# Bear Quotas Voted on Thursday



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree it is about money to fatten the pig.

They are doing the same thing with the bear population as they have done with the deer and turkey population. Milk it till it's dry. And when hunters quit because there's not enough wildlife to make it worthwhile they will come looking for another increase


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Bear licenses do not generate much money. It's a small market. It probably causes the MDNR more grief than its worth. The real money is fishing and deer hunting...of course we are all forced to purchase a base license. 

Although I am often critical over the management of game by the state, I do try to support the department. The DNR does require funds. 

Having stated what I feel are the facts, the deer hunting lobby is skewing the NRC in some cases. Western UP deer hunters are experiencing more bear activity in their deer baits. The decrease in deer numbers is the primary reason...although I do believe bear numbers are rising slightly the decrease in deer are allowing bait to become available for bears.

Bottom line is if bear numbers are not where they should be...then it's the obligation of the NRC to fix the problem.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

TVCJohn said:


> App - $5
> Base - $11
> Bear tag - $25
> Total - $41
> ...


I don't agree with your numbers. I think the number of applications will remain about the same. I also think the majority of people who bear hunt, have already purchased a Base tag.
So maybe $40,000 difference ?? Not much money either way.

L & O


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

The tag cut was 880 total for the entire state


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

That's 22000 dollars


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Liver and Onions said:


> I don't agree with your numbers. I think the number of applications will remain about the same. I also think the majority of people who bear hunt, have already purchased a Base tag.
> So maybe $40,000 difference ?? Not much money either way.
> 
> L & O


I also didn't include the Non-Hunter bear tags that some bear hunting party members have to buy also. That would be lost revenue and increase the total number. 

WRT to the base license, I went with the fact that anyone who gets a bear tag has to have a base license regardless of what else they hunt. We can parse it down with the assumption that everyone who draws a bear tag and base license is also going to hunt deer or small game in Michigan. However we know not every bear hunter is also going to hunt deer or small game in Michigan so the assumption would be partially incorrect.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Bearboy said:


> The tag cut was 880 total for the entire state


My math was a little off.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Was just thinking a bit ago about the WCO proposals for the upcoming Yoop deer season. If anyone wasn't aware of it, the WCO is listing various proposals to address the declining Yoop deer herd. 

Has anyone considered the possibility the declining Yoop bear population is somehow connected to the declining deer population in the Yoop? If so, what would be the common reasons for the declines in both animals? I was wondering if the bad winters could be having an affect on the bear population.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Interesting thought, John.

Based on the significant amout of time I have spent in he bear woods over the past 41 years here in the NW corner of the U.P. I blame the decline of bear numbers I have personally witnessed on management,
either on purpose, or just plain recklessness. In January 2010 the state's blc be population was estimated to be 18,000 to 19,000 six months later population estimates began declining. Rather than manage to restore bear numbers, the current action from the NRC apprears to create a new normal for the states black bear numbers....less than half the population of our neighbors in Wisconsin.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Actually almost every bear in Michigan dies as the result of a human..that's simple to fix if people quit denying the fact that we can't shoot so many. Bear are slow to reproduce.
Wolves are not eating a bunch of bears...

Deer increased as the result of several winters that were mild. So we increased the harvest. We also made it easier to kill a deer. 
1. Baiting
2. Two bucks
3. Technology like ATV's, camera's, and GPS. When I started it was a big deal to have a scope.
4. Season lasts about 4 months instead of 15 days. Bow's, Crossbow, muzzle loader, and youth hunts...

Now that all those things are part of the hunt a couple what I think are normal winters changed the survival. In the 1970's there were less deer than now in the UP.

Why is everyone so eager to justify additional harvest but reluctant to admit that sometimes we have to adjust the other way.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bearboy said:


> Actually almost every bear in Michigan dies as the result of a human..that's simple to fix if people quit denying the fact that we can't shoot so many. Bear are slow to reproduce.
> Wolves are not eating a bunch of bears...
> 
> Deer increased as the result of several winters that were mild. So we increased the harvest. We also made it easier to kill a deer.
> ...


#3 Technology....can't stress too much. Bows, crossbows, scopes on nearly every gun,, muzzleloaders & shotguns that accurate out to 200 yds.
Now the new regs in the SLP.
#5 climbers, hang-on stands, ladderstands, box blinds, elevated box blinds. Before box blinds, not many hunters could take the cold during gun season longer than 2 hours.
#6 food plots

L & O


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Bearboy said:


> Actually almost every bear in Michigan dies as the result of a human..that's simple to fix if people quit denying the fact that we can't shoot so many. Bear are slow to reproduce.
> *Wolves are not eating a bunch of bears...*
> 
> Deer increased as the result of several winters that were mild. So we increased the harvest. We also made it easier to kill a deer.
> ...


 
You just hit on something I hadn't thought of till you mentioned it above. Wolves do eat bears. The study below suggests single wolves won't go after a bear but wolf packs will. The Youtube vid shows a single wolf attacking and eating a cub. The hypothesis is if the deer population in the Yoop is declining, will the wolves start including bears in their diet? Are they getting them in the den? If you Google "wolves eating bears in den" you will get some returns. Something to think about.....

http://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/education/upload/Who eats who chart.pdf

http://www.bearstudy.org/website/images/stories/Publications/Interactions_of_Wolves_and_Bears.pdf

Here is a vid of a wolf killing and eating a cub


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

TVCJohn said:


> ......
> will the wolves start including bears in their diet? Are they getting them in the den? If you Google "wolves eating bears in den" you will get some returns.
> 
> ...........


This was mentioned a couple of weeks ago on "Ask the DNR"(PBS). Some Yoopers have been calling in to the DNR with this complaint. 

L & O


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Several week ago on Marquette channel 6 on the Discovering program there was a segment with Predator /Prey folks doing a bear den check.
The cubs were noticeably noisey in the den. It ocurred to me, if wolves were in the vicinity of the den they would hear the cubs and they'd end up being dinner.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I brought up the wolves because that is the new recent scapegoat for low bear numbers. When it comes to bear, we kill the majority. As a hound hunter I don't want any wolves around. There are lots of wolves and lots of bears north of us. I do not dispute the fact that wolves kill a few...but I would assume it's very few. 

The NRC should react to change. Only a complete idiot would assume that wolves are the reason bear numbers are low. Wolves need to be controlled. I wish eliminated from the UP. Deer increase rapidly under good conditions but bear do not. Look at all the resistance to lowering bear harvest to insure the population is secure. An increase in tags will basically only be resisted by hound hunters, low numbers mean we cannot train our dogs. Harvest is and always will be a second consideration to the hound owner.

Now no one wants to give up their crossbows, the youth hunt, late archery, and baiting when comes to deer...and bears..? We all have to pat someone on the back for killing a little bear, or a sow so we don't look like we are sour grapes. I understand completely about how hard it is to judge a bear. It's a complex harvest. So tag cuts and or controlling commercial hunting is the only real way to insure a solid bear population. The NRC should be doing something but they are not doing enough. To much political pressure. They are acting more like an arbitration board rather than a commission that is supposed to manage game using sound science. 

As a side note, the meager tag cuts did basically nothing in the BMU's that need it the most. Target harvest is the same in some cases just a shuffle of tags between hunts within the BMU's. Lots of bears are hibernating by the middle of our season and eating has slowed considerably. The NRC failed and did not follow the rules "sound biological science ".


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

How come bear numbers were never an issue when you could shoot them on your deer tag or buy an over the counter bear tag or sportsman's license which included a bear tag?


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

I'm not dog piling on wolves...so to speak, but without some studies of the deer, bear, wolf interaction WRT populations of each and in light of what I read at those links above, I would not just yet rule out wolves having an impact on the bears if the deer populations are declining and wolf populations are increasing. Figure wolves have to eat too 24/7/365....especially in the winter. If the deer population is declining, what's left? A small bear or cub hibernating would make an easy kill. 

This topic would be a good one to ask the DNR about. Have they done any winter or spring DNA analysis on wolf crap to see if bear DNA shows up? IMO either way that would be helpful scientific evidence.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Luv2hunteup said:


> How come bear numbers were never an issue when you could shoot them on your deer tag or buy an over the counter bear tag or sportsman's license which included a bear tag?



Because nobody cared to hunt them. When the DNR switched to a points or lottery system, they became a trophy animal which increased their popularity. Everyone wants what they can't have. 

So after guys were waiting 2-12 years for a tag, unfortunately a lot of hunters killed bear that probably shouldn't have been killed (producing sows and young bear). 

"I've waited this long for this tag, I'm not going home empty."


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree with you guys that we are killing the wrong bear, and they are difficult to judge. 

At a minimum, I think the DNR should include instruction's on judging in the bear guide. And instead of the no cub law, replace it with maybe a 150lb minimum. And Enforce it with severe penaltys. We have seen pictures here of bear that I am sure never reached the 2 yo. dispersal.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Luv2hunteup said:


> How come bear numbers were never an issue when you could shoot them on your deer tag or buy an over the counter bear tag or sportsman's license which included a bear tag?


As you probably already know. A lot has changed in the UP since the over the counter days. The open dumps are gone, and forest management practices have changed. Along with that, there are more wolves, and coyotes and less prey animals to feed them. We can educate hunters, and limit tags to help. But if this doesn't bring bear numbers up. We may have to get used to the idea of fewer bears.


----------



## Rolltidebama816 (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't understand the drop in tags in the Gladwin unit, I'm seeing more bears than ever and the people I talk to seem to be experiencing the same thing. I get bears on my trail cameras every week.... big bears, little bears, momma bears, baby bears....


----------



## Outdoorfan (May 14, 2012)

Where the hell is all the money going? I thought it was to improve the Michigan wildlife. Geeee the UP deep population is just about zilch, and they are talking of shutting deer hunting down in the UP for a season or two. The bear tags are being cut. The moose population sucks, the woodcock population sucks, the grouse hunting sucks, bobwhite quail population is a joke, elk heard is so, so. The salmon and steelhead is another joke. What the hell is the DNR doing right? 

How about cut out, a few dozen CO jobs, until the wildlife population starts to rebound? You know, why spend the money having them drive around and just looking at trees all day.


----------



## ma1979 (Oct 18, 2013)

Outdoorfan said:


> Where the hell is all the money going? I thought it was to improve the Michigan wildlife. Geeee the UP deep population is just about zilch, and they are talking of shutting deer hunting down in the UP for a season or two. The bear tags are being cut. The moose population sucks, the woodcock population sucks, the grouse hunting sucks, bobwhite quail population is a joke, elk heard is so, so. The salmon and steelhead is another joke. What the hell is the DNR doing right?
> 
> How about cut out, a few dozen CO jobs, until the wildlife population starts to rebound? You know, why spend the money having them drive around and just looking at trees all day.


My thoughts exactly!!!!


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Outdoorfan said:


> elk heard is so, so.



The Elk population is way, way down right now. 

They've had to cut the tags in half the last two years to adjust for the low numbers.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Outdoorfan said:


> Where the hell is all the money going? I thought it was to improve the Michigan wildlife. Geeee the UP deep population is just about zilch, and they are talking of shutting deer hunting down in the UP for a season or two. The bear tags are being cut. The moose population sucks, the woodcock population sucks, the grouse hunting sucks, bobwhite quail population is a joke, elk heard is so, so. The salmon and steelhead is another joke. What the hell is the DNR doing right?
> 
> How about cut out, a few dozen CO jobs, until the wildlife population starts to rebound? You know, why spend the money having them drive around and just looking at trees all day.



Glad somebody else notice's, probably could add to the list.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Outdoorfan said:


> Where the hell is all the money going? I thought it was to improve the Michigan wildlife. Geeee the UP deep population is just about zilch, and they are talking of shutting deer hunting down in the UP for a season or two. The bear tags are being cut. The moose population sucks, the woodcock population sucks, the grouse hunting sucks, bobwhite quail population is a joke, elk heard is so, so. The salmon and steelhead is another joke. What the hell is the DNR doing right?
> 
> How about cut out, a few dozen CO jobs, until the wildlife population starts to rebound? You know, why spend the money having them drive around and just looking at trees all day.


Outdoorfan, a lot is not going well right now. But I don't think suggesting that we cut Conservation Officer jobs is very helpful.


----------



## Outdoorfan (May 14, 2012)

Nostromo said:


> Outdoorfan, a lot is not going well right now. But I don't think suggesting that we cut Conservation Officer jobs is very helpful.


How about add 100 more, with $75,000 new trucks loaded up, training, firearms, fuel, truck mataince, and $50,000+ salaries with full benefits???

Less hunters than ever, but more CO's. Ya that's the answer. Hell just add the other 100 to drive around and look at trees all day. 

If things keep up their real cushy jobs will end and they'll be in the unemployment line. 
The state and is cutting jobs in a lot of other aeras.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

The blame lands squarely on the NRC. The board clearly lacks the knowledge to manage. When populations expand they increase harvest, when the opposite happens nothing is done. Increasing harvests and seasons gets little resistance from sportsmen. In fact lots of people are all for the "new ways to harvest more". Little thought is given by most on the overall effect on our sport. 

The NRC did approve some cuts in bear tags...really mainly a shuffle of tags keeping the target harvest nearly the same. Clearly they are not listening to their own experts. Ignoring solid scientific data, specifically the tetracycline data, and accepting a new model that is a fantasy at best.

The deer season in the UP will remain the same. Harsh winters or the lack of them make wild population swings in certain areas. I can certainly agree that there are times that deer numbers should be reduced in the UP. I live here. Any increase in harvest or new season has become permanent, no fluctuations, no review, and never any adjustment. Clearly this is not sound scientific game management.


----------

