# MDNRE using obama math



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

We have a letter from Adam Bump, MDNRE's lead bear biologist written January 28, 2010 stating, " The bear population estimate for the West UP, East UP, and Northern NLP combined is approximately 11,100 bears. The estimate is the prehunt population not including cubs." 

The bear harvest in 2009 is reported to have been 2,057 bears...so, subtract from the 11,100 prehunt estimate. It further reduces the estimate down to 9,043 bears statewide not counting cubs. and here's where the obama math comes in...MDNRE is proposing an increase in kill tags for the 2010 bear season. They propose issuing over 12,000 tags. I am not making this stuff up!

Hopefully, the NRC will rule against the proposal.


----------



## PLUMBDOG (Jun 29, 2009)

ROOSTER what in the H### is going on . Is the increase in tags for the NLP . I would like to see the break down of permitts given to each bear management unit acording to population study results for each BMU BUT THATS TO EASY . sounds like the same game thats ben going on for years polictics vs sound game management. I WONDER what brought mr bump to this conclusion that with fewer bear . MORE hunting tags should be issued. maybe be more tags = more money for the state. rooster as sportsmen and women how can we try to stop this .

PLUMBDOG


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

It's my understanding that the number of permits issued is not only determined by the population of bears in the woods but also the percentage of successful hunters to maintain a population goal in each of the managed areas, in addition to a number of other equation variables. 

Obviously these numbers are made up but using such round numbers makes it easier for me to understand. If you have 1000 bears and you want 900 and the historical success ratio is 10%, wouldn't you have to offer 1000 tags?? Not taking into accout any other variables such as recruitment of cubs, hunters that draw and do not purchase for whatever reason or hunters that purchase a tag and then have an issue where they cannot hunt.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

PLUMBDOG said:


> ROOSTER what in the H### is going on . Is the increase in tags for the NLP . I would like to see the break down of permitts given to each bear management unit acording to population study results for each BMU BUT THATS TO EASY . sounds like the same game thats ben going on for years polictics vs sound game management. I WONDER what brought mr bump to this conclusion that with fewer bear . MORE hunting tags should be issued. maybe be more tags = more money for the state. rooster as sportsmen and women how can we try to stop this .
> 
> PLUMBDOG


So, there's a chance we'll be able to draw tags next year.:lol: Seriously, I wonder if those proposed tag numbers wern't drawn off of the earlier much higher population estimates. 15,000-18,000. They could just require a little tweaking. Downward that is.

ATB


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Has 33000 bear and issue about 8000 tags. Want to talk round numbers? If half are female 5550 and 25% reach 4 to 5 years old(earliest age of producing and inpendant cub). A sow bear has 1.5 cubs every other year....so .75 per year. 

5550 x .25 = 1387.50 x .75 = 1040.6 cubs per year 

We are killing around 2000 bear each year. 

Even if I am WAY OFF there are not enough sow bear in Michigan to produce replace the bear being killed. Its not even close. Michigan must have a secret agenda to reduce bear numbers.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

And some of you guys want to b**** about a population survey going on down here...


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Bearboy, their agenda is becoming much clearer in my eyes reduce the population to the point it is so low they can close the season. I can't see any other reason to keep doing what they are doing. So much for much for sound scientific management. It doesn't take a genius to see there is nothing scientific about the proposed harvest tag for 2010. The mismanagement of our bear over the last 10 year is disgusting I just wish people would wake up and see it. Every person but 1 in the Bear Users meeting in St. Ignace felt bear number were way down and this is what the MDNRE have decided to do? What a joke!

John


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Baearboy I went on the wisconsin dnr site they say estimated population 22,000 bear OR 10,000 less than your estimate and are giving out 8,910 permit's.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Wrong number Perch. Wisconsin's estimated statewide bear population as of July 8, 2009 was 33,657. In 2009 they issued 7,310 kill tags. Wisconsin law forbids WDNR from harvesting more than 18% of the estimated bear population. The 8,910 harvest tags you quoted are for the 2010 bear season.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Rooster, it is my experience that bears are expanding their territory in the nlp. Some say they are now in the slp also. I do not know how this translates in numbers so you may very well be correct. IMO the dnr gives out far more anterless permits than are needed because they believe that success rates are much lower than 100%. I think that is a correct understanding even as I believe too many permits are given. Just a comparison off the top of my simple mind. I use to enjoy hunting bear but gave it up when the state went to the permit system not that this was altogether bad. Please know that I rarely defend the dnr policy makers especially the nrc.

I was not aware that the Oteam was capable of elementary math which I guess is your point.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Ridegwalker, thanks for your post. You brought up a good point which warrants clarification. Here's where the obama math comes in:

A Google search for Michigan's 2008 statewide bear population will show MDNRE estimated there to be 15,000 to 19,000 bears. Tag allocation for 2009 took place in March and they would have used the 2008 population estimate (15,000 to 19,000) in determining how many tags to issue for the 2009 bear season. They issued 11,473 kill tags in 2009 based on an estimated population of 15,000 to 19,000 bears. Now here's the obama math is applied to the 2010 bear season: we have an estimated 11,100 statewide bear population not including cubs (we have documentation from MDNRE on that) and MDNRE is proposing over 12,000 kill tags be issued. Keep in mind, 2,057 bears were killed in 2009 reducing the estimated statewide bear population down to 9,043 not counting cubs. (the 11,100 estimated population the prehunt estimate for 2009).

The big question sportsmen need to be concerned about is...how many of the estimated 9,043 adult bear that are left in the state will remain if MDNRE has their way and they issue over 12,000 kill tags. Here's a rough estimate:

I do not have the hunter success rate for 2009 yet, but hunter success for 2008 according to MDNRE's figures was 26% statewide. With a 26% success rate in 2010 it would drop the statewide bear population down to about 6,700 bear not counting cubs. That's a long way from the 15,000 to 19,000 we were reported to have had back in 2008. 

Does anyone here accept this as managing using sound science?


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Rooster I am only quoting published numbers,you and charlie can argue it with them. Look it up here www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/82819627.html?sort=most%20thumbs%20up


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Thanks for the link Perch. You're 100% correct. The link I was using was written July 8, 2009, but was referring to the 2008 Wisconsin estimated bear population of 33, 657. Like you noted the current population is estimated to be 22,000 in Wisconsin. The point I am making is...Michigan has an estimated 9,043 bears after we subtract 2,057 (total number of bears harvested in 2009) from our 2009 prehunt estimate of 11,100 bears(excluding cubs), and for the 2010 bear season MDNRE proposes issuing over 12,000 kill tags for the remaining 9,043 bears estimated to reside in Michigan. Wisconsin has 22,000 in 2010 and plans to issue 8,910 kill tags. 

In 2008 statewide hunter success according to MDNRE figures was 26% (2009 success rate not yet available). So, going by the 2008 success rate...if the statewide number of bears is reduced by a 26% hunter success rate in the 2010 bear season we will have about 6,700 bear left in Michigan excluding cubs. And just remember we had an estimated 15,000 to 19,000 bears 2 years ago. Sound scientific management? HELL NO!


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

hey Rooster,sound's like the State of Wisconsin doesn't know how many they have.I went to the dnr site and it say's estimated population of "between 26,000 and 40,000"that is quite a varience,sound's like they have no idea.


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

perch, go ahead and keep thinking the populations are fine and when things crash and they have to close the season remember these discussions. The numbers don't lie. This is the exact same thing that happened on Drummond Island, too many permits led to a population crash. The whole state is headed down the exact same road. Whether WI has 22,000 or 40,000 bear is not the point they don't give out permits as freely as MI, they sure as heck don't issue more permits than thier population estimate and those of us who hunt there know what a healthy bear population looks like if it is managed properly.

John


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

As best as my simple mind can figure out the DNRE theory is that we have this many adult bear, latest adjusted number being 11,100, and they must have a number of adult bear in mind that the state can support without an over abundance of conflict with the people. Todate with my memory I have not seen this number published. The difference between current population and what the state can support would be the harvestable number of bear. They then look at hunter success rate to determine how many permits likely have to be issued to harvest the harvestable number of bear. In theory this seems like a sensible approach to managing the bear population. A couple of points that need clarification to make this theory acceptable. 1. Need to know what the cub number is since at some point they turn into adult harvestable bear. Actually need to know the number of cubs that do become included in that harvestable number each year. I have seen some numbers of reproduction based on an estimate of breedable females and average number of cubs per breedable female. What I have not seen is the survial rate of cubs. In my mind, all important information for long term management. 2. Need to know what the sustainable bear population number is and how that is determined. If you do not know how many bear the land can support then how can you correctly determine your harvestable number? 3. Need to determine that the success rate is accurate as well as accuracy of the information usually provided as to why the success rate has declined or increased, i.e. less hunters or more hunters, available natural food in any given year, weather, commercially harvested animals verses privately harvested. 4. Validate bear population numbers. Pretty difficult for the common hunter to understand how the population estimate can go from 15,000 to 19,000 down to an adjusted count of 11,100 and say the DNRE has credability with the numbers they provide. It was not that long ago that the moose population was considerably over estimated and the wolf population was under estimated. These variances continue to undermine the credability of the DNRE. There is no question in my mind that the DNRE has a tough job especially with some of the procedures they operate by and the political pressure put on them. Our state and federal political systems need a total overhaul and the DNRE needs to have just one mission - to scientificly and effectively manage for the long term our natural resources for the outdoorpersons of the state of Michigan.


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

Hubbarj, I was not the one who posted the Wisconsin number's look above it was bearboy,I was merely pointing out that according to wisocnsin news his number's were padded.If it is not also about Wisconsin why is HE alway's refering to them?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Gary A. Schinske,

Great insight. I need to clarify the real number we are dealing with as we enter the next bear season. There was an estimated 11,100 bears prior to last bear season. When the 2009 bear season ended the statewide estimate was reduced by 2,057 dead bears. Now, unless we see some creative accounting the statewide estimate is 9,043 bears. If hunters in the 2010 bear season have about 26% success it drops to about 6,700 bears. As the statewide population drops the bears get smaller. Are we as sportsmen going to sit back and tolerate a handful of bureaucrats in the MDNRE administration reduce Michigan's bear population from 15,000 to 19,000 in two years without a wimper simply because "they" have decided to have less bear in the state?


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

If we want accuate numbers from the DNRE, we must also ask for the surving cub numbers. There will be a certain amount of cubs which will go from cub status to harvestable bear status. Number my be insignificant - but at this point who knows? If it is not significant it adds more concern to your numbers!


----------



## ruffin'it (Aug 7, 2007)

Where is the MUCC on this issue, or the litany of other poor management issues throughout the state. It is high time to form a new sportsmans group that will not be a lap dog for the NRC. We can talk all we want about what should be done, but until we get together and demand change nothing will happen.

The DNRE is participating in revenue based management.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Ruffin'it I have been wondering the same thing. MUCC does monitor this site, so maybe we can get them to make a formal statement on this issue. 

MUCC President Bill Krepps was at the Bear Management meeting in St. Ignace a couple months ago and he is well aware of the full consensus coming out of that meeting with the Bear Counciltation Team...and we were left with the opinion Bill is in full support of the concerns expressed in the meeting. I have a fair amount of confidence MUCC will use every bit of its resources to reverse the reckless management coming out of MDNRE. Maybe, with some luck the NRC will intervene and they won't have to. In any event, we are about to find out who stands up for responsible management...and who doesn't. They will be exposed in the March 4th NRC meeting.


----------



## Andrew Balcom (Mar 19, 2009)

I for one would like to have Bear living in Michigan for a long long time obviously the DNR has other plans. 11,100 is not a very big number considering the size of our state and the land that is available to support Bear populations. Based on what I have read on this thread we wont have any Bear in Michigan by 2011 is that the goal?


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Andrew I echo your concern. Perch I to get conflicting numbers from Wisconsin...20-40 thousand is a big swing. Isn't 30 in the middle. Even if we take the most conservative estimate of 22000 bear. That is twice as many as Michigan has. I still think that Michigan has inflated numbers. No matter how its sliced the wildlife division in Michigan is dead wrong! Just go to Wisconsin and take a look, they have bear!....I don't know if any of the numbers are right..Michigan is killing off the bear. Each of the past few years the population is being killed off. Cub production cannot keep up. No matter how you look at it. I am not saying Wisconsin is right on, I am saying Michigan is dead wrong!


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Gary A. Schinske said:


> If we want accuate numbers from the DNRE, *we must also ask for the surving cub numbers*. There will be a certain amount of cubs which will go from cub status to harvestable bear status. Number my be insignificant - but at this point who knows? If it is not significant it adds more concern to your numbers!


I haven't seen these numbers added in yet either, but they should be.

Last year:
11,100 Population - 2057 Harvest = 9043 Post Harvest

Coming into this year:
9043 + X cubs from last year = Y Population. 

So, I agree without knowing X you can not know Y and and can't start guessing population for this year.

Anyone know the cub population from the previous year? For all we know it could be 3,000 or it could be 1,000.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

TSS,

Been Googling cub mortality today. The general consensus is...there is no reliable method to estimate cub survival in any one zone. Based on my research, th emost common method has been to observe a sow with cub from one year to the next. If she does not have a cub in her presence the following year it is assumed to be mortality. Dr. Lynn Rogers did a study in Minnesota back in 1980 with a group of bears accustom to being closely observed by researchers. In his small study group he estimated a 59% to 88% survival for cubs, depending on feed conditions. Much of Michigan's bear country has been greatly transformed since 1980 with clear cutting and urbanization taking over prime habitat. So, Dr. Rogers findings may or may not apply to Michigan. MDNRE does not have any idea how many denned bears and cubs are killed by wolves. We asked them last year in St. Ignace. This too can be a source of cub mortaility nt measured before. 

According to a letter from Adam Bump (1/28/10) MDNRE does not have data to even estimate the bear population in each zone, so they would not know anything about cub numbers in any zone. They focus on the three regions: West UP, East UP, and Northern UP. 

It is not my mission in life to bash people, but there's no other way to put it....MDNRE's bear management is reckless.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

The MDNRE sent me a letter stating that tetracycline studies are "state of the art". I disagree. Double marking occurs. Bait is eaten by other species. Tetracycline is hodgepodge science! Truth is I really doubt if they have any idea how bear are in Michigan. I don't either. I do know that its a lot less each year. Every sportsman at the last bear users group meeting echoed my observations. Yet a press release sent out today says everything is hunky dory. Bernie Madeoff would be proud the bear management plan.


----------



## Hap Jones (Jan 29, 2003)

It's unfortunate that the people who are most vocal on this thread are most disinterested in knowing the facts. If you want to get educated about the tetracycline estimate that MDNRE uses take the time to visit the following website.

http://ww2.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...t/Reports/WLD-library/3400-3499/3400-3499.htm (See report No. 8439)

"Hodgepodge" is a term that people use when they don't take the time to understand what it is they're talking about.

As far as cub survival, MDNRE has radio-collared hundreds of bears over the past 3 decades and conducts den surveys each winter. They estimate cub survival directly, they don't depend on some study conducted in MN 30 years ago, as Rooster taughts. And as far as what was said at the St Ignace meeting (because I was there too), the DNR has never determined that any of the 100s of bear that they have radio-collared have been killed by wolves.


----------



## tsddawson (Feb 26, 2010)

I thought rules from last year said if you do not use your points you will lose them. Many hunters will use them and probably not be able to go so alot more tags will be sold than actual hunters using them than normal?


----------



## aspray (Sep 25, 2007)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Ruffin'it I have been wondering the same thing. MUCC does monitor this site, so maybe we can get them to make a formal statement on this issue.
> 
> MUCC President Bill Krepps was at the Bear Management meeting in St. Ignace a couple months ago and he is well aware of the full consensus coming out of that meeting with the Bear Counciltation Team...and we were left with the opinion Bill is in full support of the concerns expressed in the meeting. I have a fair amount of confidence MUCC will use every bit of its resources to reverse the reckless management coming out of MDNRE. Maybe, with some luck the NRC will intervene and they won't have to. In any event, we are about to find out who stands up for responsible management...and who doesn't. They will be exposed in the March 4th NRC meeting.


Below is MUCC's formal statement, which was given to the NRC during public testimony on Thursday. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have on MUCC's policies, but I don't have much time to monitor these sites all the time--feel free to send me a personal message or email ([email protected]). Thanks! Amy Spray

NRC Testimony presented by Amy Spray, Resource Policy Manager
RE: Bear Quotas and Regulations

&#8226;	MUCC has always been an advocate for sound, scientific management of our wildlife populations and providing for ample yet sustainable hunting opportunities. 
&#8226;	Bear Management Plan: We are pleased with the DNRE&#8217;s continued implementation of the Black Bear Management Plan of 2009, which called for:
o	additional social and ecological evaluation of bear management issues (specifically regarding the Red Oak Unit),
o	establishing population trend goals by region,
o	distributing harvest among the BMU based on localized indicators, and
o	continuing the method by which average success rate is used in determining license quotas. 
&#8226;	Nuisance and Problem Bears: From the DNRE memo to the NRC, it is clear that &#8220;White Oak&#8221; landowners within the Red Oak BMU are generally satisfied with the number of bears and with the bear management framework, although some do experience problems. The Bear Consultation Team debated this issue at length and in the end felt that the current problem bear guidelines are &#8220;an acceptable method for dealing with localized bear-related conflicts with a few recommended modifications&#8221;. MUCC will be promoting the recommendations outlined in the Bear Plan (attached), however we have some concerns with liberalizing lethal control methods, especially in non-agricultural/apiary settings. We would like to be actively involved in this discussion so it can be addressed in a consensus manner with all the stakeholders. 
&#8226;	License Quotas: MUCC appreciates the DNRE&#8217;s evaluation and recalculations of the bear population estimates. We applaud the continued use of average success rates in determining the license quotas to give hunters ample opportunity to be out in the field. We have heard from hunters and our partner organizations that there remains a concern about the desired harvest numbers, particularly in the Western UP, where bear populations are believed to be lower than estimated. Because we are going to a two-year regulations cycle, we would ask the NRC to decrease the desired harvest numbers for this region and recalculate the numbers of licenses accordingly to avoid having to readjust mid-regulation cycle. However, we do not support drastic reductions in the number of licenses available.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

They just want to make money of the license sales. They don't give a rip about the bear numbers.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> We have a letter from Adam *Bump, MDNRE's lead bear biologist written January 28, 2010 stating, " The bear population estimate for the West UP, East UP, and Northern NLP combined is approximately 11,100 bears. The estimate is the prehunt population not including cubs." *
> 
> The bear harvest in 2009 is reported to have been 2,057 bears...so, subtract from the 11,100 prehunt estimate. It further reduces the estimate down to 9,043 bears statewide not counting cubs. and here's where the obama math comes in...MDNRE is proposing an increase in kill tags for the 2010 bear season. They propose issuing over 12,000 tags. I am not making this stuff up!
> 
> Hopefully, the NRC will rule against the proposal.


Rooster: In Adam's statement bolded above, is it possible he was talking of pre-hunt 2010??


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

First off, I plead ignorance when it comes to overall bear population in Michigan. Now that means that I am at the mercy of the MDNRE, and their scientific studies, or Rooster Cogburn's google searches for figures that back his agenda. Do I think that the MDNRE is perfect? Of course not. But when I compare their credentials to those of Rooster Cogburn & Co. it's a no brainer. For those of you that are new to this site, a search of the past postings by the hysteria boys will show that they are driven by personal agendas. Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself. No clear thinking person that frequents this site wants to see bear populations decline. But before getting on the "MDNRE are a bunch of liars" bandwagon, take a look at those behind it and use your own good judgement on who you want to believe. Michigan voters overwelmingly gave the authority to manage our wildlife resources because they did not want political or ideological special interests involved in these decisions. And while I'm posting I want to thank those who sent me PM's that encouraged me in standing up to these cyber bullies. I appreciate it.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

i can tell you what my personal agenda is, and that is not to have to drive 9 hours through michigan ten minutes across the state line into wisconsin to actually get a hunt worth my money. and by the looks of things that is not going to happen any time soon so i will keep giving wisconsin a hundred bucks and get more out of it in a weekend than i can do the whole year in michigan


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

dickey3476 said:


> i can tell you what my personal agenda is, and that is not to have to drive 9 hours through michigan ten minutes across the state line into wisconsin to actually get a hunt worth my money. and by the looks of things that is not going to happen any time soon so i will keep giving wisconsin a hundred bucks and get more out of it in a weekend than i can do the whole year in michigan


Two points. #1) It's a much faster trip if you go through Indiana and Illinois to get to Wisconsin if you in fact live in southern Michigan. #2) I'll use your reasoning. I hunted the western UP in 2008. I saw 13 bears at the site on day one, 11 different bears for sure (or 11 and 9,it's been awhile but you get the point). I saw 4 bears on day two when it rained all day. I saw 6 bears on day 3 before shooting number 6 at 2:00pm. If you ask me Michigan Black Bears are very plentiful for guys that know what they are doing. How's that for Obama math? Nonsense to you, right? As individuals we only get a snapshot into the resource. That's why we have the DNRE doing the job. They have tons more knowledge than we could ever hope to have. I own hunting property here in Southwestern Michigan. I never saw an antlered buck the entire gun and muzzleloader season where deer are supposed to be so plentiful. I guess that means I should rant and rave about no deer. My buddy who shot a beautiful ten point less than 1/2 mile away would not agree. Game management should not be subject to hysteria and personal agenda. End of story.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

PLUMBDOG said:


> ROOSTER I WONDER what brought mr bump to this conclusion that with fewer bear . MORE hunting tags should be issued. maybe be more tags = more money for the state. rooster as sportsmen and women how can we try to stop this .
> 
> PLUMBDOG


probably he knows that most people who go out hunting bear don't have a clue and he also bases it on years past harvest rates. the same thing goes on with all permit hunting. just because you get a permit it doesn't mean you make a kill, hell just look at all the deer hunters with rifles:lol: i rest my case:lol::lol:


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

Sportdog said:


> Two points. #1) It's a much faster trip if you go through Indiana and Illinois to get to Wisconsin if you in fact live in southern Michigan. #2) I'll use your reasoning. I hunted the western UP in 2008. I saw 13 bears at the site on day one, 11 different bears for sure (or 11 and 9,it's been awhile but you get the point). I saw 4 bears on day two when it rained all day. I saw 6 bears on day 3 before shooting number 6 at 2:00pm. If you ask me Michigan Black Bears are very plentiful for guys that know what they are doing. How's that for Obama math? Nonsense to you, right? As individuals we only get a snapshot into the resource. That's why we have the DNRE doing the job. They have tons more knowledge than we could ever hope to have. I own hunting property here in Southwestern Michigan. I never saw an antlered buck the entire gun and muzzleloader season where deer are supposed to be so plentiful. I guess that means I should rant and rave about no deer. My buddy who shot a beautiful ten point less than 1/2 mile away would not agree. Game management should not be subject to hysteria and personal agenda. End of story.


 
1. it takes two and half hours to get to chicago and depending on the day, an hour or two delay there so its really easier to go through michigan.

2. i've hunted from houghton lake to iron river and can tell you that hunting in wisconsin is a whole different world. but that must be because there bear are dumber than what us dumb bear hunters from michigan are. by your point the ten thousand unsucessful hunters just dont know what they are doing every year.

should of been deer hunting over this way, could of shot a truck load of them trophy michigan dinks


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

another question

where did you hunt in 

2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2009, and where you going this year


----------



## Sportdog (Oct 6, 2005)

dickey3476 said:


> another question
> 
> where did you hunt in
> 
> 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2009, and where you going this year


I bought points from 2001 until 2007. I really didn't know if I ever wanted to hunt bear but decided to go in 2008. In 2009 I bought a point and will continue to do so until my grandson is old enough to go bear hunting with me. That is assuming that the know-it-alls don't keep messing with the MDNRE and muck it up for everyone. What part of sound, scientific based, wildlife management don't you like? Give us all a good, FACT BASED reason that the MDNRE is incompetant or they desire to kill off the bears in the state? You can't. Until I hear some evidence from a reliable source, I'll stand behind the MDNRE rather than buy into some hysteria based on some guy that spits out a few statistics, that he even claims, he got from the agencies that he thinks he knows more than. It seems that you have nothing to say for my message so now you want to attack the messenger.


----------



## dickey3476 (Dec 19, 2005)

Sportdog said:


> I bought points from 2001 until 2007. I really didn't know if I ever wanted to hunt bear but decided to go in 2008. In 2009 I bought a point and will continue to do so until my grandson is old enough to go bear hunting with me. That is assuming that the know-it-alls don't keep messing with the MDNRE and muck it up for everyone. What part of sound, scientific based, wildlife management don't you like? Give us all a good, FACT BASED reason that the MDNRE is incompetant or they desire to kill off the bears in the state? You can't. Until I hear some evidence from a reliable source, I'll stand behind the MDNRE rather than buy into some hysteria based on some guy that spits out a few statistics, that he even claims, he got from the agencies that he thinks he knows more than. It seems that you have nothing to say for my message so now you want to attack the messenger.


 
the fact the bear population went from 19,000 to 11,000 in one little mistake is what i dont like. and then there going to give out more permits then there are bear. is that sound scientific management?
and i'm done arguing with someone that has one bear hunt under his belt that lasted three days and he probably paid a guide to do the work and he can set behind his computer and tell me that i dont know what i'm doing and hound hunters have some kind of hidden agenda. what a joke.


----------



## perch321 (Sep 8, 2005)

If you think there is not an agenda behind all this,first it was guide's get rid of them you say,and ALL baiting will be their next target.Look at the post on ccare saying "MDNRE did not adress anything on baiting regulation's". This is posted under general discussion.I realize it will be posted that I am wrong BUT READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

