# And the special interest takeover continues



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

DNR creates Blue Ribbon Advisory Group to review, plan future of 
Michigan state game areas

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources recently announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Advisory Group to independently review state game areas. DNR Director Keith Creagh made the announcement at Thursdays meeting of the Natural Resources Commission in Lansing. 

State game areas are important public land areas owned by the state of Michigan, providing residents with broad opportunities to hunt, trap, fish and engage in other compatible recreational activities. The DNR is responsible for creating and maintaining wildlife habitat on these areas for conservation purposes.

The Blue Ribbon Advisory Group will examine:

Overall use and intensity on state game areas.
Funds and agreements used to acquire these lands.
Current timing and diversity of uses.
Vision for the future of state game areas.
Potential habitat or strategic management changes that could enhance high-quality hunting, trapping or angling experiences.
Potential for expanding compatible recreational uses and management activities.
Group co-chairs are William Demmer, past president of Boone and Crockett and chief executive officer of Demmer Corporation, and Dan Eichinger, executive director of Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Additional members have been invited and the full membership roster will be shared shortly.

We are excited to have two great leaders managing this important review, said Russ Mason, DNR Wildlife Division chief. This type of review will help us plan our future management on these areas and be forward thinking as the individual interests of these areas may change.

The group will begin with a review of state game areas in southwest Michigan and then focus on those in southeast Michigan. See a map and list of Michigans state game areas on the DNR website.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

They will probably decide it's in the states best interest to sell all lands or make them wolf sanctuaries.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

stickbow shooter said:


> They will probably decide it's in the states best interest to sell all lands or make them wolf sanctuaries.



It probable wouldn't hurt one bit. After all the southern portion of the state is where all the wolf support is.

On a serious note I'm glad the DNR is showing openness for new ideas from a broad spectrum of outdoor enthusiasts.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Lets hope something good comes of this.


----------



## superposed20ga (Dec 14, 2005)

Nostromo said:


> Lets hope something good comes of this.


I have a feeling that in order to make any good come of it sportsmen and women will need to make their voices heard loud and clear. It might be for the better, but I do not like the fact that lands purchased as state "game areas" are now to be considered for "other" things. Aren't there enough areas for those "other" things? I despise the hypocrisy of wanting to encourage hunter recruitment, lamenting the lack of quality areas to hunt, and then deciding to encourage "other" use of the lands to be used for hunting. Hopefully we all can influence this Blue Ribbon group for the better.


----------



## superposed20ga (Dec 14, 2005)

What is a "compatible recreational use" for state game areas anyway? Can I expect to see a family biking through the next time I'm hunting and then complaining about hearing gunfire in a state game area? 

I fear I was born a couple generations too late. You older guys had it pretty good, at least with regards to land availability.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It probable wouldn't hurt one bit. After all the southern portion of the state is where all the wolf support is.
> 
> On a serious note I'm glad the DNR is showing openness for new ideas from a broad spectrum of outdoor enthusiasts.


Broad? It's the same special interests just sitting on a bunch of different committees, and it is getting really old fast. I think if anything, this "broad spectrum" has become really narrow. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Yada, yada, yada. If you have the same special interests in every committee, where is the fresh ideas? There aren't any. I might be a little more excited if citizen Kane, or Joe Blow sportsmen citizen started showing up more in these committees, but it appears to be the same special interests. Appears some of these special interests have become the land and game management nobles of our time. Reminds me of exactly why the public trust came about. It appears a prejudice toward including the same special interests have become the norm.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

superposed20ga said:


> What is a "compatible recreational use" for state game areas anyway? Can I expect to see a family biking through the next time I'm hunting and then complaining about hearing gunfire in a state game area?
> 
> I fear I was born a couple generations too late. You older guys had it pretty good, at least with regards to land availability.


They are what they say they are. It does not stop anti hunters from visiting and complaining about poor critters being killed. Like anything else the sportsmen pay and the bird watchers benefit. The DNR should be charging user fees.


----------



## superposed20ga (Dec 14, 2005)

State game areas should be primarily for the use and serve the interests of hunters, fisherman and trappers. I don't have an issue if "other" recreational users enjoy the game areas, but it should not be to the detriment of the primary users that the game areas exist for. We have multitudes of other recreation areas where hunting/trapping is not allowed or limited. Let the other users utilize those.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Potential habitat or strategic management changes that could enhance high-quality hunting, trapping or angling experiences.
[/COLOR] 
I didnt think they would take me seriously.:lol:
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535546


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Did you ever stop and think why a lot of private land hunters have it better? It's because many put their money and time into making it better. Maybe that is what should be done.

How about making it mandatory for public land hunters to donate 200 hours of labor along with equipment and additional funding of about $2,000 each per year. I know that is not nearly what many private landowners put in but it would be a start. I would bet that in less than a decade we would see a difference. I know many guys could not put in 200 hours but we could have them contribute what ever they fell short on at a rate of $15 per hour. The guys who could afford more hours improving things would receive the $15 per hour. A win win.

The above is the perfect example of the private land experience many public land hunters are missing in this state.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Did you ever stop and think why a lot of private land hunters have it better? It's because many put their money and time into making it better. Maybe that is what should be done.
> 
> How about making it mandatory for public land hunters to donate 200 hours of labor along with equipment and additional funding of about $2,000 each per year. I know that is not nearly what many private landowners put in but it would be a start. I would bet that in less than a decade we would see a difference. I know many guys could not put in 200 hours but we could have them contribute what ever they fell short on at a rate of $15 per hour. The guys who could afford more hours improving things would receive the $15 per hour. A win win.
> 
> The above is the perfect example of the private land experience many public land hunters are missing in this state.




Not a bad idea. 

Except for the guys that just want a better hunting experience, paid for by someone else.

On the other hand, given some creative thought, there really could be effective strategies to improve the hunting experiences on our sga's.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm only familiar with a few areas. Some, have crops grown on them, as share cropping. I know hunters who take respectable Bucks there often. There are others that seem to just sit idle. They are visited by people training their dogs during the off season, and some hunters during the fall. I wouldn't venture there during the last week of the firearm season by the way.

Both have deer, turkeys, coyote, musk rat, geese, and ducks in passing, and a few rabbits. I've seen the DNR a couple times out collecting tree stands. Once I was asked for my license, and once they just waved. 

Aside from the crops, these lands are fallow. As you walk through you see a variety of non native plants. Some along with nearby piles of field stone tell a story from the past. This was someones place, and they lost it.

Compare this to a place like Pointe Mouillee. Where wildlife abounds, and their management is intense. I'd think an approach closer to this would benefit some of our lower state SGA's

Quality hunting close to home will help to recruit hunters. 

If they want to open the lands to Bike, and boot traffic. Fine, but on engineered paths and not during the hunting season.

Good hunting!


----------



## Duckiller (Mar 26, 2010)

If you don't have a hunting or fishing licence on your person you need to pay a fee to use. Why should bird watchers, hikers, bicyclists and others get to use land that was bought with hunting and/or fishing licence fees and not pay for the use?


----------



## hitechman (Feb 25, 2002)

These proposals were put together by the local biologist where the SGA is located, and *I'd suggest that some of you guys actually read these* (I have read each one) to see what is actually planned, before you spout off your fear mongered and farfetched opinions.

I've emailed my comments to each biologist.......overall I was pretty impressed with what they came up with.

Yes, I suggested any use by nonhunters, should be fee based since these SGA's were purchased with hunter monies.

Steve


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The majority of State land was not bought with license money, it reverted to the State for unpaid taxes. Since 1976 virtually every purchase has been with NRTF money. The nearest SGA to me, Gourdneck Lake, sees little or no use except at the boat launch and during deer season. Getting more people onto State land wouldn't be a bad thing. Making them pay beyond the recreation passport would not necessarily be a good thing . Once you start collecting fees for an activity you raise the status of that activity and if the majority of paying users don't hunt they can make an argument for converting SGA's to Recreation Areas. No thanks.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> The majority of State land was not bought with license money, it reverted to the State for unpaid taxes. Since 1976 virtually every purchase has been with NRTF money. The nearest SGA to me, Gourdneck Lake, sees little or no use except at the boat launch and during deer season. Getting more people onto State land wouldn't be a bad thing. Making them pay beyond the recreation passport would not necessarily be a good thing . Once you start collecting fees for an activity you raise the status of that activity and if the majority of paying users don't hunt they can make an argument for converting SGA's to Recreation Areas. No thanks.



Look under deer habitat acquisition.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10363_10856_10905-28543--,00.html


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Yep, only 18% of State Forests bought with license money, 15% of total State land. I wouldn't want to make the argument that hunters are entitled to 18% of the land because they bought it and other users get the 82%. 

The DNR would love to buy more land in southern Michigan, especially land adjacent to or inside current public lands. If any of you know someone who wants to sell their land or arrange for a transfer when they die have them contact the DNR. They are also eager to add access sites along rivers if they can find sellers.


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

kzoofisher said:


> Yep, only 18% of State Forests bought with license money, 15% of total State land. I wouldn't want to make the argument that hunters are entitled to 18% of the land because they bought it and other users get the 82%.
> 
> The DNR would love to buy more land in southern Michigan, especially land adjacent to or inside current public lands. If any of you know someone who wants to sell their land or arrange for a transfer when they die have them contact the DNR. They are also eager to add access sites along rivers if they can find sellers.


 Who would pay the taxes on this land if hunting was banned and no one bought a license? I would bet the 85% won't


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

As far as I know PILT money comes from the General Fund and goes straight to Treasury. Don't think hunters have anything to do with it.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

swampbuck said:


> Something else would have been good.
> 
> How's it working out for ya?


If the question was for me, I would say that we proved we are not easy targets and we won't roll over and take it. We have not won the war but we did win a battle and while it might not've been progress, we didnt lose ground,, IMO.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I hope your right. I don't think their going away though.

Remember they did win at the ballot box, they have a lot more support than we like to think. They won on doves also, and while they got blocked on bear with prop g, it was only a speed bump.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Once I explained to people that were against it, I turned 98% around.
Education is the key!


----------



## Blueboy05 (Dec 27, 2013)

superposed20ga said:


> What is a "compatible recreational use" for state game areas anyway? Can I expect to see a family biking through the next time I'm hunting and then complaining about hearing gunfire in a state game area?
> 
> I fear I was born a couple generations too late. You older guys had it pretty good, at least with regards to land availability.


That is exactly what happened to me last fall hunting Woodcock. The morons are out on "biking" trails during hunting season without any orange clothing. I am more than happy to share the woods with other peeps, but it takes a little brains on their part too. I had a nasty note left on my windshield for "shooting in they're direction"....and I "should be more cautious". Funny thing is, I was on the opposite side of the road of the hiking trail, hundreds of yards away from them....and that I know because I also ride the bike trail.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Are trout regulations any more complicated than deer? I don't deer hunt but aren't there different rules depending on what weapon you use, what DMU you are in, the rifle zone, the new rule about a rifle in the shotgun zone, different rules and seasons for age groups, baiting rules, when you can set up/take down a blind, different license types, antlerless/antlered, block permits, three separate general seasons for archery/firearm/muzzleloader, shooting hours that change every day, how you must tag a deer, the color of clothes you wear and probably some more stuff I'm not aware of. If you want to make trout fishing simple all you have to do is fish with flies between the last Saturday in April and September 30. Do that and you're legal anywhere in the state that isn't closed to all fishing. Is there any thing you can do to make deer hunting that simple?


Yeah, because there are weapon laws for the safety of the hunter, that somehow justifies flies only. Right. 

We hunt and share the same land with bow, gun and muzzleloader. Is there anything you can do to make trout fishing that equatable? Oh by the way, you can bow hunt all seasons. But that isn't the argument, just more befuddlement and obfuscation from Kazoo.

Seeing how you are so against the legislature making law, you should join in and call for the elimination of the 212 miles of flies only water, the special interests had one of their legislative buddies ram through the legislature.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Would it make you feel better if the GLFSA were part of the panel? Or dont you guys want to be associated with things of quality?


We have asked to be on a panel. Appears they want to be selective on who's ideology of "quality" they let on. "Quality" seems to be highly subjective. So to ask the question "don't you guys want to be associated with things of quality?" Is, well, asinine.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ray,
I asked a straight forward question about something I'm not very familiar with, no attempt at "obfuscation". Freepop pointed out that if you archery hunt and buy the right license (combo?) you can shoot any deer anywhere in the state from Oct 1 through Jan 1. I didn't know that. Now I know that the deer regulations are just like trout; restrict yourself to a certain type of gear and you are free to do roam and extend your season. If you want to hunt with a shotgun or rifle you are limited to 25% of the season, which is way more limited than bait fisherman are on trout streams. You say there is a safety reason for restricting firearms. I can see the logic for the rifle/shotgun line but the safety reason for limiting them to 25% of the season escapes me, seems like it's tradition combined with favoritism to the "special interests" of archery and muzzle loading. I almost feel obfuscated about it. Can you clear that up for me?

The rest of the deer regulations are pretty complicated to an outsider. There is one pdf on the dnr's page for general regulations, one for antlerless, and the guys at work tell me that the rules can be different if you are hunting on public or private land. Yet deer remains the most popular and sought after species in the state, dominating the Wildlife Division's management work. I think the "trout regs are too complicated" canard is just an red herring. If you are passionate about an activity nothing will stop you, if you are moderately interested you will spend half an hour finding out the rules and if you don't really care you'll just go to the party with your husband, giggle at the commercials and say "why do you get so mad when the announcer says 'complete the process', is that a rule?"


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Ranger Ray said:


> We have asked to be on a panel. Appears they want to be selective on who's ideology of "quality" they let on. "Quality" seems to be highly subjective. So to ask the question "don't you guys want to be associated with things of quality?" Is, well, asinine.


Perhaps the DNR is looking for members who have a track record of conservation work. Organizations and persons whose primary accomplishment is complaining on the internet are welcome to attend the meetings as members of the public. That's what I plan on doing.:lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Ray,
> If you want to hunt with a shotgun or rifle you are limited to 25% of the season, which is way more limited than bait fisherman are on trout streams.


Ah, there is a difference between sharing the land for 25% of the time and giving a legal type of gear exclusive rights to 25% of the land. I can see why you feel obfuscated.

The argument that because we have restrictions over here, it then justifies restrictions over there, is well ridiculous. Soon a deer will be to precious to shoot just once. We won't be able to leave a foot print in the national forest because we want no human footprint on the biosphere. Oh Yeah!!!


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> Perhaps the DNR is looking for members who have a track record of conservation work. Organizations and persons whose primary accomplishment is complaining on the internet are welcome to attend the meetings as members of the public. That's what I plan on doing.:lol:


Ah, so they can buy their say on committees by doing conservation work. I see. Do they give them special privileges to our land because of it? Wait, we already know this. Funny, you have always argued there is no special favors for the special interests on the trout regulation issue. Now you are saying there is. 

Hey it's the ole you can't discuss topics on an internet, because if you do, you are mysteriously not personally engaged with the authorities discussing the issues and labeled a complainer argument. Obfuscate, obfuscate. By the way, we do attend meetings. 

You going to help us fight the legislative mandated flies only water? You seemed to of ignored that question. "I am against legislative mandated game management after I was for it on the flies only water." Oh Yeah!!!


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

You think flies only state wide with five weeks of open regs would be equitable? Interesting. 

Conservation groups don't "buy" their way on to committees. They show expertise and commitment that qualifies them. It's called meritocracy. They have also usually shown a professional demeanor that facilitates a productive meeting. I know that some people get denied for having too argumentative a style. Committee members who don't bother to show up is a real problem too and there are rules to expel such members. 



> You going to help us fight the legislative mandated flies only water? You seemed to of ignored that question. "I am against legislative mandated game management before I was for it on the flies only water." Oh Yeah!!!


 you keep bringing this up and I don't remember what you are referring to. I have said that I thought the old system was better with some legislative oversight but not with all rules made by them.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> You think flies only state wide with five weeks of open regs would be equitable? Interesting.
> 
> Conservation groups don't "buy" their way on to committees. They show expertise and commitment that qualifies them. It's called meritocracy. They have also usually shown a professional demeanor that facilitates a productive meeting. I know that some people get denied for having too argumentative a style. Committee members who don't bother to show up is a real problem too and there are rules to expel such members.
> 
> you keep bringing this up and I don't remember what you are referring to. I have said that I thought the old system was better with some legislative oversight but not with all rules made by them.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

kzoofisher said:


> You think flies only state wide with five weeks of open regs would be equitable? Interesting.


I think all legal gear types should share all water, all season. But I wouldn't be against 2 weeks fly only, two weeks artificial only (non fly) and 2 weeks bait only, at least I would be able to fish any choice any water at some point. 



kzoofisher said:


> Conservation groups don't "buy" their way on to committees. They show expertise and commitment that qualifies them. It's called meritocracy. They have also usually shown a professional demeanor that facilitates a productive meeting.


So you say. I ran into a bunch of manipulators on the last round of gear restrictions. Funny how one mans manipulator is another mans "expertise." The special interests claimed to have more "expertise" evidence than our biologists on the last round of gear restrictions. Except they could never show it. There was no "expertise" in the last round of gear restrictions. Heck we even made a stretch of river that a bait fishing study showed had no effect on it, artificial only. Nice "expertise." It was made that way because some special interest wanted it. The DNR even told us. Wow! No obfuscation, just the truth from the horses mouth. We talked to the black helicopter pilots. You know, it's amazing what you find out when you are involved.




kzoofisher said:


> I know that some people get denied for having too argumentative a style.


I think Stalin and Putin used that same argument. How easy to dismiss a difference of opinion. Kind of like labeling a 32 year biologist that won awards from you, a kook as soon as he disagreed with you. More of that "expertise" in action. Can you present these cases of "some people" that have been denied for having an argumentative style that you "know" of?



kzoofisher said:


> Committee members who don't bother to show up is a real problem too and there are rules to expel such members.


Committee members that don't show for three meetings in a row should get the boot. I think there are two members labeled "anglers at large" that are in question. If they get the boot, who should they be replaced by? We already know the fly guys are well represented. Maybe some bait fishermen? Wouldn't want to go back to the unproportionate gear representation that had been there for many years.



kzoofisher said:


> you keep bringing this up and I don't remember what you are referring to. I have said that I thought the old system was better with some legislative oversight but not with all rules made by them.


212 miles of flies only water being put into place by legislative action. Is this the type of "oversight" in our game management you are for from our legislature? It's not a complicated question. I am sure you will complicate the answer though.


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

everyone is a special interest group. my special interest is cat fish and crawdads. i would vote to increase spending on crawdad habitat and catfish planting in more lakes.
but my special interest group is smaller then the one for bigger deer antlers so they get the money. what about quality crawdad management? minimum tail size for example?


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

besides,, gear restrictions don't limit who can fish,,,just gives everyone another option for different equipment. and no, fly gear doesn't have to be expensive a $50 rod reel combo from meijers can catch fish just as well as a $1500 rig


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

john warren said:


> just gives everyone another option for different equipment.


John, John, John, the option exists for this "different equipment" without gear restrictions. Oh and by the way, the KKK and VFW are both special interest groups. We may all be special interests, but we are all not the same.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

john warren said:


> besides,, gear restrictions don't limit who can fish,,,just gives everyone another option for different equipment. and no, fly gear doesn't have to be expensive a $50 rod reel combo from meijers can catch fish just as well as a $1500 rig


When it comes down to it, the fly only restriction intention is to reduce pressure, plain and simple. So some ORvis tool can swing his creation and claim his trophy.


The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana. 
&#8213; Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

Government is run by those who show up.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

I&#8217;ve found that 90% of success in life's endeavors aren&#8217;t about just showing up. It&#8217;s, IMO, showing up, shutting up & intently listening.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

itchn2fish said:


> Ive found that 90% of success in life's endeavors arent about just showing up. Its, IMO, showing up, shutting up & intently listening.


Yes, that is just what this world needs, more yes men that blindly follow the leader.


----------

