# CWAC Meeting



## Shoveler (Mar 17, 2001)

What happened?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

wondered how long it would take for someone to post on it. site being awefully quiet 1 day after a meeting that all the posts usually center around.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

Frankly, I thought it was the worst meeting I've ever run. It ran over and we had to cut short several of Barb Avers presentations. I was not prepared for some of the recommendations they (DNR) asked for. 

We discussed spinning wing decoys extensively. We were able to pass a recommendation continuing the SWD ban at SRSGA. Motions failed for Nayanquing and Harsens. My belief is that the arguments from those areas were not strong enough for the motions to be passed. All the committee had to go on was user groups with relatively weak votes in support of a ban. I will point out that when SRSGA presented their arguments 3 years ago they had a gallery full of people who ALSO MADE ARGUMENTS. Not one person was present to represent those user groups yesterday. If the areas REALLY WANTED A BAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT to push their agenda!! It really does help. We need more input from user groups to recommend bans. We should see more on this topic at the fall meeting so if a ban is what these areas really want, contact your representatives and DNR personel to voice your concerns.

License revisions were discussed also. We made a recommendation in support of a $12 waterfowl "stamp" to replace the managed area user pass and recommend it be required of all waterfowlers. Basically this would increase waterfowling licenses by $2 to everyone and would increase total revenue significantly. Within the new license package promoted by the Governor and the Wildlife Division I'd say it is a great step forward. The base license in the proposal is $10 (required of ALL Michigan hunters). Add to that our recommendation of a $12 waterfowl "stamp" and the Federal stamp and you can hunt ducks and geese. 

We also recommended that we support a 3 year regulation cycle concerning opening dates. We did NOT set those dates at this meeting and will do so at the summer meeting. Get on the horn to your reps concerning those dates. I'd say the most likely direction would be the last Saturday of September in Zone 1 and the next 2 zones following in step on consecutive weekends. This was in response to the NRC wanting more consistency to opening dates.

We also voted on and passed Early Goose (no changes from last year), Youth Waterfowl Season (Sept. 14-15) and the UP regular goose (open on Sept. 11 if the Federal framework remains similar to last year).

Looks like we MAY have an experimental teal season as early as 2014. DNR needs to put together a plan for the gathering of data and how they would do that during an experimental season. Would likely run as early in the season as possible (start Sept. 1), would be shorter than the maximum allowed under the Federal Framework (likely less than 9 days) and would NOT count against our regular duck days. Keep your fingers crossed.

CWAC itself was discussed also. Basically a very organized format has been written out detailing the appointment of representatives, the adjustment of the organization reps, the focus and purpose of the committee and protocal was defined. A map will be added to the DNR website to clarify the "at-large" representatives areas. All good IMO.

Finally, Erv Deweerd brought up the proposal to ban hunting on Laka Macatawa. Jeff Godi just happened to have printed and brought a comment form. Erv made a motion that CWAC write up a quick recommendation to KEEP HUNTING ON LAKE MACATAWA which passed unanimously. We then each signed the comment form and tomorrow I will send it along to the appropriate DNR email. Just doing our part. 

BTW, I did make an announcement that the fall meeting will be my last meeting sitting on CWAC. My son was in a hockey tournament over the weekend and I missed 2 of his games-never again. He got a game puck in the second game and I simply can't ever see why (heard it was "sweet":sad. I truly love waterfowl and will continue to help out our Waterfowl USA chapter but some things simply need to change.

So there you have it, right from the horses mouth. Oh, they took third in the tourney and I DID get to see the boy score today in a 3-1 win.


----------



## sswhitelightning (Dec 14, 2004)

Thxs lobrass, I commend you for doing what many of us only flap our gums about. I'm sure it's not easy and time consuming. Same goes for a few other regulars on here. You know who u are. Thank you.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> Frankly, I thought it was the worst meeting I've ever run. It ran over and we had to cut short several of Barb Avers presentations. I was not prepared for some of the recommendations they (DNR) asked for...


As you know, I was in the peanut gallery Saturday. Don't beat yourself up John. I have to admit, I did notice that your head did not appear to be in it on Saturday, because you have normally run a very tight and efficient meeting, and this one got away from you a few times. But you did fine, and I can understand that your heart wasn't really in it what with your son having the tourney. Despite all of that, you deserve a lot of credit for the hard work you've done for all of us heading up CWAC. I don't blame you a bit for stepping down.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> ...We discussed spinning wing decoys extensively. We were able to pass a recommendation continuing the SWD ban at SRSGA. Motions failed for Nayanquing and Harsens. My belief is that the arguments from those areas were not strong enough for the motions to be passed. All the committee had to go on was user groups with relatively weak votes in support of a ban....


I was in the audience mainly for the SRSGA SWD ban discussion, but also got involved in this one. To those of you on this site who are active with the associations at Nayanquing Pt. & Harsens Island, rest assured that your reps did present your proposals and did push for support for them. But LoBrass is right...there just wasn't enough compelling data for the CWAC to support either proposal. IMO here's where they both fell short...all you had to go on was a simple vote at your respective meetings. The Nayanquing vote was strongly in favor of a ban. The Harsens vote was a little less strong...I think about 2/3rds in favor. But as I pointed out to the group on Saturday, when we first proposed our ban for SRSGA 3 years ago, we had done several weeks of "homework" soliciting thoughts from the other waterfowl associations and groups, various hunters around the state, and website followers such as you here. We had also done a couple very unscientific surveys on sites like this to get a rough feel for the level of support. We had also had lots of discussion with DNR staff on how best to approach this. As I pointed out to the group Saturday, even though we honestly tried to get as much input as we could BEFORE even going to CWAC with our proposal, we got a lot of criticism after the fact for not reaching out to enough people because many were still in the dark about our proposal. I told them all that as kind of a "lessons learned" deal, and I cautioned them that even we didn't have nearly enough input 3 years ago, and in hindsight we could've done better. So being that all the CWAC had to go on Saturday were a vote at each of the association meetings, they really had no choice but to not support the proposals. 

Now having said all of that, when Paul Conners from Harsens asked if the issue had any chance of making it through by this fall, Barb Avers said "sure it does, but you have to do a lot of work, and do it fast". What she meant was the DNR won't do the work for you, just like they wouldn't for us 3 years ago. Both groups need a leader(s) to get busy NOW getting as much input as possible, from everyone you can think of, and putting it all together in a logical proposal for the DNR. There is still time for the DNR to put this in front of the NRC for this fall, but it's got to happen fast. 

I offered to Barb that I would be glad to share our experiences and process with either/both organization, but I'm not going to do the work for you. So if anyone has questions, feel free to PM me.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

Thanks for the updates.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I should have added that many of the CWAC members said they would love to support both of the proposals, but they just didn't feel there was enough input yet to make that leap. I think if each group had done a bit more legwork to gather input, both good and bad, then I think both proposals would've passed. If my memory serves me, the votes were not all that far away from passing as it was. 

So c'mon guys, if it really is the wish of your respective associations, then get after it. You're soooooo close on this


----------



## rentalrider (Aug 8, 2011)

Thanks for the updates and congrats to your son!


----------



## Quackaddicted (Mar 13, 2011)

Hey John, don't beat yourself up. There was more asked of us than the agenda indicated and the SWD portion was sticky. But this is also an issue that has an impact on a lot of hunters so it should not be taken lightly. As far as the SWD ban goes at other areas, I to believe that they didn't present convincing enough cases. Dan Dykstra put a TREMENDOUS amount of time along with many other SFCHA members to get this passed in the first place. We didn't just ask & say please and get it. It included Dan going to the NRC meeting to speak. And guys, understand SFCHA had 4 members present besides myself. The DNR does notice these things. If you have enough members show up in support it make everyone listen.
And as a past chair of CWAC myself I can say it's not a lot of fun. Amazing how critical folks can be if they don't like a decision, even if it benifits the majority of waterfowl hunters! Thanks for doing a great job overall, IMHO.


----------



## Brougham (Jan 29, 2010)

The Nayanquing Pt group did not approach the DNR about banning SWD's. Barb Avers asked them for their vote at the groups Jan. MDHA Sag Bay Chapt meeting at that site. A larger than normal turnout voted 18 to ban, 8 no ban, 6 did not care. Their big question was could they try it (the ban) for a year. DNR seemed to think three years would be a time frame most likely used for study/survey purposes. I agree with John on the fact we spent a ton of time on that issue, and less time on $$$ issues that would have a greater impact on our sport.

And thanks for all the hard work John. Your's is a tough seat to sit in for sure!

Jeff


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Brougham said:


> The Nayanquing Pt group did not approach the DNR about banning SWD's. Barb Avers asked them for their vote at the groups Jan. MDHA Sag Bay Chapt meeting at that site. A larger than normal turnout voted 18 to ban, 8 no ban, 6 did not care. Their big question was could they try it (the ban) for a year. DNR seemed to think three years would be a time frame most likely used for study/survey purposes. I agree with John on the fact we spent a ton of time on that issue, and less time on $$$ issues that would have a greater impact on our sport.
> 
> And thanks for all the hard work John. Your's is a tough seat to sit in for sure!
> 
> Jeff


Jeff,

I've already talked with Ed and Marsha, and for some crazy reason  I volunteered to help them push forward. As they say, it ain't over until the fat lady sings, and trust me...this ain't over. If the group there truly wants this, and they're willing to do the hard work, I'm willing to help. So the bloodhounds are on the trail, and the chase has started  Stay tuned sports fans


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

Being that the summer meeting is being held in Bay City this August 3rd they should be able to send a good number of folks to the meeting.

If that were to occur I would think the committee would recommend a SWD ban at Nayanquing.

Another issue which Russ Mason was quite adamant about was the use of the "Vortex" style multiple spinners. The issue he has with them is that the resource is damaged with their use due to the cutting or otherwise permanent destruction of the corn strips to facilitate their operation.

While we did attempt to move to ban them from the managed areas we could not identify wording to accurately describe the models other than the "Vortex" in a blanket description.

We will likely make another attempt to ban their use on the areas if we can come up with proper terms.

Tickets have already been issued as a result of their use. Evidently at Harsens a CO issued fines for the cutting of corn to allow their operation. Apparently, the other issue is that they are very heavy (100 lbs was said) and most hunters drive their boats through the corn to assist in their deployment. This activity also destroys the standing cover.

The committee is likely to ban their operation if they are contributing damage to the resource.

Just thought I'd add a few extra points of interest.


----------



## rentalrider (Aug 8, 2011)

LoBrass said:


> While we did attempt to move to ban them from the managed areas we could not identify wording to accurately describe the models other than the "Vortex" in a blanket description.


Conglomerate motion decoy systems? Multi-unit motion decoy systems? Just thinking aloud here...

Personally I'd go with "silly looking, city-fied waterfowl flaring systems" but that's just me


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

rentalrider said:


> Multi-unit motion decoy systems
> 
> Personally I'd go with "silly looking, city-fied waterfowl flaring systems" but that's just me


I like "multi-unit decoy systems" and I agree with the "silly looking, city-fied" assessment.

Used to be in the regs that "mechanical decoys" were illegal. What the heck happened to that?

IMO, they detract from the art of calling and decoying waterfowl with calls and decoys. Call me a purist, elitist or any other moniker you would care to call me but the things detract from our sport.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

CWAC itself was discussed also. Basically a very organized format has been written out detailing the appointment of representatives, the adjustment of the organization reps, the focus and purpose of the committee and protocal was defined. A map will be added to the DNR website to clarify the "at-large" representatives areas. All good IMO.

Thank you for this...Also, were all CWAC reps present? If not, could you please indicate who wasn't.

Also, sorry you had to miss your sons game, any good father would feel the same way.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

SBE II said:


> Thank you for this...Also, were all CWAC reps present? If not, could you please indicate who wasn't.
> 
> Also, sorry you had to miss your sons game, any good father would feel the same way.


I probably shouldn't have mentioned the situation with my boy. Just had to vent I guess.

As far as the reps present, Only Scott Berg and Brandon Yuchasz were NOT present. Scott had a proxy present and his name was Phil Bernardi. Phil did a great job. He presented Scotts comments about our past season and contributed to all discussions. Brandon gave me his comments on the season for his area of the UP but was unable to attend due to a family commitment. He promised me that this would be the only meeting he ever misses. I know Brandon personally and have a strong feeling that he will not miss another.

So, all in all I would say EXCELLENT participation.


----------



## decoy706 (Jul 28, 2006)

When was Brandon appointed and who did he replace ????


----------



## PhilBernardi (Sep 6, 2010)

LoBrass said:


> I probably shouldn't have mentioned the situation with my boy. Just had to vent I guess.
> 
> As far as the reps present, Only Scott Berg and Brandon Yuchasz were NOT present. Scott had a proxy present and his name was Phil Bernardi. Phil is a former CWAC rep and did a great job. He presented Scotts comments about our past season and contributed to all discussions. Brandon gave me his comments on the season for his area of the UP but was unable to attend due to a family commitment. He promised me that this would be the only meeting he ever misses. I know Brandon personally and have a strong feeling that he will not miss another.
> 
> So, all in all I would say EXCELLENT participation.


Not quite right but pretty close.... 

I have never been a CWAC member, and I have no current desire to be a CWAC member.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

PhilBernardi said:


> Not quite right but pretty close....
> 
> I have never been a CWAC member, and I have no current desire to be a CWAC member.


Thought you were Phil. My bad and I fixed my post. You did a great job, thanks.

You'd be an asset.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> ...How much more would it cost to print the information on the annual survey? Information like-Reps names, scheduled meeting dates and places, and the definition of the CWAC...


dunno...you'd have to ask the DNR. I didn't think it would cost all that much for them to survey a few hundred Shiawassee hunters over three years due to the SWD ban, but apparently it did. Their words...not mine.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> So point out where i ripped on you. Indiana comment was after u got pissy, all i asked was a question to you. Face it, why dont you put your money where your HUGE mouth is and volunteer to rep Indiana....i mean sw michigan.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


This reminds me of you...:lol:


----------



## decoy706 (Jul 28, 2006)

Don said one of his goals was to make all that much clearer by providing updated lists of CWAC members on their website, including a nice map indicating the exact county each person represents (they distributed this Saturday, and I agree it would help a lot). 
Somebody scan this and post it !

Guess my maps has started the ball rolling getting the reps locations LOL !


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

I am willing to bet a HUGE majority of waterfowlers have no idea what the cwac is. I have duck hunted since I was 8 years old ( in Ohio) and 12 in Michigan. I am 28 now and 2 years ago is when I first heard about the CWAC...on this site. All they need to do is put it on the DNR website and hit up the social media world. Word will get around much better then it currently does. You will never get everyone but improvements can easily be made.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

SBE II said:


> This reminds me of you...:lol:
> 
> 
> The Other Guys - Big Boy Pants - YouTube


That is one funny frickin movie right there.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

craigrh13 said:


> I am willing to bet a HUGE majority of waterfowlers have no idea what the cwac is. I have duck hunted since I was 8 years old ( in Ohio) and 12 in Michigan. I am 28 now and 2 years ago is when I first heard about the CWAC...on this site. All they need to do is put it on the DNR website and hit up the social media world. Word will get around much better then it currently does. You will never get everyone but improvements can easily be made.


BINGO...The posse doesn't want you to know...

Side note...Movie is funny..


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

just ducky said:


> but it appears that the DNR will be making CWAC members much more accountable, and require strong involvement.


These are good things. However, if this is the case, the DNR needs to let CWAC propose what they feel the citizens really want- not just use them as a rubber stamp for DNR originated ideas!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> BINGO...The posse doesn't want you to know...
> 
> Side note...Movie is funny..


I disagree completely. While you may have this perception that there are secrets being kept, and while I may agree that communication could have been better, like better utilization of the website, the information has always been available...just a phone call away. Former and present CWAC coordinators have always been willing to share the information. But once again, the DNR is not going to spoon-feed people. If you aren't actively involved in these matters, and trying to be kept in the loop, you will be left behind. 

an analogy...how many of us have had our local school districts propose millage increases, and they follow ONLY what is required by law as far as public postings. I know in my district, the notices will be posted around the school district buildings, and in the local shopper paper, but if you don't regularly visit the school buildings, and you don't read the local rag newspaper, you won't know about it. They don't come knocking on my doors, nor do they call me personally. So if you aren't actively following the school district happenings, you will certainly be left in the dust.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

just ducky said:


> I disagree completely. *While you may have this perception that there are secrets being kept, and while I may agree that communication could have been better, like better utilization of the website, the information has always been available...just a phone call away.* Former and present CWAC coordinators have always been willing to share the information. *But once again, the DNR is not going to spoon-feed people. If you aren't actively involved in these matters, and trying to be kept in the loop, you will be left behind.*


Bolded statements seem to contradict one another IMO, and if CWAC was readily available, then why was it the first point of discussion? :help:


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

OK, if you guys are done with the accusations and spatting other information needs to be made available.

PLEASE, contact your Senators and Representatives to ask them to endorse the proposed license package currently being debated in the legislature.

This package will not only simplify the license system (going from over 200 license options to 31) it will increase revenue for the Department of Natural Resources. The fee increases are more than reasonable and will provide a needed boost to the coffers of the DNR. Additionally the package will put more CO's into positions left vacant by the dozens of cuts they have had to endure over the years.

This morning I contacted both of my reps through e-mail. Senator Randy Richardville and Representative Dale Zorn got e-mails this morning asking them to endorse the new license package. OUR voices need to be heard to get this package pushed through.

Take a few moments and get the e-mails sent. If we would just take a few minutes and write these e-mails the outcome will likely be favorable for this package. 

Thanks.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

LoBrass said:


> OK, if you guys are done with the accusations and spatting other information needs to be made available.
> 
> PLEASE, contact your Senators and Representatives to ask them to endorse the proposed license package currently being debated in the legislature.
> 
> ...


Great idea...


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

lang49 said:


> These are good things. However, if this is the case, the DNR needs to let CWAC propose what they feel the citizens really want- not just use them as a rubber stamp for DNR originated ideas!


I have sat on CWAC since 2006 and have never gotten the feeling that we were a "rubber stamp".

Which meeting were you at that you felt that was the case?

They ask for our recommendations quite often, yes. But they are simply trying to get answers to topics they are required to act upon.

The Citizens Waterfowl Advisory Committee is a pretty well oiled machine which has provided positive input to our Department of Natural Resources and has become a template for other advisory committees. To imply that this committee is anything other than an excellent example of what a committee can be is unfair and certainly unfounded.

The breakdown of the last meeting which I provided should indicate that we covered a ton of ground. I shared it on this forum because someone asked. That's not my job but I did it to be as transparent as possible.

You should come to a meeting some time.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

LoBrass said:


> I have sat on CWAC since 2006 and have never gotten the feeling that we were a "rubber stamp".
> 
> Which meeting were you at that you felt that was the case?
> 
> ...


LoBrass, do you feel that all CWAC carry your same determination in positive representation? If so, why was a better appointing process discussed? From what I have seen reps like you actively seek suggestions but others may sit behind close doors, turn to deaf ear, and give personal feedback. Thanks again for your feedback.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

SBE II said:


> LoBrass, do you feel that all CWAC carry your same determination in positive representation? If so, why was a better appointing process discussed? From what I have seen reps like you actively seek suggestions but others may sit behind close doors, turn to deaf ear, and give personal feedback. Thanks again for your feedback.


I think the main reason for the updates to appointing reps is because in many cases the DNR has NO applications for consideration!! The changes are to get the message out there that this committee exists and they want people to apply and be considered.

IMO, there are reps that do not put in adequate time or effort. This is my opinion. I have seen it before and frankly, it was worse in years past. Since I have become chair I made it a point to actively engage the members and prod them to make contact with their constituants. I can't _make _them engage their people but I think it has helped to a degree.

IMO, some members have personal agendas. This is my opinion. When someone states at a meeting that they contacted "thousands", I feel like shouting B***S*** at the top of my lungs!! As chairman, I will usually get 1-5 contacts prior to a meeting. Most contact ALL the reps when they contact me. The actual contacts initiated by the public is virtually nil. Why do you think I come here? I WANT to hear from you guys. As the chairman, I am supposed to be unbiased to a degree and therefore I WANT to hear from others.

Any way for the DNR to initiate more contact and make this committee a more known and utilized operation is a positive. I will carry that message for as long as I'm chairman and I sit on that committee. Just the way I do business.

BTW, every committee I have ever sat on has their share of members with personal agendas. Just the way it is. The value of the committee is enhanced by the size (drowns out the bad apples) and the by-laws. In the case of CWAC, the fact that only motions with 75% acceptance are passed means that the motion better have serious acceptance. I would NEVER want to see that changed.

Hope this isn't taken as a negative-it is my honest opinion. I never paint a rosy picture if it isn't rosy. On the way home I saw a flock of geese and quickly said to John McNamara (whom drove-thanks) "about a dozen". He stated "16-you were off". I don't like to inflate numbers. Just sayin'.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

LoBrass said:


> I think the main reason for the updates to appointing reps is because in many cases the DNR has NO applications for consideration!! The changes are to get the message out there that this committee exists and they want people to apply and be considered.
> 
> IMO, there are reps that do not put in adequate time or effort. This is my opinion. I have seen it before and frankly, it was worse in years past. Since I have become chair I made it a point to actively engage the members and prod them to make contact with their constituants. I can't _make _them engage their people but I think it has helped to a degree.
> 
> ...


Nope, but for once it's nice to hear an honest statement, and not a political statement. I would concur some out there just like having the title to prove that they feel their something. When in reality the committee needs more folks like yourself and that should come through a more stringent application process but also with this should come more awareness. It wasn't nice to see in the last minutes of the meetings one of the reps said, "Didn't hunt" Who cares that you didn't hunt, thats not the point, you represent others that do..I'm glad to hear these things were being discussed.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

LoBrass said:


> I think the main reason for the updates to appointing reps is because in many cases the DNR has NO applications for consideration!! The changes are to get the message out there that this committee exists and they want people to apply and be considered.
> 
> IMO, there are reps that do not put in adequate time or effort. This is my opinion. I have seen it before and frankly, it was worse in years past. Since I have become chair I made it a point to actively engage the members and prod them to make contact with their constituants. I can't _make _them engage their people but I think it has helped to a degree.
> 
> ...



Perhaps reps are not contacted very often because the GENERAL PUBLIC just really knows nothing about CWAC? This place is not the majority for sure. Like I said I think it would be a great investment to try and get the word out about the CWAC and a better way of letting people know who their reps are. Is there a rep for each county or is it zoned or what? I hunt Jackson and Calhoun county mostly with a few hunts in Washtenaw ( west Washtenaw county) so who would my reps be or where do I even find this info?


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

craigrh13 said:


> Perhaps reps are not contacted very often because the GENERAL PUBLIC just really knows nothing about CWAC? This place is not the majority for sure. Like I said I think it would be a great investment to try and get the word out about the CWAC and a better way of letting people know who their reps are. Is there a rep for each county or is it zoned or what? I hunt Jackson and Calhoun county mostly with a few hunts in Washtenaw ( west Washtenaw county) so who would my reps be or where do I even find this info?


You will be able to see the map on the DNR website soon. Your rep would likely be John McNamara for south central Michigan. I don't have the map in front of me though.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Awesome, thank you.


----------



## rentalrider (Aug 8, 2011)

I'll take heat for this but not worried about it. I don't feel it's transparent. The system is complicated. I think (assume actually) many on the committee work very, very hard. And I commend you for that. Unfortunately some don't, and simply aren't good spokespeople for the "cause". Also, is it possible that any members here could have a signature or better yet symbol that says they are CWAC members? Maybe a sticky kept up to date? IDK, just brainstorming.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

couple things. keep in mind they are un-paid members.

not picking you out directly rental, just before anyone posts critiques of the process or people who volunteer for it, make sure your not standing in the glass house throwing stones. its a thankless job and involves a lot of time.

Before anyone posts a critique, Ask yourself this question. If your informed, do you do everything possible to go out and get information from your area to pass on to your rep. Is your rep not taking your calls or acknowledging your contact? did you even make effort to contact a rep. If you didn't know about the CWAC process til now, is it really someone else's fault?


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

LoBrass said:


> Which meeting were you at that you felt that was the case?
> 
> They ask for our recommendations quite often, yes. But they are simply trying to get answers to topics they are required to act upon.


The lack of any discussion on a Zone 2 split is the direct result of DNR statements in the past. The unwritten requirement for 3 zone openers is another.

I'm not here today to argue for or against a specific season date, split, etc. Other than possibly management goals, I simply feel that the DNR should not have an opinion one way or another provided that CWAC is operating within federal framework and giving waterfowlers what they want.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

BangBangBang said:


> Can they make it more like $15?? 12 is great but I wouldn't mind doin 15 either, especially if it helps fund more stuff.


Im really happy with the new license package, one of the better pieces to come outa the dnr IMO. Try not to fixate on the 12$, its a weighted price, as in the big licenses carry the weight in the big picture (deer for example)

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BangBangBang said:


> Can they make it more like $15?? 12 is great but I wouldn't mind doin 15 either, especially if it helps fund more stuff.


Also lots of very candid discussion Saturday about why only $12. Bottom line is several of our legislators have told DNR brass that they are scared to death of people voting them out right now if they show support for anything perceived as a "tax increase" which license fee increases often are. Combine that with the crap the Governor has drummed up regarding upping our auto registrations and gas taxes to pay for road repairs, and you have a really delicate political dance right now. Since $12 will get us MORE money than we get right now, it was felt that we shouldn't push our luck too much. All this came right from the top on Saturday...again, very open and candid discussion. Should've been there :evilsmile (I say that to everyone)


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

lang49 said:


> The lack of any discussion on a Zone 2 split is the direct result of DNR statements in the past. The unwritten requirement for 3 zone openers is another.
> 
> I'm not here today to argue for or against a specific season date, split, etc. Other than possibly management goals, I simply feel that the DNR should not have an opinion one way or another provided that CWAC is operating within federal framework and giving waterfowlers what they want.


Regarding DNR opinion I disagree. The DNR works for the citizens of the state. They have an obligation to provide the very best season structure for ALL the citizens, hardcore guys and weekend warriors. CWAC is simply a vehicle to get some of the best informed individuals together to formulate the best possible recommendations. 

The DNR needs to have an opinion based around the facts. And, BTW, they do.

As far as the Zone 2 split, I do not know what you refer to nor do I for the "unwritten" thing on Zone 3.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

just ducky said:


> All this came right from the top on Saturday...again, *very open and candid discussion*. Should've been there :evilsmile (I say that to everyone)


Surprised just how open.

I like the guy:coolgleam.

Is it September yet?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

LoBrass said:


> Surprised just how open.
> 
> I like the guy:coolgleam.
> 
> Is it September yet?


especially loved the comment about those who "live in a single-wide in Arkansas"  We about fell off our chairs when he said that :yikes:


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

BangBangBang said:


> Can they make it more like $15?? 12 is great but I wouldn't mind doin 15 either, especially if it helps fund more stuff.


Don't critique, you don't want me to...All of what we (Belly and I) do in critiquing and criticizing I think has seemed pretty legit based up on the poll discussion in another thread. Also, when I got bashed for more awareness of the CWAC in prior posting, but it was one of the topics discussed in the recent CWAC meeting. So it would seem my critiquing for the most part is very much right on...I mean I know Obama is driving for socialism but does the minority have to conform around here to? I think Coldwater was spot on in a post in another thread, take the light off the managed areas and start shedding it on others...

JD you're actually posting pretty good so far:evilsmile


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> ...JD you're actually posting pretty good so far:evilsmile


Gee thanks. Don't you know I live for your approval :evilsmile


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

LoBrass said:


> As far as the Zone 2 split, I do not know what you refer to nor do I for the "unwritten" thing on Zone 3.


I was referring to the unwritten rule that we have to have 3 unique zone openers. This is another one of those issues that the DNR has brainwashed CWAC into believing it is good for participation and what the majority of hunters want to see.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

lang49 said:


> I was referring to the unwritten rule that we have to have 3 unique zone openers. This is another one of those issues that the DNR has brainwashed CWAC into believing it is good for participation and what the majority of hunters want to see.


please oh please tell me the disadvantages and pitfalls of extending the MICHIGAN DUCK HUNTING season 28 days. please enlighten us.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

lang49 said:


> I was referring to the unwritten rule that we have to have 3 unique zone openers. This is another one of those issues that the DNR has brainwashed CWAC into believing it is good for participation and what the majority of hunters want to see.


I for one, would actually like a Zone 4 just to push a later start date...


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

lang49 said:


> I was referring to the unwritten rule that we have to have 3 unique zone openers. This is another one of those issues that the DNR has brainwashed CWAC into believing it is good for participation and what the majority of hunters want to see.


oh for the love of....


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> I for one, would actually like a Zone 4 just to push a later start date...


and you too.... 

This will all be beaten to death leading up to the August CWAC meeting :banghead3


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

BangBangBang said:


> lol, I know..I do that too but some threads it is a major painin da *** to have to check every post for bs or not.
> Both guys do post good stuff sometimes, this pissin match is just way over done and lame IMO.


THanks Triple B. I only react. If you go back and look at any of my threads, any debates is a reaction from me, I don't start it. Never have. I post my opinion, and then all the dbags slam me. What am I supposed to do, sit here and take it in the rear ? 

You are obvisouly one of those bags. Since I don't agree with your opions, or if you will, mine are different than yours, you side with anyone who will agree with you. I don't side with anyone. Here is a little fun poke at you to lighten your mood, real men don't go bang, bang bang, real men go Boom, Boom Boom..... And One more point, I really don't care what you think of me personally. I am confident in knowing the difference between right & wrong, and I don't succomb to internet bullies.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

just ducky said:


> and you too....
> 
> This will all be beaten to death leading up to the August CWAC meeting :banghead3


TADA! I'm already collecting the data from Coldwaters polls...Since you want to work in statistics all the time, you should be too...LOL sample polling coming at you all summer hot shot!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> TADA! I'm already collecting the data from Coldwaters polls...Since you want to work in statistics all the time, you should be too...LOL sample polling coming at you all summer hot shot!


as my old boss used to say...."whatever floats your boat!"

I saw those polls posted. I'm not going near any polls like that until I at least have a few summer walleyes in the boat


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

JD - regarding the $12 youth waterfowl fee:

The reason I am in favor of excluding the kids is that I see a number of single parent families in our Hunter Safety classes. These kids who are taking the class are anywhere from 8 to 17, some even younger. It's a struggle for these single parents to get shells, camo, and other things they think they need for hunting...and sometimes it's a struggle just to find someone for their kids to hunt with. One less financial burden may grow a future DU member, CWACer, or someone like one of the guys in the Lake Effect Chapter. It only takes a spark...


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Bellyup said:


> THanks Triple B. I only react. If you go back and look at any of my threads, any debates is a reaction from me, I don't start it. Never have. I post my opinion, and then all the dbags slam me. What am I supposed to do, sit here and take it in the rear ?
> 
> You are obvisouly one of those bags. Since I don't agree with your opions, or if you will, mine are different than yours, you side with anyone who will agree with you. I don't side with anyone. Here is a little fun poke at you to lighten your mood, real men don't go bang, bang bang, real men go Boom, Boom Boom..... And One more point, I really don't care what you think of me personally. I am confident in knowing the difference between right & wrong, and I don't succomb to internet bullies.


butt hurt are you?

I didn't say anything about you personally because guess what? we haven't met. 
I lumped you with SBE because as I explained I see you two teaming up on this nonsense all winter so far.
I am and have not bullied you, I never mentioned anything about right and wrong (***??) and have made no assertions as to your person.
You are a pain in the ass on this forum though and I'm askin you and SBE to be the bigger, real men, and let it go. But you want to demonstrate how little you are.
Fine. You win.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Bellyup said:


> THanks Triple B. I only react. If you go back and look at any of my threads, any debates is a reaction from me, I don't start it. Never have.


:lol: Don't tell me you seriously believe that.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> please oh please tell me the disadvantages and pitfalls of extending the MICHIGAN DUCK HUNTING season 28 days. please enlighten us.


The pitfall is that the season dates in zone 2 and 3 are being set based on the start date in the UP. I don't care when the season starts in zone 1 or zone 3. I want to see the start date in zone 2 occur when the bulk of hunters in zone 2 want it to start- even if that should happen to overlap another opener.

Even if zone 2 happened to open the same weekend as zone 3, the season wouldn't be any shorter. You'd just have to drive to the UP for two consecutive weekends.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

BangBangBang said:


> butt hurt are you?
> 
> I didn't say anything about you personally because guess what? we haven't met.
> I lumped you with SBE because as I explained I see you two teaming up on this nonsense all winter so far.
> ...


In laymans terms you're asking us to agree with everyone and not critique or criticize anything. In a socialist world that would be honored, but you too sir, are entitled to your opinion but it doing so, just like ours, it's always up for debate. So is it in the sense of being little or the fact that you just don't want to debate why the way you feel you do?


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> please oh please tell me the disadvantages and pitfalls of extending the MICHIGAN DUCK HUNTING season 28 days. please enlighten us.


Sorry but I am in agreement with him that I could give a rats *** when zone 1 and 2 open. I'm ok with are dates going off of that but I personally could care less. I want the best dates for my zone.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

craigrh13 said:


> Sorry but I am in agreement with him that I could give a rats *** when zone 1 and 2 open. I'm ok with are dates going off of that but I personally could care less. I want the best dates for my zone.


I think he was trying to indicate that if it were a statewide opener then we would all be going off the same opener and without the zone seperation we wouldn't have a 28 day difference throughout the state...Be careful what ya wish for craig


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> do you really know if the general public (duck hunters) are aware or not? awfully big assumption.


Ivan very confident in that. Nobody I know has any idea what the cwac is. It has nothing to do with them being hardcore or anything. That one group shot 412 geese last year. They also know nothing about managed area. Seems to be a lot of politics in all of this which is understandable because money is involved. With money comes greed. Simply stating that since the CWAC is do important there could be a much better job at educating everyone about it. What they do, who they are, who to even contact. Obviously they agree as they are finally getting it put up on the DNR website.


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

just ducky said:


> You don't understand. The proposed $12 fee replaces the current waterfowl license, AND the annual managed area fee. There would be no longer an option for a daily managed area permit. 75% of that revenue would go to wetlands aquisition, operation, and maintenance, and 25% would go directly to managed areas. Per MUCC and DU (who actually proposed it), the revenue for managed areas would actually be about twice what it is now. Once the math was explained, the CWAC strongly supported the proposal, as did everyone in the room.
> 
> Again, here's a reason some of you should've attended Saturday's CWAC meeting because it was explained in detail. So you should support this proposal, not criticize it.


No I do understand why not have them both and make the managed area permit $15.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

craigrh13 said:


> Ivan very confident in that. Nobody I know has any idea what the cwac is. It has nothing to do with them being hardcore or anything. That one group shot 412 geese last year. They also know nothing about managed area. Seems to be a lot of politics in all of this which is understandable because money is involved. With money comes greed. Simply stating that since the CWAC is do important there could be a much better job at educating everyone about it. What they do, who they are, who to even contact. Obviously they agree as they are finally getting it put up on the DNR website.


Good point, here's an idea. CWAC seeks out DU, DW, chairman within defined regions, and maybe they could plug the CWAC at the banquet...I'd say provide concrete information but that would be an added cost.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

duckbuster2 said:


> No I do understand why not have them both and make the managed area permit $15.


i'm not sure if you do.

no more daily fee. thats a lot of people forced to pay 12$. that also = more $ than raising the old method to $15 or 17 or whatever. so your saying make the new method $15? how did you arrive at that number.....besides "its more than $12".


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

lang49 said:


> The pitfall is that the season dates in zone 2 and 3 are being set based on the start date in the UP. I don't care when the season starts in zone 1 or zone 3. I want to see the start date in zone 2 occur when the bulk of hunters in zone 2 want it to start- even if that should happen to overlap another opener.
> 
> Even if zone 2 happened to open the same weekend as zone 3, the season wouldn't be any shorter. You'd just have to drive to the UP for two consecutive weekends.


3 opener opportunity and length of season = participation. until you come to terms with that, you will never win. Lang you've been wanting the most unique of seasons for z2 ever since i've seen you post on this board.

why dont you just come out and say you want your own personal season for z2. If we put the dates you wanted personally to a public vote, they would get shot down so fast....

you've also complained a lot and yet to show up at cwac. this isn't nothing new to you....you've been aware of cwac for years now yet you haven't did squat besides complain on the boards. For someone with so much passion for their z2 season, what have you put forth to get it changed to your liking? outside of venting in cwac threads on M-S?


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i'm not sure if you do.
> 
> no more daily fee. thats a lot of people forced to pay 12$. that also = more $ than raising the old method to $15 or 17 or whatever. so your saying make the new method $15? how did you arrive at that number.....besides "its more than $12".


Yes I do the $12 is good , but if you pay the $12 and the $15 it's even better. Not trying to argue I just think you could raise it more.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

duckbuster2 said:


> Yes I do the $12 is good , but if you pay the $12 and the $15 it's even better. Not trying to argue I just think you could raise it more.


He'll, make a annual $5 and it would seem cheap. If $5 or $20 is a struggle for you to pay once a year you have no business hunting and playing on the Internet


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

duckbuster2 said:


> Yes I do the $12 is good , but if you pay the $12 and the $15 it's even better. Not trying to argue I just think you could raise it more.


i dont technically disagree...but i do like the overall package. the majority of the funding from licenses gets put on the backs of the big earners....deer hunting. 

2 ways to do it. raise the fees and you get less people doing it but get the funds, lower the fees and you make up the difference through increased sales. since waterfowl licenses have been on the decline forever....this method they chose is the correct one IMO. not gonna complain one bit about it. Just thank a deer hunter and move on.

and you guys are also missing the simplification of the system. no more 22 items on your license. Less confusion at the sales terminal...this means less technical support, less time spent by a store employee, maybe more terminals since just about anyone with an internet/phone connection could sell licenses now without a 12hr training course.


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i dont technically disagree...but i do like the overall package. the majority of the funding from licenses gets put on the backs of the big earners....deer hunting.
> 
> 2 ways to do it. raise the fees and you get less people doing it but get the funds, lower the fees and you make up the difference through increased sales. since waterfowl licenses have been on the decline forever....this method they chose is the correct one IMO. not gonna complain one bit about it. Just thank a deer hunter and move on.
> 
> and you guys are also missing the simplification of the system. no more 22 items on your license. Less confusion at the sales terminal...this means less technical support, less time spent by a store employee, maybe more terminals since just about anyone with an internet/phone connection could sell licenses now without a 12hr training course.


I agree the package is good at least they are
finally doing something. and always buy your licenses on line!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

duckbuster2 said:


> I agree the package is good at least they are
> finally doing something. and always buy your licenses on line!


yep. the future will be forced through online sales. its not far out at all. only way we can buy nodak non-resident license is thru online. Those non-computer users sure figure it out. (can get it other ways but its a pain). michigans online system isn't too bad. I bet we see a revamp of things in the near future to make it easier.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> 3 opener opportunity and length of season = participation. until you come to terms with that, you will never win. Lang you've been wanting the most unique of seasons for z2 ever since i've seen you post on this board.
> 
> why dont you just come out and say you want your own personal season for z2. If we put the dates you wanted personally to a public vote, they would get shot down so fast....
> 
> you've also complained a lot and yet to show up at cwac. this isn't nothing new to you....you've been aware of cwac for years now yet you haven't did squat besides complain on the boards. For someone with so much passion for their z2 season, what have you put forth to get it changed to your liking? outside of venting in cwac threads on M-S?


I've voiced my concern to reps before. I could show up at every meeting and you'd still bash what I have to say regardless of its merits because thats just how you deal with anyone you don't agree with.

Truth is, the same 10% who kill 90% are the hunters that take advantage of multiple openers. It isnt the mass increase in participation you make it out to be.

If the majority of hunters who actually live and hunt in zone 2 want to open on the weekend that zone 3 opens, I dont think zone 3 hunters who happen to make it up here one weekend out of the year should have any say in the matter.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

Well that was one heck of a read. Who would have thought that the CWAC march meeting would go eight pages and counting?

As was pointed out I am the newest appointee to the CWAC committee and represent the western UP. Unfortunately I was appointed just four days before this first meeting and I was unable to change my schedule to attend. It was actually quite disappointing to not be able to make the first meeting. I was aware I was being considered but was not sure when or if the appointment would take place. 

Up to this point this thread has actually been quite informative for me even with the personal aspects interjected into it. I am not going to go back and reopen all the different issues being raised I think they were hashed fairly well but I will say this. Should someone feel that waterfowling in Michigan needs improvement you have two directions you can go with that. One will raise you blood pressure and get little accomplished and the second is much more positive. Get involved either through contacting those in a position to make changes like CWAC members, or even the DNR officials. After that you can take it a step farther and attend the CWAC meetings see for yourself if your views are truely represented. If you want to go even farther you could even pursue a position on the CWAC itself. No one asked me to be a member I sought it out. After talking to CWAC members for a few years before each meeting and voicing my opinions on what direction I felt they should go on issues, participating in discussion on these forums and just having an interest in improving our sport in Michigan I sought out the next available position. This was not a quick process to fill an empty seat. My initial contacts were made last August, I wrote more then one letter and talked to my local biologist. Its my belief I was asked because of who I am and the views I will represent. Yes being a hard core waterfowler was probably important, but living where I live played a role, the far western UP had not had representation before as far as I know. Being a father of two young children who hunt I am sure played a role as well. I am a huge advocate for youth involvement and retention in hunting and the outdoors and I was not afraid to let those considering me know that. I would encourage anyone who whats to see things continue to improve in Michigan to seek out the information on how to get involved. It took me less than a half hour to find out the seat in my area was going to be available last August and after some phone calls and emails I was on the right track on who to contact about being considered. No it was not spoon fed to me but it was not rocket science either.

As to the gathering of information from those I am asked to represent. There are many ways to do that. I do plan to start attending the DU dinners in the western UP. I am going to reach out through this site to those in the entire UP to get there views and build up relationships. I I plan to take to the hunters I already know both die hard and causal. Beyond that I am open to any other suggestions. 

There is more to being on the CWAC then just my part of the state as well so I have a steep learning curve ahead of me. Partisipating in discussions is one thing but when you are asked to represent the best interest of waterfowl hunters those discussions take on a entirely different meaning. 

So drop me a PM or send me an email brandon at gogebicrange.net or heck give me a call 906 392 0025 I am glad to hear from everyone.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

grats brandon, well deserved seat position IMO. he fits the profile of someone who hunts a lot, is from the zone needed and is pretty unbiased. damn good fit.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

yes, congratulations Brandon! Great choice by the DNR. I hope you're up for the rigors and grief of being a CWAC rep...it won't be easy.

On my way to our monthly Shiawassee Flats meeting last night, I had a call from a well known DNR staffer, who monitors this and other similar threads. He wanted us all to understand that CWAC is not the sole answer to these issues, because it is only an advisory committee, made up of volunteers who generally do their best to support the interests of the hunters under their jurisdiction. The DNR's waterfowl workgroup, which is made up of DNR staff from various regions, is the point of contact for these issues, and is the body in the DNR that makes recommendations to the wildlife chief, and ultimately, the NRC. The waterfowl workgroup has regular meetings and discusses all input they receive. But obviously constructive ideas will get more air time than simple whining. The first step is to speak with your local DNR biologist, some of whom are on the waterfowl workgroup. They can get the ball rolling on ideas you may have. 

He agreed that some CWAC members take it more seriously than others. But they all do try in their own way. And they have tried to communicate to all waterfowlers. Could they do better? Sure they can. They've already discussed putting CWAC specific information in the hunting guides, and possibly utilizing the DNR's facebook page for this. But his suggestion was if you don't feel the CWAC is working for you personally, don't just sit on sites like this and vent...call your local biologist, or the DNR in Lansing. Don Avers with the DNR is the current CWAC coordinator, and he's ready to take suggestions. But be ready with CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, not just whining. 

The main point he wanted us all to understand is that DNR staff in your local area are ready and willing to talk about issues like this, because that's their job. He stated very strongly that they*WORK FOR US*!!! And he said that's not just him speaking...their staff get that. But apparently the average hunters do not, because he said he gets very few direct calls from interested waterfowlers about issues like this. 

So those of you that have issues with CWAC....hopefully that gives you an idea or two instead of just beating them silly on the internet.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

craigrh13 said:


> He'll, make a annual $5 and it would seem cheap. If $5 or $20 is a struggle for you to pay once a year you have no business hunting and playing on the Internet


To those of you who want to see higher fees, you apparently didn't read my previous post about the discussion at CWAC on Saturday. The DNR top dogs spent almost an hour discussing the license fee package, and how delicate of a political dance this is. In order to get license fees increased, it takes legislative approval, and right now, many legislators are running scared that they won't get re-elected if they vote for increasing license fees. *While most in the room on Saturday agreed that we could pay even more,* the fact is this is the best compromise that they could get, and they have some legislators willing to put their necks on the line to support it. The idea was to get this approved as a first step, then look at tweaking it down the road. So it's the political dance that has to happen, like it or not. And they were pleading with us sportsman to contact your legislators showing your support for the package. So if any of you really want to help, *CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS NOW!!!*
Don't know how much plainer I can put it.


----------



## Shoveler (Mar 17, 2001)

What happened to this tread? Just wanted to know what happened at CWAC.

LoBrass - Thank you.

Brandon - you will do good, not only as rep for the western UP but for waterfowlers and waterfowling in general.

:yikes: IMHO, worst tread HI-JACKING I have ever see. :yikes:


----------



## coyoteman34 (Oct 17, 2008)

before anybody ever agrees that we could pay more lets do some home work. first it dont matter what ZONE you live in.you can hunt in any zone anytime even I can. there seems to be alot of crying over personal hunting spots.you really have to look at the big picture.WHY does mi have three zones to begin with? why not have one date and be done with it? that way everybody gets thier honey hole when they want it.the dnr cant forcast WHEN the flight birds will be when and where so set one season for three years and go with it. then cwac and dnr sit back down look at harvest data etc and adjust.now in setting these dates remember this most kids and the averge MATURE hunter want to see birds work and come to the stool.now ask yourself this.THEY have a budget I have a budget.they work for us. if that is the case they need to be completely transparent to how much was raised from liscense fee and where that money went.force the dnr to use the money for OUR fair share not devirt it to the general fund because that gets raped every year. waterfowlers need to say we want our money in a seperate account used for waterfowl only.If we are able to hunt waterfowl there you must have a stamp to access the property .duck hunters pay for it BUT bird watchers mushroom pickers and hikers use it but do they pay for the use of it?for all of you that think the prices need to be raised do this why dont you donate that money that you can freely give to the midha so that the money will be accounted for and used for the greater good of what needs to be done.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

field-n-feathers said:


> So......In your opinion, will they always speak for you and what's in your best interest as a member? We already know this to be false. This issue came up last fall.


no one in an association agrees 100% of the time...maybe a few times on certain issues but there will always be someone in the minority in any given situation.

our last vote on something was like 30-3. so obviously there was 3 guys that didn't agree...doesn't mean they hate/dislike the association and what its for.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> no one in an association agrees 100% of the time...maybe a few times on certain issues but there will always be someone in the minority in any given situation.
> 
> our last vote on something was like 30-3. so obviously there was 3 guys that didn't agree...doesn't mean they hate/dislike the association and what its for.


I'm not talking about your association.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

field-n-feathers said:


> So......In your opinion, will they always speak for you and what's in your best interest as a member? We already know this to be false. This issue came up last fall.


I won't answer that mostly because I'm not a CWAC member. But I know you've had issues with your reps in your area. If that's the case, then I'd go to LoBrass, who's the current CWAC chair. My contact with my CWAC reps has always been great...all I can say.

I was mainly referring to Coyoteman in saying if he wants a voice, but he doesn't live here, then he should be part of one of the groups and at least he'll have a voice.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

coyoteman34 said:


> yes I am a member of michigan duck hunters assocation.


That's great! Then talk with your MDHA CWAC rep, who is Pat Murray. His contact info is on the DNR website.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

just ducky said:


> I won't answer that mostly because I'm not a CWAC member. But I know you've had issues with your reps in your area. If that's the case, then I'd go to LoBrass, who's the current CWAC chair. My contact with my CWAC reps has always been great...all I can say.
> 
> I was mainly referring to Coyoteman in saying if he wants a voice, but he doesn't live here, then he should be part of one of the groups and at least he'll have a voice.


My question was in reference to organizations/associations. Any personal contact I've had with CWAC reps in my immediate area has been without problems.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

field-n-feathers said:


> I'm not talking about your association.


sorry mistook what you said, thought u were referring to mdha...i get where you were goin now.


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Bellyup said:


> The very fact this thread exists is proof that communication to the general public is seriously lacking. People don't fish for information, they want the information provided. If we have to find it, it is less believable becasue it is open to your interpretation. If it is provided, we have the security of knowing this is the right data. .


There is so much wrong in that statement.

They made a movie about enabling lazy do nothin's and "providing" for the people. here's a clip:


----------



## PhilBernardi (Sep 6, 2010)

_The very fact this thread exists is proof that communication to the general public is seriously lacking. People don't fish for information, they want the information provided. If we have to find it, it is less believable becasue it is open to your interpretation. If it is provided, we have the security of knowing this is the right data. Simple._

Wow! :yikes: 

Where does one begin with this? :lol::lol:


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

BangBangBang said:


> There is so much wrong in that statement.
> 
> They made a movie about enabling lazy do nothin's and "providing" for the people. here's a clip:
> Idiocracy - YouTube


I take it you are the 84 IQ with the three chasing you around for cheating on your wife. Afterall, you go Bang, Bang, Bang........... My 22 IQ dedeuced that.....

If you want to talk lazy, talk to someone else. I am far from it. All you really know is what is posted on this site, and if you judge people by that, who is the idiot ?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> sorry mistook what you said, thought u were referring to mdha...i get where you were goin now.


No need to apologize. And yes, I was speaking of MDHA....and a few others.


----------



## smoke (Jun 3, 2006)

just ducky said:


> DING...DING...DING...I think we have a winner!
> 
> Hey, speaking of "ding", I see I recently broke 10k posts....YIKES! Hey Smoke...you out there?


:lol: yes i'm out here D.........You my friend are a chatty Kathy!  10,000 posts! :yikes:

Reading all this gives me flashbacks ......... Seems to me I've read a few times how "the cwac chairman position is a thankless job" 

He)) I said that years ago and was looked down upon for that statement. 
Not that I really cared but thought it was rather ironic. 

Back to my initial point; I believe anyone who sits on this committee for any length of time (more than a short 3 year stint) deserves more than a computer printed .50 certificate thanking you for your service. Not sure what is deserved but..................it is what it is. I was on for I believe >6 years. The part I liked the most, was sitting in on the NRC meeting in Lansing and presenting our proposal to the NRC board. 

Also seeing these multiple page discussions (some rants) reminds me why I tried my damnedest not to get into these cwac, season dates, bag limits discussions on this forum. I on the other hand, used to send literally 100's of pm's asking for input for cwac whether you were my stakeholders or not. Seemed a bit more civil to me. Plus I got sick and tired of defending the DNR, CWAC NRC boards, not they did not deserve it most did. I personally have hunted with several dnr personnel as well and was told they had a great time as did I. They would like nothing more than to have more hunting areas and opportunities to hunt waterfowl. Not to let any waterfowl flooding go to pot and become unhuntable that I can assure you. I know to many dnr that are very compassionate about wetland habitat and waterfowl production. 

Ok Nuff said here........back to your feuding. 

Smoke out


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

smoke said:


> :lol: yes i'm out here D.........You my friend are a chatty Kathy!  10,000 posts! :yikes:
> 
> Reading all this gives me flashbacks ......... Seems to me I've read a few times how "the cwac chairman position is a thankless job"
> 
> ...


Good to see you're still with the living brother! Actually until just a few days ago, I had laid off this site for a while. Yep...true. But you know me...I am a "chatty kitty" afterall :lol:

I think you've said things very well Todd, as has LoBrass. We all hang around CWAC, the DNR and the NRC because we believe and live for the resource...not because we like taking abuse (maybe some of you do?) Do you think us audience members drive up to Higgins just to sit in the back of the room? We do it because we are interested in what's discussed, and once in a while they even ask us peons our opinions :yikes:

I agree with you also Todd about going to the NRC meetings. Kind of fun to watch the DNR staff squirm a bit when they try to justify why they do what they do. Kinda like the shoe's on the other foot. Anyone who's never attended one, really should. You'll get a whole new perspective for the NRC. Especially now that Snyder has stacked the deck with his appointees :sad:

Anyways, let's get back to this fun and entertaining debate. Carry on gentleman (and I use that term very loosely!)


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

The last 3 people who have chaired the CWAC have been heavily involved here on M-S. I would say that is a very positive upside that many here have overlooked. They obviously care what people have to say or they would not bother. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> The last 3 people who have chaired the CWAC have been heavily involved here on M-S. I would say that is a very positive upside that many here have overlooked. They obviously care what people have to say or they would not bother.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I don't believe anyone is denying this...The discussion has been based around general public awareness of CWAC....


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

SBE II said:


> I don't believe anyone is denying this...The discussion has been based around general public awareness of CWAC....


Yup.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

SBE II said:


> I don't believe anyone is denying this...The discussion has been based around general public awareness of CWAC....


Sorry wasnt insinuating anything... just merely pointing out we've been lucky to have bud, smoke and lowbrass contributing to the board. We get direct information almost instantly. Sometimes i wonder why they come back here after reading some of the posts, lol.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> Sorry wasnt insinuating anything... just merely pointing out we've been lucky to have bud, smoke and lowbrass contributing to the board. We get direct information almost instantly. Sometimes i wonder why they come back here after reading some of the posts, lol.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Other than some non resident complaints and other little scuffles, I think most of the input, polls, and questions have been helpful to LoBrass. I would be willing to submit a questionarre to any of the CWAC members if asked and also willing to distribute...


----------



## BangBangBang (Mar 30, 2011)

Bellyup said:


> I take it you are the 84 IQ with the three chasing you around for cheating on your wife. Afterall, you go Bang, Bang, Bang........... My 22 IQ dedeuced that.....
> 
> If you want to talk lazy, talk to someone else. I am far from it. All you really know is what is posted on this site, and if you judge people by that, who is the idiot ?


I was only judging your comment. Why you always try to make the internet personal? Lighten up francis.


----------



## Drake Down (Sep 11, 2009)

field-n-feathers said:


> I'm not talking about your association.


I have been reading the posts and I felt it necessary to step in at this point. I am a CWAC at-large rep and the President of MDHA. LoBrass did a good job trying to keep us on track at the last meeting and assuring that everyone was heard. There were some very convoluted things being asked by the DNR but LoBrass assured that we worked through them. Sometimes it was confusing, but I thought we had a productive meeting. 

In response to field-n-feathers: I would ask what chapter of MDHA you belong to? If you do not belong to a chapter, when was the last state level meeting you came to? MHDA, before the CWAC meeting, had a conference call with all the chapter presidents to discuss what position MDHA was going to take on certain agenda items. Those that could not call in sent their chapters opinions via e-mail before the call. MDHA CWAC rep Pat Murray was a party to the conference call and knew what the position of the association was going to be on the issues listed on the agenda. The point I am making is that MDHA relies on its chapters to collect the information and let the state know. Did all the chapters agree? No. Did we work out what we thought the state level position should be? Yes. 

The individual chapters then contacted their at-large reps and expressed their opinions on the issues they wanted pursued further than MDHA was going to present. The Saginaw Bay Chapter wanted a SWD at Nayanquing Point. MDHA decided that it would only support a policy of letting each managed unit decide what it wanted in regards to SWD. Saginaw Bay Chapter talked with its at-large member who then presented to CWAC a motion to ban SWD at Nayanquing Point.

Can communication between CWAC and the public be better? Sure. You can say that about almost any organization or group out there. I do want to note that the people that drove up to be at the meeting were given what I saw as free access to join in the discussions taking place. They just couldn't vote. I even enjoyed having two of them sitting behind me and even looked to them for advice on one of the issues. 

I have found that it is easy to sit back and complain, but hard to actually find people that want to do the work necessary to assure our voice is heard. If you think that CWAC is not doing its job, then apply. (Be prepared and be warned.) If you think your organization is not representing you properly then get involved.


----------

