that's one thing I know for sure.
> You do have some valid statements tho
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


I agree with that but when you have some ones hands in the NRC pocket to sway the vote and pass there agenda something has to change


----------



## Josh R

Scout 2 said:


> I agree with that but when you have some ones hands in the NRC pocket to sway the vote and pass there agenda something has to change


Kinda like the MAPR crowd

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumberman

I’ll bet the house doesn’t even vote on it.


----------



## MossyHorns

miruss said:


> How is it any different then what the NRC has been doing now They have been making rules WITHOUT it being based on SOUND SCIENCE ! Bring on the vote for hunting the PEOPLE PUSHING THIS STUPID **** HAVE PISSED OFF ENOUGH HUNTERS THE VOTE WON;T GO THE WAY YOU LIKE ! You can only tell people they don't like to piss off quit hunting and they will but their vote for hunting will go with them!
> Can you show me any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAPRS are good for stopping CWD !! Remember that older bucks are more then does likely to have CWD !


I just happen to be a scientist, unlike the politicians who should not be making any scientific decisions related to wildlife. Not sure why anyone with a brain can't see that is a bad idea on many levels. I'm tired of hearing about guys whining that they will quit, because they can't use bait. The local butcher shops are full of deer right now. Seems a lot of guys don't have a problem filling their tags with the ban in place. Also, doe tags for private land and public land are sold out as well for my area.


----------



## Lumberman

MossyHorns said:


> I just happen to be a scientist, unlike the politicians who should not be making any scientific decisions related to wildlife. Not sure why anyone with a brain can't see that is a bad idea on many levels. I'm tired of hearing about guys whining that they will quit, because they can't use bait. The local butcher shops are full of deer right now. Seems a lot of guys don't have a problem filling their tags with the ban in place. Also, doe tags for private land and public land are sold out as well for my area.


Well said I’m all for a good debate but we have to leave the idiot legislature out of it. The current leadership in this state is full of anti hunter wackos. Let’s keep them out of it.


----------



## Jiggin Jay

Lumberman said:


> I’ll bet the house doesn’t even vote on it.


House passed it, on to the senate 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## MossyHorns

Jiggin Jay said:


> House passed it, on to the senate
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Please open the link in your original post and READ it before you embarrass yourself anymore.


----------



## Lumberman

Jiggin Jay said:


> House passed it, on to the senate
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> looks like they did vote on it today?
> That was quick.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

HB4687, the bill to allow baiting did in fact pass in the house today and will be moving on to the senate.


----------



## syonker




----------



## MallardMaster

Nostromo said:


> Having the legislature making hunting/fishing decisions may not be the best idea. We voted in Prop-G and it didn't stop us from squabbling about nearly every decision. But commissioners are people and people get their ideas from somewhere. Some groups have recognized this and taken advantage of it. But, that's our system. One group I don't have to name had a professional game manager from Texas saying CWD wasn't a disease at all it was a condition. He was a fool.
> 
> The baiting ban was something they could do quickly to show they are doing something. So they did it. I'm _still_ comfortable with letting the NRC make the decisions. I look forward to them getting better at it as we all go along.
> 
> Good luck this season everyone!


I agree. While everything they do isn't always right in peoples opinions, their intentions are based solely on the benefit to Sportspeople. I have all of the confidence in the NRC and will continue to support them. I do trust them more than the letting the general voting public have a say into things. Just like you said, they are getting better at things as we go forward.


----------



## largemouth19

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well might be, but isn't the NRC an appointed board or position made by whomever the current governor is?


----------



## feedinggrounds

Boatalot said:


> This is very short sighted. The ban has been helpful to keep the herd healthier, larger bucks, and eliminating chronic waste. Do the research.
> 
> This is only from a few powerful businesses that are swaying the vote, but most true hunters know this ban is helping a quality and healthy deer herd thrive. The big bucks are coming back.
> 
> KEEP THE BAN= Keep the big bucks/ healthy herd.


Speaking for yourself, that is fine, but you do not speak for me. I have a different opinion. Your definition of a true hunter is probably different than mine also.


----------



## Davelobi

House passed it, on to the Senate but then still has to get Gretchen Whitmer's blessing


----------



## feedinggrounds

MossyHorns said:


> I just happen to be a scientist, unlike the politicians who should not be making any scientific decisions related to wildlife. Not sure why anyone with a brain can't see that is a bad idea on many levels. I'm tired of hearing about guys whining that they will quit, because they can't use bait. The local butcher shops are full of deer right now. Seems a lot of guys don't have a problem filling their tags with the ban in place. Also, doe tags for private land and public land are sold out as well for my area.


I cannot see why anyone with a brain could not see how popular baiting is and was in this state. For years and years pallet upon pallet, truck upon truck, loader buckets a plenty of bait of all kinds have been sold. Large quantity small quantity, roadside stands, gas stations, bait shops, farm stores, Co Ops, Walmart stores, everywhere. It was popular VERY popular despite the Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket know it all deer hunters here saying different. Did you really not expect a serious hard and go all the way fight? If it does get voted down the fight will go on.


----------



## feedinggrounds

Josh R said:


> Dumb
> There's nothing good that's gonna come with this if it passes, screw everything we've done to get laws passed to help us keep HSUS and the like outta this kinda debate. Just pay the politicians off and let them create whatever each special interest group wants. The NRC might not be perfect as well as MUCC but at least they're on the majority of us sportsmen's side, not everything each one does is perfect in everyone's eyes but they're 100% against HSUS. This action is right in HSUSs play book, let them take away each other's rights piece by piece by in fighting and complaining amongst themselves.....DO NOT deny it I'll laugh at ya, and I'll tell ya thanks for ruining it(dove hunt which both sides voted against)
> Give it time, either the NRC will rescind the baiting decision or revisions could be made, again its not perfect but they have our and the herds best interests in mind.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


No they have the desires of the special interests they like and prefer in mind.


----------



## miruss

DirtySteve said:


> You argument might make a little sense if hunters actually put out a gallon of bait as you suggest. The problem is rampant violation of baiting limits. Large baitpiles are far worse than those food plots. Look how spread out all the tracks in those plots in your pictures look. Now imagine the same number of deer on these piles.
> 
> I have said it many times before but worth repeating. I have never in my life seen a legal baitpile in the woods. Nobody spreads out their bait and nobody restricts to 2 gallons. They put out atleast 1 bag of bait and often much more. Bait hunters are the ones that screwed themselves which is unfortunate.
> 
> 
> View attachment 452423
> View attachment 452425


 can you find a little newer photo the one of the corn pile is at least 17 years old .


----------



## feedinggrounds

Nostromo said:


> Having the legislature making hunting/fishing decisions may not be the best idea. We voted in Prop-G and it didn't stop us from squabbling about nearly every decision. But commissioners are people and people get their ideas from somewhere. Some groups have recognized this and taken advantage of it. But, that's our system. One group I don't have to name had a professional game manager from Texas saying CWD wasn't a disease at all it was a condition. He was a fool.
> 
> The baiting ban was something they could do quickly to show they are doing something. So they did it. I'm _still_ comfortable with letting the NRC make the decisions. I look forward to them getting better at it as we all go along.
> 
> Good luck this season everyone!


As long as we have had a NRC, just how long de we give them to get better? More than 23 years I suppose.


----------



## Nostromo

feedinggrounds said:


> As long as we have had a NRC, just how long de we give them to get better? More than 23 years I suppose.


I guess as long as it takes.

Sure wish they would knock the corn down. That would help!


----------



## Trophy Specialist

largemouth19 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well might be, but isn't the NRC an appointed board or position made by whomever the current governor is?


I think most on here don't realise this. The NRC is as political as they come. Some have even been non hunters/fishermen. Maybe even antis. A lot on here seem to have blinders on.


----------



## DirtySteve

miruss said:


> can you find a little newer photo the one of the corn pile is at least 17 years old .


I could find hundreds.....i just like that one.

Can you find me a picture of a legal bait pile?


----------



## Josh R

feedinggrounds said:


> No they have the desires of the special interests they like and prefer in mind.


I'm trying to figure out where your going with this so bear with me. 
Do you want our legislature voting for what we can and can't hunt? Our year to year, multiple years I guess, elected officials? A bunch, maybe even a super majority getting together and saying, "heck we have a the ability to shut down hunting and fishing all at once". You ok with that or are you not thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking? 
Do
If you're thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking, will there NRC do that? 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## largemouth19

Josh R said:


> I'm trying to figure out where your going with this so bear with me.
> Do you want our legislature voting for what we can and can't hunt? Our year to year, multiple years I guess, elected officials? A bunch, maybe even a super majority getting together and saying, "heck we have a the ability to shut down hunting and fishing all at once". You ok with that or are you not thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking?
> Do
> If you're thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking, will there NRC do that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Luckily hunting and fishing is a guaranteed right as part of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, so no one can vote it away.

And at least with the State House and Senate we elect those individuals. The NRC is appointed and the people of the State of Michigan have no say in who they are other than hoping the governor picks people we think we do the right thing.


----------



## Josh R

largemouth19 said:


> Luckily hunting and fishing is a guaranteed right as part of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, so no one can vote it away.
> 
> And at least with the State House and Senate we elect those individuals. The NRC is appointed and the people of the State of Michigan have no say in who they are other than hoping the governor picks people we think we do the right thing.


Well we can't hunt doves, taken away from us by us and elected officials. We have elected folks trying to give our fish away to business's who can't follow the laws that's in place now and those elected officials are going against these laws we as sportsmen voted in and wanted that'll help even more to protect our livelihood

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## GVDocHoliday

largemouth19 said:


> Luckily hunting and fishing is a guaranteed right as part of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, so no one can vote it away.


Reference for this info?


----------



## Josh R

The constitution can say whatever it wants about giving us rights to hunt and fish but if said species is slowly picked away by HSUS what'll be left to hunt or fish? This bill getting shoved thru is no different then when a governor is leaving office and passes a bunch of crap that can't be stopped 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## DirtySteve

I dont get the argument that if this vote goes through our legislature will be making all our future decisions. How would this change anything. If they have the ability to vote on baiting they already had the ability to set regulations. How does this one vote change anything at all? 

Remember last year when a group of citizens got together with a rep and wrote legislation to create a put n take pheasant hunt this year? The dnr didnt want this and it passed and was forced on them. I shot 3 of the pheasants last weekend.


----------



## Rainman68

I'm curious what kind of interest/revenue concerns the HSUS has with deer hunting or fishing? Never seen an add from them against our right to hunt. Maybe the use of animals to hunt a specific species but not in our state.

I'll admit I'm ignorant on this subject with the HSUS, so educate me......


----------



## William H Bonney

largemouth19 said:


> Luckily hunting and fishing is a guaranteed right as part of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, so no one can vote it away.
> 
> And at least with the State House and Senate we elect those individuals. The NRC is appointed and the people of the State of Michigan have no say in who they are other than hoping the governor picks people we think we do the right thing.


Hunting is NOT in the Michigan Bill of Rights. It would take an amendment to the state constitution to do that. 
90% of Michigans residents are non-hunters. The amendment would lose in spectacular fashion & all hunting would be gone, because the whole state would be able to vote, ala the Dove Bill.
Luckily, there is a gentlemens agreement within the legislature that basically states, "hey don't muck with us & we won't go after your hunting rights".


----------



## Nostromo

largemouth19 said:


> Luckily hunting and fishing is a guaranteed right as part of the Constitution of the State of Michigan, so no one can vote it away.
> 
> And at least with the State House and Senate we elect those individuals. The NRC is appointed and the people of the State of Michigan have no say in who they are other than hoping the governor picks people we think we do the right thing.


The Constitution can be rewritten every 16 years. So 2027 is when it's due for revision.



Josh R said:


> Well we can't hunt doves, taken away from us by us and elected officials. We have elected folks trying to give our fish away to business's who can't follow the laws that's in place now and those elected officials are going against these laws we as sportsmen voted in and wanted that'll help even more to protect our livelihood
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Josh, Doves were not listed as game animals that's how we didn't gain a season for them.



GVDocHoliday said:


> Reference for this info?


I guess you can't Google on your phone: (this took like 2 seconds typing included)
(3) The legislature declares that hunting, fishing, and the taking of game are a valued part of the cultural heritage of this state and should be forever preserved. The legislature further declares that these activities play an important part in the state's economy and in the conservation, preservation, and management of the state's natural resources. Therefore, the legislature declares that the citizens of this state have a right to hunt, fish, and take game, subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by subsection (2) and law.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kk...aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-324-40113a


----------



## tgafish

Trophy Specialist: 7807169 said:


> I love the way some on here believe that the NRC and the DNR are somehow not political. You do know that the NRC and DNR director are chosen by the Governor? From what I've seen, about every decision they make seems to have politics written all over it.


True but the potential of the legislature to screw up Natural resource regulations is exponentially more possible than the NRC.


----------



## largemouth19

I a


Rasputin said:


> Seems like the NRC would step in eliminate the baiting ban just to circumvent this legislation and preserve their power. This is a huge loss of power by them if they are now going to be cooperatively managing with the legislature.


I would agree, accept, Governor Whitmer appointed the NRC. If this bill gets passed in the House (already did) and Senate Whitmer is going to veto it and everything was for not, including the NRCs "power". BUT a precedent would be made for the future, that's for sure.


----------



## Nostromo

largemouth19 said:


> I a
> 
> I would agree, accept, Governor Whitmer appointed the NRC. If this bill gets passed in the House (already did) and Senate Whitmer is going to veto it and everything was for not, including the NRCs "power". BUT a precedent would be made for the future, that's for sure.


I think you mean Governor Snyder appointed them.


----------



## DirtySteve

Nostromo said:


> I think you mean Governor Snyder appointed them.


Two come up for appointment yearly at the year end. So whitmere should be picking her first 2 in january and will be picking the next 7. She will want those 7 to maintain their power.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

tgafish said:


> True but the potential of the legislature to screw up Natural resource regulations is exponentially more possible than the NRC.


I don't know about that. Michigan has been shedding hunters and fishermen at such a terrible rate that I would give the NRC a F-. That rate will likely get worse too.


----------



## Nostromo

Trophy Specialist said:


> I don't know about that. Michigan has been shedding hunters and fishermen at such a terrible rate that I would give the NRC a F-. That rate will likely get worse too.


That's not the NRC's mission. People recreate in the manner they themselves choose. It's no secret the younger folks are interested in other things. So, as we age and drop out fewer and fewer take our place. The challenge going forward is how to maintain what we have built over the years. I'm sorry so many are upset with our resource management. But, I still think we have it pretty good. I enjoy my time outdoors whether it's in the state or national forest. Or on a stream I can't mention...


----------



## Trophy Specialist

Nostromo said:


> That's not the NRC's mission. People recreate in the manner they themselves choose. It's no secret the younger folks are interested in other things. So, as we age and drop out fewer and fewer take our place. The challenge going forward is how to maintain what we have built over the years. I'm sorry so many are upset with our resource management. But, I still think we have it pretty good. I enjoy my time outdoors whether it's in the state or national forest. Or on a stream I can't mention...


I disagree. Other states are not.loosing hunters nearly as precipitously. Some are even gaining hunters while Michigan hemerages them.


----------



## miruss

I think it's kinda funny people are now sing oh whoa is the outdoors now that the state has stepped in ! It's was brought up when this banned was put in place that the NRC piss off to many people for the way they went about doing it plus adding in the MAPR'S in a CWD area ! That the state legislators would get involved and no one would listen . If the NRC would have just stuck with the prop G in the way it was intended by using sound SCIENCE not SOCIAL SCIENCE all would be ok ! People now bitching are the same ones that thought it was great when the NRC used SOCIAL SCIENCE but some how it's bad when the LEGISLATORS use it.


----------



## DecoySlayer

DirtySteve said:


> They already are in the hands politicians.....kinda always have been. If that werent true we wouldnt have this bill going through the legislature now.


And look at the mess we have. Add to that the growing anti-hunting, and anti-gun, crowd in politics and we are headed down a road we don't want to go down. 

The next target will likely be bear hunting. It will go the same route as our dove season did. Give them an inch........................


----------



## DecoySlayer

It will come down to what the HSUS wants, it will get.


----------



## Josh R

DecoySlayer said:


> It will come down to what the HSUS wants, it will get.


And this fast tracking that these politicians are pushing now will give HSUS an easier path

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Waif

Josh R said:


> And this fast tracking that these politicians are pushing now will give HSUS an easier path
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Maybe Michigan will pay them for their expertise in dealing with "surplus" animals?
They could round up and kill any overpopulation's of deer here.

[Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats). The number of dogs and cats euthanized in U.S. shelters annually has declined from approximately 2.6 million in 2011.]

The H.S.U.S. takes folks money and oversee's (without stopping it) the killing of animals in "shelters" Think about that term , "Shelter". 
Till they quit doing so , and chastise themselves for their past , they are no realistic threat to killers.
A money grubbing organisation benefiting off the plight of animals subjected to human emotion in advertising.

You may find some bleeding hearts in Michigan politics.
Until they lay out how deer will be removed from the herd without continuing to use hunters , I wouldn't lose sleep over the humane society and their blood associated cause of soliciting money.

[If only 1% of HSUS’s budget goes to local pet shelters, where does the other 99% go? A few examples of wasteful HSUS spending:


In the past two years, HSUS has put $50 million into Caribbean tax shelters instead of pet shelters.
HSUS paid more than $6 million to settle a federal racketeering and bribery lawsuit brought against it and two of its in-house lawyers.
HSUS CEO and President Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle, received more than $400,000 in total compensation while the rest of staff pulled in nearly $44 million more.
Instead of funding the lavish lifestyles of HSUS execs who are socking away your donations in off-shore hedge funds, consider donating to pet shelters in your area.

Filed Under

Main
The Best of HumaneWatch
Visual HSUS]
Any politician wanting to get in bed with them had best tread carefully.
Essential Reading

HSUS Has Not Made Proper Amends for #MeToo Problem
CharityWatch Downgrades Humane Society of the U.S. to “D” Rating
Charitable Giving to Local Shelters Increases
Email Signup
Stay up to date with HumaneWatch by signing up for our email list.


Share on Facebook


----------



## DecoySlayer

Waif said:


> Any politician wanting to get in bed with them had best tread carefully.



You don't REALLY believe that politicians really care where the money they crave comes from do you, legal or otherwise?


----------



## MallardMaster

Waif said:


> Maybe Michigan will pay them for their expertise in dealing with "surplus" animals?
> They could round up and kill any overpopulation's of deer here.
> 
> [Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats). The number of dogs and cats euthanized in U.S. shelters annually has declined from approximately 2.6 million in 2011.]
> 
> The H.S.U.S. takes folks money and oversee's (without stopping it) the killing of animals in "shelters" Think about that term , "Shelter".
> Till they quit doing so , and chastise themselves for their past , they are no realistic threat to killers.
> A money grubbing organisation benefiting off the plight of animals subjected to human emotion in advertising.
> 
> You may find some bleeding hearts in Michigan politics.
> Until they lay out how deer will be removed from the herd without continuing to use hunters , I wouldn't lose sleep over the humane society and their blood associated cause of soliciting money.
> 
> [If only 1% of HSUS’s budget goes to local pet shelters, where does the other 99% go? A few examples of wasteful HSUS spending:
> 
> 
> In the past two years, HSUS has put $50 million into Caribbean tax shelters instead of pet shelters.
> HSUS paid more than $6 million to settle a federal racketeering and bribery lawsuit brought against it and two of its in-house lawyers.
> HSUS CEO and President Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle, received more than $400,000 in total compensation while the rest of staff pulled in nearly $44 million more.
> Instead of funding the lavish lifestyles of HSUS execs who are socking away your donations in off-shore hedge funds, consider donating to pet shelters in your area.
> 
> Filed Under
> 
> Main
> The Best of HumaneWatch
> Visual HSUS]
> Any politician wanting to get in bed with them had best tread carefully.
> Essential Reading
> 
> HSUS Has Not Made Proper Amends for #MeToo Problem
> CharityWatch Downgrades Humane Society of the U.S. to “D” Rating
> Charitable Giving to Local Shelters Increases
> Email Signup
> Stay up to date with HumaneWatch by signing up for our email list.
> 
> 
> Share on Facebook


Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this, but HSUS is totally different that our local humane societies. I thought that I read this somewhere, but I cannot remember the entire story. This is your typical same/same, but different situation.


----------



## Waif

MallardMaster said:


> Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this, but HSUS is totally different that our local humane societies. I thought that I read this somewhere, but I cannot remember the entire story. This is your typical same/same, but different situation.


You are correct. Your local (est) humane society likely is not funded in any way by the H.S.U.S..
https://www.humanewatch.org/what-local-humane-groups-say-about-hsus/


----------



## kzoofisher

The NRC is far from a perfect solution. However, you do need a governing body and the Legislature is much too slow acting to be that body.

How should the NRC work? Judgement calls are needed most of the time. In the rare cases where the DNR tells them "It's a disaster, we need to make this change right now.", that should be rubber stamped, obviously. In the majority of cases the DNR says something like "it might work", "probably won't make a difference", "don't have enough info to make the call", "should make a positive change", and that's when the NRC has to make the political decision of judging the cost, the benefit, the popularity or unpopularity, general feasibility, and so on.

How should the DNR be made up? Not the way it is now. Look at the bios of the members, they're pretty much all career politicians in business and the environment. I know, the fact that they worked their way up in Ag or Forestry or Economic Development or Conservation and "love the outdoors too!" is supposed to be a plus. But it isn't really. They're all part of a relatively small group who's careers have brought them to the attention of Lansing and they've rubbed shoulders and have shared friendships. They're all part of a club that doesn't include anyone from the bottom 80% of wage earners. And because of that they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised, in the name of civility and because someone else in the club wants it. 

So how do you choose members? First you develop a pool of candidates by getting average people involved. I've been a proponent of a Conservation Congress for some time. The CC wouldn't have regulatory power, it would advise the DNR and be a ready made pool of people who would be in touch with what their constituents want. Three members from each county elected to four year terms. Members attend one Statewide meeting a year, going to DNR presentations, talking directly to DNR personnel and other members and getting briefed on issues facing the State. They also have to attend at least three NRC meetings* each year and meetings of two separate advisory boards (1 each). That's a lot of time to give but it would make them aware of a wide range of issues, not just their pet issues. Future NRC members would be nominated by the Governor from a slate of candidates that the CC provides by general election at the annual meeting. No fewer than 12 candidates, no more than 36. Confirmation by the Senate like we have now.

* Meetings are held weekdays now. The heck with that, do NRC and Advisory board meetings on Saturdays. Give the DNR folks the following Monday off.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

kzoofisher said:


> The NRC is far from a perfect solution. However, you do need a governing body and the Legislature is much too slow acting to be that body.
> 
> How should the NRC work? Judgement calls are needed most of the time. In the rare cases where the DNR tells them "It's a disaster, we need to make this change right now.", that should be rubber stamped, obviously. In the majority of cases the DNR says something like "it might work", "probably won't make a difference", "don't have enough info to make the call", "should make a positive change", and that's when the NRC has to make the political decision of judging the cost, the benefit, the popularity or unpopularity, general feasibility, and so on.
> 
> How should the DNR be made up? Not the way it is now. Look at the bios of the members, they're pretty much all career politicians in business and the environment. I know, the fact that they worked their way up in Ag or Forestry or Economic Development or Conservation and "love the outdoors too!" is supposed to be a plus. But it isn't really. They're all part of a relatively small group who's careers have brought them to the attention of Lansing and they've rubbed shoulders and have shared friendships. They're all part of a club that doesn't include anyone from the bottom 80% of wage earners. And because of that they compromise on things that shouldn't be compromised, in the name of civility and because someone else in the club wants it.
> 
> So how do you choose members? First you develop a pool of candidates by getting average people involved. I've been a proponent of a Conservation Congress for some time. The CC wouldn't have regulatory power, it would advise the DNR and be a ready made pool of people who would be in touch with what their constituents want. Three members from each county elected to four year terms. Members attend one Statewide meeting a year, going to DNR presentations, talking directly to DNR personnel and other members and getting briefed on issues facing the State. They also have to attend at least three NRC meetings* each year and meetings of two separate advisory boards (1 each). That's a lot of time to give but it would make them aware of a wide range of issues, not just their pet issues. Future NRC members would be nominated by the Governor from a slate of candidates that the CC provides by general election at the annual meeting. No fewer than 12 candidates, no more than 36. Confirmation by the Senate like we have now.
> 
> * Meetings are held weekdays now. The heck with that, do NRC and Advisory board meetings on Saturdays. Give the DNR folks the following Monday off.


Interesting idea but I'd like to see a clause where they are all ratified in April by resident citizens that just bought a Hunt/Fish Combo License. It would be easy to do on the internet just like they can now confirm your license number on various surveys.


----------



## DirtySteve

Trophy Specialist said:


> Interesting idea but I'd like to see a clause where they are all ratified in April by resident citizens that just bought a Hunt/Fish Combo License. It would be easy to do on the internet just like they can now confirm your license number on various surveys.


Doesnt that just guarantee that decisions of the NRC would be swayed by social issues?


----------



## Martian

this is interesting, as they believe CWD is caused by rubbing noses, so bait could be in proximity to have them rub noses, and now they have changed their minds? what changed? Plus, whatever they do to curtail this disease I am for, but , as a faw is born they rub noses with their doe, and deer rub noses with other social deer, I don't thinl you can staop that


----------



## kzoofisher

Trophy Specialist said:


> Interesting idea but I'd like to see a clause where they are all ratified in April by resident citizens that just bought a Hunt/Fish Combo License. It would be easy to do on the internet just like they can now confirm your license number on various surveys.


Pretty sure that would violate the constitution depending on who or what mean being ratified.


----------



## PWood

Trophy Specialist said:


> Interesting idea but I'd like to see a clause where they are all ratified in April by resident citizens that just bought a Hunt/Fish Combo License. It would be easy to do on the internet just like they can now confirm your license number on various surveys.


It would still be too easy for large special interests to stack the deck, giving them even more influence over the NRC. Not sure how you can get rid of that.


----------



## TNL

Martian said:


> this is interesting, as they believe CWD is caused by rubbing noses, so bait could be in proximity to have them rub noses, and now they have changed their minds? what changed? Plus, whatever they do to curtail this disease I am for, but , as a faw is born they rub noses with their doe, and deer rub noses with other social deer, I don't thinl you can staop that


CWD is not caused by rubbing noses, rather, it is likely spread that way. Prions are proteins thought to be the cause. These prions live in the bodily fluids, so it's not just mucus membranes (nose), but blood, saliva, feces, etc. Often the deer are asymptomatic, not showing any evidence of the disease until the animal dies. It is known that CWD is always fatal. 

Scientists believe that by reducing the nose to nose contact via the bait ban, they'll slow down the spread of the disease. Importantly, keep in mind that saliva on half eaten carrots and sugar beets still carry the threat, as well as deer urine and poop. So that bait is the gift that keeps on giving long after the infected deer is gone until it either decays (now it's in the soil) or has been consumed. No one talks about this because it doesn't fit their narrative.

We knew the bait ban would be triggered if the disease was found. That plan which was formulated long ago was implemented. Why has there been no fall-out until now? We pay Phd's and Master's of biology to study this as their life's work. They don't operate in a vacuum. They get their lead from other thought leaders in the area of expertise. CDC says the transmission between animals is probable, then why in heaven's name should we discount what they say? The NRC wisely adopted the bait ban as sound science - a fine example of Prop G at work.

Bigger picture isn't that Joe Hunter doesn't see any deer because he can't bait. The bigger picture is that if this thing jumps the species barrier and infects humans, deer hunting will be all but done. Too much "chicken little, the sky is falling"? Consider the German 2009 unpublished study that shows it can jump to macaques, the monkey that is genetically closest to humans. Another infectious disease started along those lines through chimpanzees: HIV/AIDS.


----------



## TNL

As far as impact on license sales, how will we know until after the season is over and the sales are tabulated - which should be incredibly easy with a few strokes of the computer keys. I was unsuccessful in getting a doe permit in the draw. Second year in a row. Procrastinated and tried to get one of the couple thousand left over from the 5 counties I would hunt. Yep, gone. Left Walmart because the sporting good counter was 10 deep with people trying to get licenses Friddnay night. 

We know license sales have been falling for over 2 decades for a myriad of reasons. They fell during the last bait ban, but not at a rate any faster than they had been coming down. Let's wait and see what happens. Calculate the average rate of decline. Subtract it from the 2019 license sales, the number left will be greater or lesser than last year's number. Not scientific, but it'll give a fairly clear objective opinion.

Light-switch management by our legislature is going to screw up Prop G, then our beloved past time will be at risk. Let the NRC do their job. I've hunted quite a few different states. I put our DNR with anybody's in the nation.


----------



## Waif

TNL said:


> CWD is not caused by rubbing noses, rather, it is likely spread that way. Prions are proteins thought to be the cause. These prions live in the bodily fluids, so it's not just mucus membranes (nose), but blood, saliva, feces, etc. Often the deer are asymptomatic, not showing any evidence of the disease until the animal dies. It is known that CWD is always fatal.
> 
> Scientists believe that by reducing the nose to nose contact via the bait ban, they'll slow down the spread of the disease. Importantly, keep in mind that saliva on half eaten carrots and sugar beets still carry the threat, as well as deer urine and poop. So that bait is the gift that keeps on giving long after the infected deer is gone until it either decays (now it's in the soil) or has been consumed. No one talks about this because it doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> We knew the bait ban would be triggered if the disease was found. That plan which was formulated long ago was implemented. Why has there been no fall-out until now? We pay Phd's and Master's of biology to study this as their life's work. They don't operate in a vacuum. They get their lead from other thought leaders in the area of expertise. CDC says the transmission between animals is probable, then why in heaven's name should we discount what they say? The NRC wisely adopted the bait ban as sound science - a fine example of Prop G at work.
> 
> Bigger picture isn't that Joe Hunter doesn't see any deer because he can't bait. The bigger picture is that if this thing jumps the species barrier and infects humans, deer hunting will be all but done. Too much "chicken little, the sky is falling"? Consider the German 2009 unpublished study that shows it can jump to macaques, the monkey that is genetically closest to humans. Another infectious disease started along those lines through chimpanzees: HIV/AIDS.


Your reference to Germans .....Meaning Canadian and German study ? (No. You are writing about a 2009 version. Unpublished for a reason...)Which conflicts with another group from a company started in 2009 , same year as alleged positives in CM's). Coincidence,right?

(CM= the type monkeys.)

[sensitive RT-QuIC assay, immunohistochemistry (IHC), and immunoblot tests for prion disease. Brain and spinal cord tissues from our previously described CWD-inoculated CM, as well as from newly acquired uninoculated CM, were also tested by using both RT-QuIC and IHC with three different anti-prion protein (PrP) antibodies. Using these new assays, and screening additional tissues, we observed no conclusive evidence of cross-species transmission of CWD to CM.]

[Thus, there was no supporting evidence for CWD infection of these two CM from either clinical observations or biochemical tests.]
https://jvi.asm.org/content/92/14/e00550-18

So we have conflicting results, with attendant estimated probabilities , from two different groups/sources? And claim it as sound science?

Instead of force feeding small monkeys infected meat , injecting C.W.D. in their brains ,(for crying out loud ,if you inject C.W.D. in a monkeys brain , do you expect it to not have/test positive C.W.D.? Amazing science there....) and cutting them up later to look for contamination....How about testing scavengers in known C.W.D. zones?
A warm season ensures lots of gut pile feeding possums.
A couple warm seasons , check older possums.
How about collecting coyote scat to check for prions? We have coyotes more in common in our state than monkeys.

Instead we rely on guesses from scientists from other countries, playing almighty creator in created labs with non cervid victims , forcing intended /predictable results ...And still getting conflicting data....
That is not how a sane agency entrusted with the well being of a states wildlife should be using "science" to establish regulations.
"Probably" is not proof of confirmation/yes.. No matter who says it.


----------



## Waif

TNL said:


> As far as impact on license sales, how will we know until after the season is over and the sales are tabulated - which should be incredibly easy with a few strokes of the computer keys. I was unsuccessful in getting a doe permit in the draw. Second year in a row. Procrastinated and tried to get one of the couple thousand left over from the 5 counties I would hunt. Yep, gone. Left Walmart because the sporting good counter was 10 deep with people trying to get licenses Friddnay night.
> 
> We know license sales have been falling for over 2 decades for a myriad of reasons. They fell during the last bait ban, but not at a rate any faster than they had been coming down. Let's wait and see what happens. Calculate the average rate of decline. Subtract it from the 2019 license sales, the number left will be greater or lesser than last year's number. Not scientific, but it'll give a fairly clear objective opinion.
> 
> Light-switch management by our legislature is going to screw up Prop G, then our beloved past time will be at risk. Let the NRC do their job. I've hunted quite a few different states. I put our DNR with anybody's in the nation.


You don't believe our beloved past time is at risk in a C.W.D. hot zone under the "experiment" , which contradicts the "science" behind Michigan's response plan?
Who you know in the D.N.R. that needs you defending that not possibly, maybe not, brilliant decision?


----------



## DirtySteve

I am not sure that bickering whether or not baiting affects CWD is worth the effort. Biologists have been against baiting for a decade or two. They have plenty of proof that baiting does have affect on other diseases outside of CWD. The reason we have had baiting over the years in a 2 gallon quantity was because hunters pitched a fit last time it was banned. For those complaining about using sound science in the great bait debait should go ask your biologists at your local DNR office their opinions on all disease transmission. CWD plan was just an additional reason to do what they have wanted for a long time. 

Hunters might have a leg to stand on if they would have followed the 2 gallon limit compromise all these years.


----------



## miruss

TNL said:


> So that bait is the gift that keeps on giving long after the infected deer is gone until it either decays (now it's in the soil) or has been consumed


And this helps stop that how
















YEP the deer all held their piss & **** til they left and where far away !! So tell me what spot would have more ! Question for ya what spot would have more in it these areas after a couple years don't think he's going to let the field go. Or my spincast feeder that 100 lb# of shelled corn will last the whole season ?


----------



## AntiHuntersLoveMe

Ahhhh... I'll feel so much better when ppl realize CWD will never be stopped and all the bitching and whining ends. 

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk


----------



## swampbuck

They should ban picking and choosing disease vectors, to appease their favored special interest groups. That is the big hammer.


Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Trophy Specialist

TNL said:


> We know license sales have been falling for over 2 decades for a myriad of reasons. They fell during the last bait ban, but not at a rate any faster than they had been coming down. Let's wait and see what happens. Calculate the average rate of decline. Subtract it from the 2019 license sales, the number left will be greater or lesser than last year's number. Not scientific, but it'll give a fairly clear objective opinion.


They didn't fall much during the last bait ban for two main reasons: 1) Only one deer then was found with CWD in a game farm, so most hunters were not alarmed. Now we have CWD spreading around the state and with the panic caused by the DNR/NRC withe the baiting ban and other actions it will likely have a much greater, negative impact. So what happens if hunter numbers decrease by more than the 1-2 percent that we have seen in recent years? The DNR was asked that question by MOOD TV a while back and they dodged that question. What is the acceptable hunter number loss in this state, keeping in mind other states are seeing no loss or even increases in hunter numbers?


----------



## Trophy Specialist

TNL said:


> CWD is not caused by rubbing noses, rather, it is likely spread that way. Prions are proteins thought to be the cause. These prions live in the bodily fluids, so it's not just mucus membranes (nose), but blood, saliva, feces, etc. Often the deer are asymptomatic, not showing any evidence of the disease until the animal dies. It is known that CWD is always fatal.
> 
> Scientists believe that by reducing the nose to nose contact via the bait ban, they'll slow down the spread of the disease. Importantly, keep in mind that saliva on half eaten carrots and sugar beets still carry the threat, as well as deer urine and poop. So that bait is the gift that keeps on giving long after the infected deer is gone until it either decays (now it's in the soil) or has been consumed. No one talks about this because it doesn't fit their narrative.
> 
> We knew the bait ban would be triggered if the disease was found. That plan which was formulated long ago was implemented. Why has there been no fall-out until now? We pay Phd's and Master's of biology to study this as their life's work. They don't operate in a vacuum. They get their lead from other thought leaders in the area of expertise. CDC says the transmission between animals is probable, then why in heaven's name should we discount what they say? The NRC wisely adopted the bait ban as sound science - a fine example of Prop G at work.
> 
> Bigger picture isn't that Joe Hunter doesn't see any deer because he can't bait. The bigger picture is that if this thing jumps the species barrier and infects humans, deer hunting will be all but done. Too much "chicken little, the sky is falling"? Consider the German 2009 unpublished study that shows it can jump to macaques, the monkey that is genetically closest to humans. Another infectious disease started along those lines through chimpanzees: HIV/AIDS.


Why is it that every bit of science that contradicts the DNR/NRC's anti-baiting and reduce the deer heard to near nothing goal is not even considered. I've read all sorts of promising research on this subject like on humic acid, minerals and nutrition, but the DNR/NRC never seems to consider that science in their decisions. With the DNR/NRC, science seems to be just a red herring.


----------



## feedinggrounds

Josh R said:


> I'm trying to figure out where your going with this so bear with me.
> Do you want our legislature voting for what we can and can't hunt? Our year to year, multiple years I guess, elected officials? A bunch, maybe even a super majority getting together and saying, "heck we have a the ability to shut down hunting and fishing all at once". You ok with that or are you not thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking?
> Do
> If you're thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking, will there NRC do that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


The NRC and DNR are simply seeing the checks and limits on their power. This happens due to special interest swaying the votes. The politicians have checks and limits on power also, it is called elections. The DNR and NRC are not elected. The DNR and NRC knew full well that at some point when they made enough hunters mad enough this could happen, they always knew the limits and lines, they gambled, now are being called.


----------



## feedinggrounds

MossyHorns said:


> There is a HUGE difference!
> Ag Field - Covers acres
> Bait - Covers 100 sft, but most still put it in a pile


Hardly think most put it in a pile, You have seen most bait locations? I guess you may have seen many ag fields but highly doubt you have seen most bait placements. Would that be a reasonable statement? Bait placed in piles makes for skittish always moving deer, scattered bait makes more relaxed deer providing great shot placement. Not fitting your agenda though, so you exaggerate perhaps.


----------



## feedinggrounds

DecoySlayer said:


> If you leave game law in the hands of today's politicians, we will, sooner or later, see hunting outlawed.


Or those politicians losing elections. Scare tactic much.


----------



## DecoySlayer

feedinggrounds said:


> Or those politicians losing elections. Scare tactic much.



The loss of the dove season shows us what will likely happen. Those who hunt are in a shrinking minority.


----------



## feedinggrounds

DecoySlayer said:


> The loss of the dove season shows us what will likely happen. Those who hunt are in a shrinking minority.


True, but this is simply a check being imposed on the MDNR/NRC, like a penalty flag being tossed. Its not the end of the game, they sidestepped a bit trying to get somewhere and are being called out on the action. It really is that simple. The hunting public and politicians may be doing the DNR/NRC a favor in credibility, by keeping them between the lines.


----------



## DecoySlayer

feedinggrounds said:


> True, but this is simply a check being imposed on the MDNR/NRC, like a penalty flag being tossed. Its not the end of the game, they sidestepped a bit trying to get somewhere and are being called out on the action. It really is that simple. The hunting public and politicians may be doing the DNR/NRC a favor in credibility, by keeping them between the lines.



No, it's the legislature stepping in where they have no business. It does not matter, the divide between hunters is 100% in their favor.


----------



## feedinggrounds

DecoySlayer said:


> No, it's the legislature stepping in where they have no business. It does not matter, the divide between hunters is 100% in their favor.


That is your opinion, someone asked them to step in, you feel no checks, balance or limits should be imposed on the DNR or NRC or any government entity? Or just the ones that matter to you?


----------



## DecoySlayer

feedinggrounds said:


> That is your opinion, someone asked them to step in, you feel no checks, balance or limits should be imposed on the DNR or NRC or any government entity? Or just the ones that matter to you?


I don't really care any longer. I won't be around to see the end result, many in here will. You can have what ever you want.


----------



## DirtySteve

feedinggrounds said:


> Hardly think most put it in a pile, You have seen most bait locations? I guess you may have seen many ag fields but highly doubt you have seen most bait placements. Would that be a reasonable statement? Bait placed in piles makes for skittish always moving deer, scattered bait makes more relaxed deer providing great shot placement. Not fitting your agenda though, so you exaggerate perhaps.


I am a bird hunter and i come across a ton of baitpiles. I have never in my life seen a bait location spread out. Always in a pile. I have seen a couple times where a person put it in a 10' straight line. I have only once seen a pile that was within a 2 gallon limit. There was an old timer that hunted a pinch point in a rye field on state land. He used apple cores and apple peels with occasionally some shelled corn mixed in. Always a nice neat little 2 gallon pile.


----------



## kzoofisher

Waif said:


> IF you/some one are/is assigned a task in a place of employment , and wander off task , is the employer supposed to ignore it when the deviation is brought to their attention?


 Not an accurate analogy. Your employer can ignore a directive he gave you or change his mind at the drop of a hat. When the Legislature passes a law they can't just break it because it doesn't turn out the way they thought it would. They have to pass a new law. They gave up oversight on the setting of regulations when they passed the very popular initiative the voters sent to them. Funny thing is, them having the power to set regulations was exceptional in the first place. The DNR is part of the Executive Branch, you would think the Governor would have complete control and the Legislature would only respond to actions taken and appropriate a budget. But before 2014 the Legislature had equal rule making power as the Executive when it came to wildlife. Guess they wish they still did.


----------



## kzoofisher

Trophy Specialist said:


> Bad example. That bill had a clause in it for the DNR to do a study on the safety of it, which they did and ruled it unsafe and thus struck it down.


Hunter Pink bill passed in 2016 with a clause that the NRC could over rule it, possibly because it was patently illegal. NRC told them to go peddle their papers in Sept 2017. Someone tried to revive the bill and it went nowhere in 2018.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

kzoofisher said:


> Hunter Pink bill passed in 2016 with a clause that the NRC could over rule it, possibly because it was patently illegal. NRC told them to go peddle their papers in Sept 2017. Someone tried to revive the bill and it went nowhere in 2018.


If it didn't have that DNR study clause in it then it would have been the law now and the NRC would have been helpeless to stop it. By the way, in my opinion it was a stupid bill.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

Nostromo said:


> Gotta respect a counter puncher.


More like a missed rabbit punch.


----------



## Waif

kzoofisher said:


> Not an accurate analogy. Your employer can ignore a directive he gave you or change his mind at the drop of a hat. When the Legislature passes a law they can't just break it because it doesn't turn out the way they thought it would. They have to pass a new law. They gave up oversight on the setting of regulations when they passed the very popular initiative the voters sent to them. Funny thing is, them having the power to set regulations was exceptional in the first place. The DNR is part of the Executive Branch, you would think the Governor would have complete control and the Legislature would only respond to actions taken and appropriate a budget. But before 2014 the Legislature had equal rule making power as the Executive when it came to wildlife. Guess they wish they still did.


I was not referring to the employer ignoring the task...But the party assigned the task.
Anyone could point out the task was not being completed properly , from the bottom of the process to the end result/customer.

It certainly makes sense for the game department to have the upper hand in wildlife decisions.
But sound logic needs to apply.
The experiment in the C.W.D. zone is the contention I look at as an example.
Hold on for the details. Scientific experiments summery's depend (in accuracy debates) on duplicate-able results. We're at least three years in to a response plan ,and then add a change in process. Will comparable areas duplicate that?
And then there is the comparable control group.
I'm not disagreeing with the A.P.R.. but rather of what appears to be a non duplicate-able process.
Not to mention the effect on comparability elsewhere without the same prior reduction.
From a disease aspect , the experiment is not directed at an attempt at control ,or reduction,or containment. Is that the task of our wildlife officials?

I'm going off topic with yet another what you call an analogy , but was the response to whirling disease in fish , to spread known parasite hosting infected fish to other areas?
Or to sustain them in areas they did exist?


----------



## kzoofisher

We're talking past each other here. It's not a matter of whether or not the Legislature has oversight of the Executive. Does the Legislature have the lawful authority to regulate the taking of game? Section 40133a (2) says no as far as I (non-lawyer) can tell. The NRC must give copies of orders to appropriate members of committees before enacting them. I suppose that gives legislators the chance to oversee the NRC before rules are enacted. What recourse they have after rules are enacted is the question of the hour. In 2014 I thought concentrating all the power in the NRC was bad policy. Still do. It puts all the power in the hands of a few appointees where an interest group only has to convince four people to get their way. And of course, most of these appointees worked for an interest group before they got the NRC gig. The price we're paying now with the baiting ban (supported by bios), the 10 brook trout limit (opposed by bios), and no doubt some future decisions, is what it cost to have a wolf season. I've lost track of how successful that wolf hunting has been. Oh, that's right, Feds never allowed it anyway.

Here's the pertinent part and a link to the whole thing.

_Section 40133a (2)
The NATURAL RESOURCES commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state. The NATURAL RESOURCES commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game. THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MAY TAKE TESTIMONY FROM DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, INDEPENDENT EXPERTS, AND OTHERS, AND REVIEW SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND DATA, AMONG OTHER SOURCES, IN SUPPORT OF ITS DUTY TO USE PRINCIPLES OF SOUND SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT.Issuance of orders by the NATURAL RESOURCES commission regarding the taking of game shall be made following a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. Not less than 30 days before issuing an order, the NATURAL RESOURCES commission shall provide a copy of the order to each of the following:

(a) Each member of each standing committee of the senate or house of representatives that considers legislation pertaining to conservation, the environment, natural resources, recreation, tourism, or agriculture.

(b) The chairperson of the senate appropriations committee and the chairperson of the house of representatives appropriations committee.

(c) The members of the subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee and the subcommittee of the house of representatives appropriations committee that consider the budget of the department of natural resources._

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/CPWM_-_revised_465989_7.pdf


----------



## Waif

kzoofisher said:


> We're talking past each other here. It's not a matter of whether or not the Legislature has oversight of the Executive. Does the Legislature have the lawful authority to regulate the taking of game? Section 40133a (2) says no as far as I (non-lawyer) can tell. The NRC must give copies of orders to appropriate members of committees before enacting them. I suppose that gives legislators the chance to oversee the NRC before rules are enacted. What recourse they have after rules are enacted is the question of the hour. In 2014 I thought concentrating all the power in the NRC was bad policy. Still do. It puts all the power in the hands of a few appointees where an interest group only has to convince four people to get their way. And of course, most of these appointees worked for an interest group before they got the NRC gig. The price we're paying now with the baiting ban (supported by bios), the 10 brook trout limit (opposed by bios), and no doubt some future decisions, is what it cost to have a wolf season. I've lost track of how successful that wolf hunting has been. Oh, that's right, Feds never allowed it anyway.
> 
> Here's the pertinent part and a link to the whole thing.
> 
> _Section 40133a (2)
> The NATURAL RESOURCES commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state. The NATURAL RESOURCES commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game. THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MAY TAKE TESTIMONY FROM DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, INDEPENDENT EXPERTS, AND OTHERS, AND REVIEW SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND DATA, AMONG OTHER SOURCES, IN SUPPORT OF ITS DUTY TO USE PRINCIPLES OF SOUND SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT.Issuance of orders by the NATURAL RESOURCES commission regarding the taking of game shall be made following a public meeting and an opportunity for public input. Not less than 30 days before issuing an order, the NATURAL RESOURCES commission shall provide a copy of the order to each of the following:
> 
> (a) Each member of each standing committee of the senate or house of representatives that considers legislation pertaining to conservation, the environment, natural resources, recreation, tourism, or agriculture.
> 
> (b) The chairperson of the senate appropriations committee and the chairperson of the house of representatives appropriations committee.
> 
> (c) The members of the subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee and the subcommittee of the house of representatives appropriations committee that consider the budget of the department of natural resources._
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/CPWM_-_revised_465989_7.pdf


I'm following you.
Post regulation ability of legislature to change a regulation is the/our question.

My usual feeble opinion is that the N.R.C. can be influenced and or persuaded to revisit a train of thought.
The formality of their being handed a regulation change could be contested. It does not change a light being shined on questionable regulation(s) though.

In the disease case , a slot limit is not really an answer in regulation form.
Yes it is an experiment. How sound of one , and it's timing are worth revisiting.
And how should the N.R.C. be persuaded to do so? Or at least face transparency in how it /they arrived at such a need for an experiment in order to continue preserving our wildlife.
Maybe all those parties that received copies understands the logic better than I...
Or , maybe they just sat on their hands expecting the N.R.C. to be using sound "science" to do something that makes no sense vs the C.W.D. plan..


----------



## poz

DecoySlayer said:


> The loss of the dove season shows us what will likely happen. Those who hunt are in a shrinking minority.


That was the NRC s fault . They should have stuck to their guns and say they decide what is a game species, not a vote. But they were afraid of losing their power if they pissed off the dove lovers.


----------



## poz

DecoySlayer said:


> If game management is controlled in the legislature it will just aid in the outlawing of our sports.


Not really the legislators are realizing how important this is to the state of Michigan. They are seeing revenue drop, they are hearing from small business owners, they are hearing from small towns losing tourism. They now know how important it is to them staying in power.


----------



## DecoySlayer

poz said:


> Not really the legislators are realizing how important this is to the state of Michigan. They are seeing revenue drop, they are hearing from small business owners, they are hearing from small towns losing tourism. They now know how important it is to them staying in power.



You can believe anything you like. I am looking down the road. We have growing numbers of anti-hunters. We have an anti-hunting governess and AG. We are already out numbered. One only has to look at the dove season that we don't have. I don't see them crying about the loss of revenue there, and it would have been a LOT of revenue. Doves are one of the most hunted species in the country.

ANY way, I likely won't be around to see it crash, so, do what you want.

Just in case you want to know, bear hunting will be the next target the anti's go after, then waterfowl.


----------



## poz

DecoySlayer said:


> You can believe anything you like. I am looking down the road. We have growing numbers of anti-hunters. We have an anti-hunting governess and AG. We are already out numbered. One only has to look at the dove season that we don't have. I don't see them crying about the loss of revenue there, and it would have been a LOT of revenue. Doves are one of the most hunted species in the country.
> 
> ANY way, I likely won't be around to see it crash, so, do what you want.
> 
> Just in case you want to know, bear hunting will be the next target the anti's go after, then waterfowl.


If the NRC has any balls, if the governor vetoes this Bill and says the NRC has the right to make game laws. The first thing they should do is put in a dove season. But they won't. They will be afraid of the governor


----------



## Luv2hunteup

poz said:


> If the NRC has any balls, if the governor vetoes this Bill and says the NRC has the right to make game laws. The first thing they should do is put in a dove season. But they won't. They will be afraid of the governor


The should ease into it. Start with a wolf trapping season to see how it goes. Wolves are destructive doves are perceived as pets by some.


----------



## DecoySlayer

A dove season would bring tons of new spending and a MUCH greater chance of recruiting new, young, hunters. Doves are classed as a game bird and are managed as a migratory bird. 

We know how our governess feels about dove hunting. She helped to kill the season we had. 

We know how our AG feels about wolves.


----------



## Liver and Onions

DecoySlayer said:


> ...........
> We know how our governess feels about dove hunting. She helped to kill the season we had.
> 
> .............


Simply not true. After our 1 season during the Granholm years the citizens of Michigan voted to end dove hunting. The vote wasn't close. The hunting community did not put up much of a fight. Probably would not have mattered, the group opposed to the hunt successfully presented the dove as a song bird and a bird at our bird feeders.
Had the DNR started a dove season anywhere between 1930 to roughly 1975 we would have a dove season now.
The DNR also considered it a songbird. Check the history.

L & O


----------



## DecoySlayer

Liver and Onions said:


> Simply not true. After our 1 season during the Granholm years the citizens of Michigan voted to end dove hunting. The vote wasn't close. The hunting community did not put up much of a fight. Probably would not have mattered, the group opposed to the hunt successfully presented the dove as a song bird and a bird at our bird feeders.
> Had the DNR started a dove season anywhere between 1930 to roughly 1975 we would have a dove season now.
> The DNR also considered it a songbird. Check the history.
> 
> L & O


The dove is classed as a migratory bird by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Our governess helped to lead the fight against that season. She, and our AG, are also very anti-gun.


----------



## DirtySteve

poz said:


> If the NRC has any balls, if the governor vetoes this Bill and says the NRC has the right to make game laws. The first thing they should do is put in a dove season. But they won't. They will be afraid of the governor


Thw NRC doesnt have the authority to declare what is considered game. They only have the authority to regulate how game is taken.


----------



## swampbuck

DecoySlayer said:


> If game management is controlled in the legislature it will just aid in the outlawing of our sports.


Then help fix the problem.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> I'm not a lawyer and I don't get how this works. The most recent law, SFWCA or whatever, is explicit that regulations are only set by the NRC for game. If that means that the Legislature can't interfere with regulations but _can_ make laws controlling the manner of taking game, how does that prevent a citizen initiated law from doing the same thing? And frankly, I just don't see how the Legislature has the power to do this but again, I'm not a lawyer. I guess we'll find out for sure if the bill passes and if there's a court case about it. From the law as passed, the bolded part is the change that was made to remove the power from the Legislature and therefore petition drives.
> 
> The *NATURAL RESOURCES* commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state.
> 
> If the Legislature can pass a law regulating the taking of game why can't a petition initiating a law that the Legislature passes do the same thing?


Your answer is in the Michigan Natural Resources And Environmental Protection Act.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DecoySlayer

swampbuck said:


> Then help fix the problem.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app



Why should I care?


----------



## swampbuck

Nostromo said:


> Why do you see it this way? They are acting within the limits of their charter. (I'm not pro-ban)
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are placing our legislature in a warmer glow then they are accustomed to. lol
> 
> I tend to think they should leave the NRC to their work. Questions they may have should be addressed behind closed doors. Then, if the Governor feels that the NRC member is doing a poor job or not acting in good faith. She can deal with them in accordance with the law.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd guess that if this legislature goes through. It will be challenged and end up before the States Supreme Court. Advantage Legislature. But who really knows?


The MNREPA (prop G) is part of our constitution. It gives the senate oversite.

That can only be change by constitutional amendment.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Trout King

Sparky23 said:


> I don't get why everyone acts like no bait is so awful. End of hunting. Baiting is illegal in well over half the states. Some have clauses where you can but can hunt over it. You can but must be gone within 10days of season. Do people realize those rules are in place because it makes it tooooooo easy and makes lazy hunters. Maybe I'm selfish but if you quit because you can't bait good . Not a hunter anyways. We still sell more licenses than any state. Maybe weed out some.


A bit ironic considering you are up in arms about a dam removal, which the dam temporarily blocks fish migrations, which makes it tooooo easy to catch a bunch of fish. I guess using your logic those who want or need to fish below it are too lazy or stupid to put up good numbers without a dam?


----------



## Sparky23

Trout King said:


> A bit ironic considering you are up in arms about a dam removal, which the dam temporarily blocks fish migrations, which makes it tooooo easy to catch a bunch of fish. I guess using your logic those who want or need to fish below it are too lazy or stupid to put up good numbers without a dam?[/QUOTE yes. Totally the same. Other than it has nothing whatsoever the same in any way shape or form and you are smart enough to know that man. Not to mention there is a dam on every river that is great for steelhead in michigan with the exception of maybe 2. And the one in question they can get by the dam already. I don't like it because it is special interest getting it's way. Everyone has there own opinions. Just saying that's it's funny the mentality here by so many is you have to have it when the majority of states don't allow it period. It's amazing that they kill deer. I have used bait. When I have done it it was to make it easier. It's like someone saying a crossbow is like a compound with no difference. There is and we both know it. And I'm just brave enough to say what many think and that if your going to quit because you can't bait then good-bye. Don't care. You didn't like it that much to begin.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Well, except, the oddity of the argument is, the legislature isn't banning anything here. It's the DNR and NRC. Reality is a bitch sometimes. But it sounded good.
> 
> Good to hear you are against the legislature banning when it comes to our resources. So we can expect to see you fighting for bait fisherman's rights on the legislature designated fly's only water? That would fall under your above concern of "Bait fishermen on your favorite trout streams? Ban them." Oh and lets not forget the last round of gear regulations when the DNR and NRC (think not legislators) banned bait fishermen on more water. Appears this "banning" boogeyman, wears more than one disguise.


Not sure why you assume I was opposed to all the things I listed. I am sure why you missed the point.

The Legislature is stepping in for short term political gain. They've been encouraged to do it by the same people who supported the SFWCA, which was passed for short term political gain. The funny thing is that the event that has set them off is one that was actually done using science and going against the grain you would have predicted if you read the bios of the NRC members. Sure, you might disagree with the conclusions from the science but there are always disagreements there. What isn't the least surprising is that a decision by a small group of appointees would be seen as biased/political/unfair. In fact, it was completely predictable. I know because I did predict it. And now the Legislature, stung by their apparent powerlessness, have stepped in with a short sighted plan to save face and set the precedent for future Legislation that will do the same. And you can feel confident that future politicians will take the opportunity to pander to their constituents with some pet environmental/conservation/green/civilized legislation. The only difference will be next time the Party that controls congress may be the same one that controls the Governor's mansion and the thing will breeze through. Bad precedent and bad policy.

My argument against the SFWCA was that by putting more power in the hands of a few appointees it actually made it easier for lobbyists to get the results they wanted. I admitted at the time that that would probably be good for me, the more powerful lobbyists tend to align with many of my interests. But it's still bad policy and I opposed it on those grounds. Looking at the decisions that have come through the NRC in the last couple years, especially the ones where they have banded together to go against recommendations of the DNR, and you'll see classic signs of deal making and quid pro quo's. I've a feeling I'll be having a very good day and some of you will once again be wondering when it will stop. The only good thing about bad policy is when it's bad in your favor.


----------



## kzoofisher

ridgewalker said:


> If passed and the DNR/NRC challenged it in court, they would lose any respect that they still have which IMO is not much.


I very much doubt they would bring the suit. More likely if it is brought it's by MUCC or some other group with standing.


----------



## ridgewalker

kzoofisher said:


> I very much doubt they would bring the suit. More likely if it is brought it's by MUCC or some other group with standing.


You are most likely correct.


----------



## feedinggrounds

Sparky23 said:


> Dude. Are you kidding me lol. That is about unrespondable lol. It was on a 3/8s oz jig with a zoom chunk trailer. Not even close to a comparison


"Dude" sorry I am not too good at GR speak..


----------



## feedinggrounds

kzoofisher said:


> I very much doubt they would bring the suit. More likely if it is brought it's by MUCC or some other group with standing.


What standing MUCC has left.


----------



## motdean

kstout said:


> They implemented APR's in the disease zone because the percentage of older does with CWD, is slightly higher than in bucks tested. The APR's have been shown to increase doe kill. This accomplishes several things. Overall, it is the only way to reduce deer populations. It also reduces yearling buck dispersion. Studies have shown, if you don't want buck fawns to disperse kill their mother, and the fawns are far more likely to stay in the area they were born in. Also studies have shown that on average 20-25% of antlerless kill is button bucks. This will reduce the number of 1 1/2 year old bucks in the herd. They feel the slight increase in older age bucks is worth an overall reduction in deer numbers. As far as baiting differences between peninsulas, they banned baiting only in disease zones in the lower peninsula for several years, the same as they have done in the upper peninsula. They gave farmers, and places that sell bait a couple years to prepare, rather than just springing a bait ban on them all at once. If testing turns up more cases of CWD in the upper peninsula I'm sure the baiting ban will expand.


It is an interesting theory. However, can you show what has happened to the antlerless harvest over time in the NW12?

I think that the DNR biologists have even stated that they do not believe that the increased antlerless harvest will remain sustained. Even the Director mentioned that in one of the NRC meetings.

Can you provide a link where the DNR biologists have stated that the increase in older age bucks is worth the reduction in herd? 
The feedback that I received from the DNR stated that once CWD hits 1%, that population density is pretty much irrelevant.
Here is the direct passage: "*We also know that once CWD shifts from being a density ‘dependent’ to a density ‘independent’ disease (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% prevalence), harvest of deer becomes unimportant - CWD will persist regardless."*

Also, you stated that allowing a slight increase in older age bucks. Do you know how many bucks will be protected under the APR's. *~75%!*
So, in essence, harvesting more does will NOT limit CWD, and allowing the more bucks to reach 2 1/2 and older will allow CWD to spread.

The NRC adopted plan called for implementing an antlerless harvest number to ensure that the risk is offset. ...and the DNR came back with a ration that could allow for an actual reduction.

When APR's hit the NW12 and they remove APR's (as they did in the U.P. based on an incidence of 1), please be sure to remember to thank your DNR and NRC. I can provide contact information if needed.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Not sure why you assume I was opposed to all the things I listed. I am sure why you missed the point.
> 
> The Legislature is stepping in for short term political gain. They've been encouraged to do it by the same people who supported the SFWCA, which was passed for short term political gain. The funny thing is that the event that has set them off is one that was actually done using science and going against the grain you would have predicted if you read the bios of the NRC members. Sure, you might disagree with the conclusions from the science but there are always disagreements there. What isn't the least surprising is that a decision by a small group of appointees would be seen as biased/political/unfair. In fact, it was completely predictable. I know because I did predict it. And now the Legislature, stung by their apparent powerlessness, have stepped in with a short sighted plan to save face and set the precedent for future Legislation that will do the same. And you can feel confident that future politicians will take the opportunity to pander to their constituents with some pet environmental/conservation/green/civilized legislation. The only difference will be next time the Party that controls congress may be the same one that controls the Governor's mansion and the thing will breeze through. Bad precedent and bad policy.
> 
> My argument against the SFWCA was that by putting more power in the hands of a few appointees it actually made it easier for lobbyists to get the results they wanted. I admitted at the time that that would probably be good for me, the more powerful lobbyists tend to align with many of my interests. But it's still bad policy and I opposed it on those grounds. Looking at the decisions that have come through the NRC in the last couple years, especially the ones where they have banded together to go against recommendations of the DNR, and you'll see classic signs of deal making and quid pro quo's. I've a feeling I'll be having a very good day and some of you will once again be wondering when it will stop. The only good thing about bad policy is when it's bad in your favor.


Everything is politics. Doesn't matter if it comes from the legislative, NRC, or DNR. It's the fool that thinks one is better than the other. What most should understand, when game management goes to the vote of "we the people," emotions will rule the day. Also, to think one group, has all the answers, is a little short sided.

It's good to see people involved today, instead of just the big interest groups. Everything won't go ones way, but rubber stamping by the good ole boys club, is a little harder. If one wants to restrict others, it should be scrutinized. If as you say, the NRC makes the good ole boy club stronger, then it is good to see the legislature as a check. After all, it's politics.

Wondering? No wondering, it's why many have got more involved. I use the makeup of the cold water committee as an example. Appears the same with deer management is happening. We are told we have to make special regulations for a few fishing guides business in bum&^*# USA, well you better look at the money in baiting. You can't cry science here, ignore economics, then cry economics and ignore science there. It's why more are getting involved, as they see the inconsistency in management. You don't get this inconsistency, unless special interests are managing to manipulate some of the decisions. But we all know this is going to happen. Short term gain? Well lets just say, pick who's. NRC, DNR (administration level) or legislature. To proclaim one is guilty, and the others aren't, is also a little short sighted. With revenue declining, our resources will go to the highest bidder, it's inevitable in the end. That's reality.


----------



## kstout

motdean said:


> When APR's hit the NW12 and they remove APR's (as they did in the U.P. based on an incidence of 1), please be sure to remember to thank your DNR and NRC. I can provide contact information if needed.


The DNR removed all APR's here in the CWD zone. In fact they removed all restrictions on tags, so you could shoot antlered, or antlerless deer. Thinking antlerless kill would increase. And the buck kill increased dramatically, while the antlerless kill dropped dramatically! The antlerless kill in the NW12 increased the first year, then dropped some. But has maintained at a greater kill rate than previous to the APR, and I would expect that in the CWD zone too as the population decreases. I think the reason for the 4 point per side restriction is precisely to increase antlerless kill even further than the NW12.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

feedinggrounds said:


> What standing MUCC has left.


MUCC is fast becoming a joke in Lansing. Because of stupid stances on issues like deer baiting and others, their membership has plummeted to irrelevance and the legislature pays them little attention. They are not even the largest outdoor organization in Michigan anymore. Sadly, when a group like MUCC will be needed to fend off a real attack on hunting, fishing or trapping, they will not be relevant enough to make a difference. I look at the commercial fishing situation as a perfect example. Here we have a dozen netters wanting to push sport fishermen aside and take game fish. I think that when MUCC got involved in the fight, it actually may have been a hindrance due to their poor legislative relationships. What should be a slam-dunk for the over 1 million anglers in state is now in peril. Very sad hole MUCC has dug themselves into and it will only get worse as they do not seem to even realize the stupidity of their actions.


----------



## motdean

kstout said:


> The DNR removed all APR's here in the CWD zone. In fact they removed all restrictions on tags, so you could shoot antlered, or antlerless deer. Thinking antlerless kill would increase. And the buck kill increased dramatically, while the antlerless kill dropped dramatically! The antlerless kill in the NW12 increased the first year, then dropped some. But has maintained at a greater kill rate than previous to the APR, and I would expect that in the CWD zone too as the population decreases. I think the reason for the 4 point per side restriction is precisely to increase antlerless kill even further than the NW12.


I haven't pulled the data for all of the NW12 antlered vs. antlerless, but I did already have snapshot of the 2017 data, and the antlered harvest still outpaced the antlerless:











..and if the DNR is expecting an increase in the number of antlerless in 2019, why on earth would they have set the bar so low that it could actually allow for a 14% DECREASE and still be acceptable? Somebody is surely wanting APR's to continue.










Like I said, *WHEN* CWD hits the NW12, they can thank their brethren that pushed for this study as well as the former MUCC Executive Director, DNR, and NRC.


----------



## Jiggin Jay

https://www.wxyz.com/news/michigan-senate-changes-oks-bill-to-lift-deer-baiting-ban 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Liver and Onions

Jiggin Jay said:


> https://www.wxyz.com/news/michigan-senate-changes-oks-bill-to-lift-deer-baiting-ban


No bigger than a sugar beet. lol. At least they could have said no bigger than an apple.
I think the 5 gallon and 400' is better than the past rule. I think this would get about 95% compliance.

L & O


----------



## Paddyspub

When does this take effect?


Liver and Onions said:


> No bigger than a sugar beet. lol. At least they could have said no bigger than an apple.
> I think the 5 gallon and 400' is better than the past rule. I think this would get about 95% compliance.
> 
> L & O


does


----------



## Josh R

Paddyspub said:


> When does this take effect?
> 
> does


Hasn't even been approved yet

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## swampbuck

ridgewalker said:


> If passed and the DNR/NRC challenged it in court, they would lose any respect that they still have which IMO is not much.


I dont think they can challenge legislative law. If they did it would not end well.

Do they really want to face the music for their own actions

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck

Trophy Specialist said:


> MUCC is fast becoming a joke in Lansing. Because of stupid stances on issues like deer baiting and others, their membership has plummeted to irrelevance and the legislature pays them little attention. They are not even the largest outdoor organization in Michigan anymore. Sadly, when a group like MUCC will be needed to fend off a real attack on hunting, fishing or trapping, they will not be relevant enough to make a difference. I look at the commercial fishing situation as a perfect example. Here we have a dozen netters wanting to push sport fishermen aside and take game fish. I think that when MUCC got involved in the fight, it actually may have been a hindrance due to their poor legislative relationships. What should be a slam-dunk for the over 1 million anglers in state is now in peril. Very sad hole MUCC has dug themselves into and it will only get worse as they do not seem to even realize the stupidity of their actions.


The largest outdoor group in Michigan is now DNR Watchdog. Climb aboard everyone is welcome !

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Liver and Onions

swampbuck said:


> The largest outdoor group in Michigan is now DNR Watchdog. Climb aboard everyone is welcome !
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


This is the name of your group ? Do they have a website ?

L & O


----------



## DirtySteve

swampbuck said:


> I dont think they can challenge legislative law. If they did it would not end well.
> 
> Do they really want to face the music for their own actions
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Laws are challenged in court all the time. They are usually precedent setting cases when they do. Obamacare was challenged in court.....went all the way to supreme court. Roe vs wade overuled an anti abortion law setting the legality of abortions.


Look at all the court rulings for riparian rights in michigan.


----------

