# 2012 Quotas?



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Anybody have an educated idea on the Quota Numbers for 2012? I know they are going to change this year, wondering how the new Management plan will affect this...just wondering.


----------



## GrizzlyHunter (Jun 17, 2005)

Aren't the meetings to determine quotas held in April?

GH


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

I believe the meeting is to be held in February, was just wondering if anyone had some information or thoughts on how the Management plan will impact the quotas. I sure hope the NCR & MDNR can come up with a plan to rebuild the declining bear population and eradicate the "commercialism" bear hunting has succumbed to in our State.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

After attending the last bear management meeting and listening to all who spoke, my prediction is this. Unfortunately the entire U.P. will only see a slight decrease in tags, maybe 5 to 10 percent at the most. Gladwin will stay about the same, Baldwin will see a slight increase and Red Oak will be the only unit that tags might, maybe, perhaps see a significant decrease. Time will tell.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Thanks Musket.

Maybe "common sense" will prevail and a serious look at the dwindling population will be considered. Until then, guess we need to keep working on "the right people" to get things going.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

The DNR is unyielding in their stance that there even is a declining bear population. They state that not only has the population stabilized but in fact it is slightly increasing in many parts of the U.P. plus the Baldwin Unit with Gladwin holding it's own. They reluctantly admitted that an unintentional over harvest has occurred in the Red Oak Unit for the last two seasons. From what I gathered the DNR will be recommending to the NRC a call for anywhere from 0 to around a 30 percent drop in tags across the board for all three seasons in the U.P. for all units. From 0 up to 53 percent in Red Oak. 0 for Gladwin and an increase of 20 more tags for the Baldwin Unit. So besides Red Oak the DNR has no biological reason to call for a drop in tags only a social one for the other units as they feel there is not a declining population in those units. That's just not gonna fly with the NRC. There is way to much money at stake for the NRC to drop tags that far based on the social fact alone that some want to see more bears.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Red Oak is too big of an area, if it was split up maybe they would get better idea what is going on.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

If they (DNR) honestley believe that, then I would think the chance of a decrease in the 2012 quota would be doomed. Musket, do you know what they claim the estimated population to be?

Also, GrizzlyHunter was right - the allocation meeting is held in April, my mistake.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Musket said:


> After attending the last bear management meeting and listening to all who spoke, my prediction is this. Unfortunately the entire U.P. will only see a slight decrease in tags, maybe 5 to 10 percent at the most. Gladwin will stay about the same, Baldwin will see a slight increase and Red Oak will be the only unit that tags might, maybe, perhaps see a significant decrease. Time will tell.


I hunted Baldwin. After the season ended last year, I sent an email off to the DNR recommending they increase the Baldwin tags. My email was based on what I saw as a first time Baldwin hunter. Maybe those emails and letters do work??


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

I hunted the zone in Red Oak they have been keeping tabs on for a few years now. They have enough data to regulate the number of tags in that area and not hurt the hunters outside of the control area.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

irishmanusa
The DNR really has no true way of knowing how many bears are in a given unit. Not laying blame on them, they just do not have a definitive method for giving a true count that would hold any validity. 
TVCJohn
I do not know if your letter made a difference or not but I will tell you this and perhaps you will be able to come to your own conclusion. A show of hands was asked by a member of the Bear Management Team who was sitting at the round table. The show of hands count was for how many people wanted to see the number of tags cut. He wanted to know how many people in the room he would be representing at the NRC meeting. The mediator from the DNR would not allow it as he felt the people in the room were not a proper representation of Michigan Bear Hunters. Highly offensive to say the least. I am still not sure what he feels a proper representation would be. Who knows maybe he enjoyed your letter.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

TVCJohn said:


> I hunted Baldwin. After the season ended last year, I sent an email off to the DNR recommending they increase the Baldwin tags. My email was based on what I saw as a first time Baldwin hunter. Maybe those emails and letters do work??


*TVCJohn -* 
I think if more of us would communicate our views and ideas as you did, it would have an impact.

*Musket -* 
I understand that their is no accurate means to establish a population number, but they have settled on an unrealistic, estimated number don't you think? Each BMU should be evaluated by the Wildlife Biologists AND feedback from the hunters out in the field. Thanks for all the information too!


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

It has become apparent that the DNR has insulated itself very well from the outcome of what the NRC will decide. They are simply throwing the NRC under the bus on this issue and will be standing there in June with heads bowed, eyes raised saying well fellows we tried are best. I am not attacking the DNR. I do feel that they do the best they can with the funds and available resources provided. I do not feel that they are operating with a hidden agenda on this issue. It is hard to make all parties happy. As a matter of fact, just maybe the DNR was right when they claimed that the makeup of the group was not a proper representation of Michigan Bear Hunters no matter how offending I or anyone else found the statement to be. Perhaps it is time not only the DNR but also and if not more importantly the NRC to know how Michigan Bear Hunters feel. The bird is in the hands of everyone who may be reading this. The point of contact at the present date is with the NRC, that is where you will need to voice your opinion. let them know if you would like to see more tags, less tags and why.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Musket, here's the list of organizations making up the original Bear Consultation Team that was/ is represented. Several representatives no longer attend, but none the less this is the list of what now is called the Bear Users Group:

DNR Law Div.

DNR Wildlife Div.

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippawa in Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission

Michigan Bear Hunters Association

Michigan Bee Keepers Association

Michigan Bowhunters Association

Michigan Longbow Association

Michigan Sheriff's Association

Michigan State Iniversity Extension

Michigan United Coonhunters Association

MUCC

Turtle Lake Club

Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsman's Association

U.S. Forest Service

The Wildlife Society

Michigan Hunting Dog Federation

Seems to me, MDNR's meeting facilitator did the group a disservice trying to claim they were a "special interest group."


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

After attending the last two meetings, I don't even have to ask why so many no longer attend. What a shame that such a wonder group of organizations would come to gather and try to work with one another only to see what the results have come too.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I was also at the meeting... And several before. The only specific numbers were concerning the Red Oak. The facilitator( ha ha ha) stated that's the only way to stabilize the the population in one year was to cut the tags 53%! Of course, that course of action is not going to be presented to the NRC... After all that would admit failure. Every cut that will be proposed to the NRC will further reduce the Red Oak bear numbers for more than one year! The population is already to low...but of course face saving falls under "sound science". The wildlife division wants to increase the bear population along with saving their pride...come on man! Do the right thing, you made a mistake fix it !

The UP discussion was all double talk... So why regurgitate any of that! It was all nonsense. 

Pretty soon all the BMU's will have 100% success like Drummond. 

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

In Bearboy's post he mentioned MDNR stated (at the recent Bear Users Group meeting) they would need to cut harvest tags in Red Oak by 53%
for the 2012 bear season and even then it would take a couple of years before the decline in bear numbers would begin to build again. For folks who may not understand the situation...bears do not reproduce like white tail deer. In the NLP sow bears do not reproduce until they are at least 2 1/2 years of age. Currently, with a reduced number of breeding age sows, due to over harvest...the sub adult population of sows needs to reach breeding age before they can contribute to the Red Oak population. 

As Bearboy noted, MDNR is not recommending a 53% cut in tags for Red Oak 2012. Instead, they merely mention several options spreading out cuts over several years. Sort of like the way politicians in Washington are dealing with cutting the federal budget.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

If we don't voice our concerns to "the right people", nothing will change and the State of Michigan Bear Population will fade into 
oblivion. Everybody that honestly cares, needs to email, call, mail letters any means possible to let them know how we feel. 

*Bearboy, Rooster, Musket:* How about a list of contacts that can be posted, so we can contact "the right people"? If we do nothing, nothing changes...except our natural resources (bears).


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-39002_11862-26986--,00.html

Irishmanusa, got the above link from MDNR's website. It is contact information for NRC commissioners. The ball is in their court.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-39002_11862-26986--,00.html
> 
> Irishmanusa, got the above link from MDNR's website. It is contact information for NRC commissioners. The ball is in their court.


 
Perfect Rooster! Thanks to all you guys for the input and especially all your own time you put in caring and trying to make some much needed changes. I'm sending my views off ASAP!


----------

