# CWAC List 1/10/2016



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/CWAC_List_Of_Members_450259_7.pdf


----------



## deadduck365 (Nov 5, 2010)

I see an opening in there.


----------



## fsamie1 (Mar 8, 2008)

Do any CWAC reps members in this forum? If you are, do you mind introducing yourselves? I am hoping a few are members and raise our concerns and issues in the meetings.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

fsamie1 said:


> Do any CWAC reps members in this forum? If you are, do you mind introducing yourselves? I am hoping a few are members and raise our concerns and issues in the meetings.


There are. And a couple highly involved DNR staffers too. But I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. That's up to them to do themselves. I would hope maybe some of them would PM you??? Hint hint?


----------



## Brougham (Jan 29, 2010)

Maybe M.S. Waterfowl Forum can get a CWAC seat ? (Is there a symbol/picture of a guy laughing so hard he just pissed his pants? I wanted to attach one if so.)


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

fsamie1 said:


> Do any CWAC reps members in this forum? If you are, do you mind introducing yourselves? I am hoping a few are members and raise our concerns and issues in the meetings.


I can guarantee your issues and concerns have been and are raised in the meetings. There is just more to the whole state that just this forum. Also change takes time. Heck I remember when on CWAC and I mentioned having the middle zone late 2 day a couple weekends later rather than the weekend after the first 58 days closed. Was at the request of a member here. I got laughed at and chastised a bit from a middle zone rep. But was just trying to mention a concern. Well low and behold a couple years after I left CWAC and when is that middle zone 2 day split. Several weekends after the first 58days closed.

I wasn't very liked when on CWAC cause I was willing to question stuff and the status quo. But years later numerous things I raised concerns about and question have come to be reality. Just took a little time and some work.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Brougham said:


> Maybe M.S. Waterfowl Forum can get a CWAC seat ? (Is there a symbol/picture of a guy laughing so hard he just pissed his pants? I wanted to attach one if so.)


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

goosemanrdk said:


> ...I wasn't very liked when on CWAC cause I was willing to question stuff and the status quo.....


I don't believe that's true. I was in the peanut gallery many of those meetings, and all you were doing was voicing the opinions of your constituents and yourself. Did it get heated at times? Sure. It still does, and that's what a democratic process is about. Personally I think you gave up too soon because you had a lot of good input.


----------



## Fall Flight Punisher (Aug 14, 2008)

just ducky said:


> I don't believe that's true. I was in the peanut gallery many of those meetings, and all you were doing was voicing the opinions of your constituents and yourself. Did it get heated at times? Sure. It still does, and that's what a democratic process is about. Personally I think you gave up too soon because you had a lot of good input.


J.D. now your just kissing a..

I agree he was and is a great voice with common sense and knowledge.


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

just ducky said:


> I don't believe that's true. I was in the peanut gallery many of those meetings, and all you were doing was voicing the opinions of your constituents and yourself. Did it get heated at times? Sure. It still does, and that's what a democratic process is about. Personally I think you gave up too soon because you had a lot of good input.


I appreciate that, however the comments that were said, just loud enough for me to hear, during many of the lunch breaks tell me different. It was interacting with guys like you, a select few CWAC members and most of the DNR staff that kept my interest in staying on as long as I did.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

goosemanrdk said:


> I appreciate that, however the comments that were said, just loud enough for me to hear, during many of the lunch breaks tell me different. It was interacting with guys like you, a select few CWAC members and most of the DNR staff that kept my interest in staying on as long as I did.


Yeah I know...some of those have much different reasons for being there, and I'm sure they voiced their opinion. But for what it's worth, I've seen a bit of change recently in that they seem more interested in actual business...not as much nonsense. I think that's partially because they're only having one meeting a year now...generally.


----------



## Sampsons_owner (Dec 30, 2005)

Is that correct that one guy representing Harsens has been there since 02 and another for DU since 07? Or is it that the organizations have had a seat since then?

And whats up with the MDHA seat? Steve


----------



## Brougham (Jan 29, 2010)

Brougham said:


> This Saturday, January 7, Jay's in Gaylord.
> Meeting runs 9:00a.m. through 3:00p.m.


So now on January 19........Your either three weeks late, or 49 weeks early, concerning these "concerns & issues". Other than those directly involved in the process, only eight (8) others showed up for the CWAC meeting. And some of those 8 gave input. I don't think these computer forum bitch sessions will generate much change. Who'd listen? As we learned in November, ya gotta get dressed and go vote.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Sampsons_owner said:


> Is that correct that one guy representing Harsens has been there since 02 and another for DU since 07? Or is it that the organizations have had a seat since then?
> 
> And whats up with the MDHA seat? Steve


Those are the starting dates of that individual, not the organization. As far as MDHA....no idea.


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

Brougham said:


> I don't think these computer forum bitch sessions will generate much change. Who'd listen? As we learned in November, ya gotta get dressed and go vote.


Not entirely true, the concept of not having the 2 day split the weekend after the first 58 days closed, not having 2 zones open on the same weekend, and getting the opening day date set in advance all either started or maintained momentum from these computer forum bitch sessions, at least for me when I was on CWAC. It was a combination of seeing it complained about here and having guys from here contact me to discuss it that kept me pushing despite the resistance.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Brougham said:


> So now on January 19........Your either three weeks late, or 49 weeks early, concerning these "concerns & issues". Other than those directly involved in the process, only eight (8) others showed up for the CWAC meeting. And some of those 8 gave input. I don't think these computer forum bitch sessions will generate much change. Who'd listen? As we learned in November, ya gotta get dressed and go vote.


Not everyone can make those meetings. That's just life. I'm willing to bet a HUGE majority of hunters have no idea what the CWAC is. I know I didn't know until I found out about it here.

Another thing, isn't the point of a Rep to voice the concerns of who they represent? People don't show up to debates in government when passing laws but we voice our opinions and concerns to our state reps and senators, right? It's the same thing. However, just like our gooberment you have "elected officials" who only care about their own agenda.

My issue is that there's politics involved with all of this and there shouldn't be.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

craigrh13 said:


> ...My issue is that there's politics involved with all of this and there shouldn't be.


Life is full of politics, whether it's CWAC, or your local municipality. We all deal with politics every day of our lives...fact. But back to your point...yes, the CWAC reps are supposed to represent their constituents at the meetings. From my experience attending, MOST do this very well. There are a few who seem to present their own opinion. But that's the same as going to a local government meeting, a school board, or whatever. Some people like to grandstand their own ideas instead of the real reason they are there. So my advice to all of us waterfowlers is talk to your local representative, and give them input. Afterall, that's why they take up a seat on the Committee. If you don't feel your opinions are being adequately addressed, complain to the rep, and/or the DNR CWAC coordinator. Or better yet, come to the meetings and watch what your rep tells the group. The public does get a chance to speak at the meetings, so you could then immediately correct them if they aren't representing you properly.


----------



## Fowl Play (Nov 30, 2014)

If they are supposed to represent us, shouldn't they be appointed by us, vs an at large appointment by a group, such as Delta waterfowl, DU, etc....


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

just ducky said:


> Life is full of politics, whether it's CWAC, or your local municipality. We all deal with politics every day of our lives...fact. But back to your point...yes, the CWAC reps are supposed to represent their constituents at the meetings. From my experience attending, MOST do this very well. There are a few who seem to present their own opinion. But that's the same as going to a local government meeting, a school board, or whatever. Some people like to grandstand their own ideas instead of the real reason they are there. So my advice to all of us waterfowlers is talk to your local representative, and give them input. Afterall, that's why they take up a seat on the Committee. If you don't feel your opinions are being adequately addressed, complain to the rep, and/or the DNR CWAC coordinator. Or better yet, come to the meetings and watch what your rep tells the group. The public does get a chance to speak at the meetings, so you could then immediately correct them if they aren't representing you properly.


Yep. And the thing guys have to remember is that for each of their opinion A on a subject there is usually another with an opinion B that is the opposite. Also, many times lots will agree on a certain point with you, until they find out what they might loose to get to that point. Case in point December hunting and the late 2 day split. When I joined CWAC lots of guys wanted me to get more days in December. Well, when I told them the best chance for that was trying(almost impossible) for a early to mid season split and run longer, but they would loose the late 2 day and I was willing to try and accomplish that. The vast majority so no thank you, don't take the late 2 day split and leave it the way it is.

Honestly, what we have now is a pretty darn good compromise given all of the working pieces of what all different people want out of the season.


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

I saw a good number of great reps. You goosemanrdk, were one of them.

Our seasons are a constantly changing and fluid body of work. It will continue to evolve as the factors that influence them change.

We'll see 75+ days because our hunter numbers are decreasing and, following the Adaptive Harvest Management Plan, that will allow for more days. The trend is disturbing to me even though it makes for the most liberal seasons ever seen. Hunter loss means voter loss. Do you really think we would have lost the dove vote in 1955??

Times they are a changin'!!


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

craigrh13 said:


> I fully agree there is a user problem. I'm not arguing that one bit. There's a ton of hunters who aren't involved and in the dark on issues. All I'm saying is there is room for improvement on getting the word out on these issues or even what the hell the CWAC does.
> 
> I mean if you are going to go through the trouble to create the CWAC, why half ass it??
> 
> ...


Lack of turnout recently could be a result of most hunters being happy with the seasons and how things are going after some of the changes that were made a few years ago.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

goosemanrdk said:


> Lack of turnout recently could be a result of most hunters being happy with the seasons and how things are going after some of the changes that were made a few years ago.


nailed it. and yes i wish you were still one of the reps. i thought you had your area in best interest. its a thankless job.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

goosemanrdk said:


> Lack of turnout recently could be a result of most hunters being happy with the seasons and how things are going after some of the changes that were made a few years ago.


Yep...apathy, which again leads to low turnout. There are always SOME issues to be debated. I'm back on my soap box...we each need to take individual responsibility for being informed. Otherwise, accept living in the dark on these things. Hell I just had someone ask me yesterday "hey, did you know they raised the gasoline tax and our auto registration fees?" UMMMM....no **** Sherlock. Where have ya been???


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

Currently in my 3rd year as a S zone SW rep.

To address the notion that voices aren't heard, and specifically voices here:
You are. You're just in the vocal minority.
Since Al Gore invented the Internet, guys on this forum have been begging for later seasons and December hunting, and I would like it too.
Then I go to the CWAC meeting and see the data that is collected from hunter surveys and band harvest data that clearly shows that the vast majority of hunters in this state (65-70%) are happy with early October opener's.
That the amount of hunters (as a percentage) drops off drastically after the first 2-3 weeks of October.
That a majority of the ducks killed in MI are killed in Early-Mid October.

A guy that hunts 40 days a season pays the same price for a license as the guy who only hunts the opener, and there are a whole lot more casual 1-2 times a year hunters than there are killers. You can't set dates for the benefit of 10% of the people

I talk with groups of waterfowlers around the SW and try to get their input and advance their interests - I talk to random guys at boat ramps and try to get a feeling for things that are good or need improvement - I don't hunt the managed areas - but I talk with guys who do and with the managers of the units in the W/SW side and represent the feedback from those guys - but the SW is 3 of 19 reps, and rightly so - the reps are allocated where the hunters are. All of Z2 only have 2 reps and naturally Z3 SE/Sag Bay have the most.


When I sit in meetings I try to advocate for dates and limits that will be the most advantageous to the most people.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

KLR said:


> Currently in my 3rd year as a S zone SW rep.
> 
> To address the notion that voices aren't heard, and specifically voices here:
> You are. You're just in the vocal minority.
> ...


holy [email protected]#%! get that damn logic outa here. what? are you telling me that a cwac rep is out there gathering info and conveying it in front of the DNR who has surveys and band data at their disposal AND i still didn't get what i wanted????wtf


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

I know. It's boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

KLR said:


> Currently in my 3rd year as a S zone SW rep.
> 
> To address the notion that voices aren't heard, and specifically voices here:
> You are. You're just in the vocal minority.
> ...


I've watched KLR in action at the CWAC meetings, and I will say that he's one of the more level-headed in the group. He actually pays attention, comes prepared on the various topics, and does his homework (as any good CWAC member should be doing). So kudo's to you Dan...you're definitely doing your best for your constituents


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

That's no BS....those of you in SW Michigan are being represented well. But what he said is true...the people like us on this forum are only a small percentage of the total waterfowl community. And we here tend to be more involved, emotional and vocal. Those 90% "casual" waterfowlers are just fat, dumb and happy. This is why it often seems as thought the DNR isn't listening. They actually are, but not to us, because WE ARE THE VOCAL MINORITY. Fact!


----------



## Michigan Muck Hunter (Sep 14, 2015)

The DNR is not the best at communicating but they are great at using this digital age to get information from fisherman, outdoorsmen, conservationists, etc... I am signed up to get there emails. I rely on their information although I often times disagree mainly on a fishing level. I feel they communicate through their emails very often on our WMA's. But, when it comes to the politics side of things they are very hush, hush. When they throw a meeting out there there is very little notification. Their website is sporadic as far as looking for information and you can get easily lost in there. They have made some improvements but there is more that can be made. Hell, I check into the weekly waterfowl counts several times a week. They are usually a week behind when it should be no more than a day and sometimes they go 3-4 weeks without any information. They are numbers punched into a small spreadsheet. Very, very easy to do. 

They increased our hunting and fishing licenses and I was for that as long as I seen money and changes being put into place. I see more DNR on the road and get checked more than I ever have and I love that. But we rely on them for their information. They could do a lot better job as we are well into this digital age.


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

KLR said:


> Currently in my 3rd year as a S zone SW rep.
> 
> To address the notion that voices aren't heard, and specifically voices here:
> You are. You're just in the vocal minority.
> ...


Up next will be the arguments of:
1- That can't be, everyone I talk to wants later, and I talk to "a lot" of people and they all agree with me.
2- Those numbers in the survey can't be right, I have never been surveyed.
3- There is no way that participation drops off, I see all kinds of people out all season at the locations that I hunt.
Feel free to add more.......


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

goosemanrdk said:


> Up next will be the arguments of:
> 1- That can't be, everyone I talk to wants later, and I talk to "a lot" of people and they all agree with me.
> 2- Those numbers in the survey can't be right, I have never been surveyed.
> 3- There is no way that participation drops off, I see all kinds of people out all season at the locations that I hunt.
> Feel free to add more.......


 ha ha. Yep, not even summer and we'll soon be into reruns


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Michigan Muck Hunter said:


> ...They increased our hunting and fishing licenses and I was for that as long as I seen money and changes being put into place. I see more DNR on the road and get checked more than I ever have and I love that. But we rely on them for their information. They could do a lot better job as we are well into this digital age.


See here's a prime example of not staying informed (no offense to you personally muck hunter). The license fee increases did provide additional CO's on the force, but for us waterfowlers in particular, it helped fund the managed areas in a more stable fashion (we did away with the managed area fees), and we have a lot more staff (i.e. biologists, wildlife techs, etc) than we used to have. It has been a struggle for many years to fill staff positions, and they now have them in place. So there were many benefits to us waterfowlers. And before anyone says "well no one has told me about these changes?", yes the DNR has...over and over in press releases, website postings, facebook messages, etc. Ever since the license increase, they've been very quick to point out where the money is going. So they have communicated it.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

I honestly think the biggest problem with feedback from the South central and SW part of the state as it's a bigger deer hunting area. Combine that with you have more hunters who deer and duck hunt and primarily duck hunt until the rut and then swap over to deer. So naturally they are ok with seasons being front end loaded. However, anyone who primarily duck hunts down here knows the best hunting doesn't start until mid November on average. I went back and looked at all my bands and neck collars. 3 were killed in the early season and the rest have been Late November/December/Janurary. 

With that being said, I understand that compared to the Bay we are the minority. So like I said, until the Feds allow for 4 zones with splits in sure you will always have the bitching. Of course there will always be something else to bitch about!


----------



## Michigan Muck Hunter (Sep 14, 2015)

just ducky said:


> See here's a prime example of not staying informed (no offense to you personally muck hunter). The license fee increases did provide additional CO's on the force, but for us waterfowlers in particular, it helped fund the managed areas in a more stable fashion (we did away with the managed area fees), and we have a lot more staff (i.e. biologists, wildlife techs, etc) than we used to have. It has been a struggle for many years to fill staff positions, and they now have them in place. So there were many benefits to us waterfowlers. And before anyone says "well no one has told me about these changes?", yes the DNR has...over and over in press releases, website postings, facebook messages, etc. Ever since the license increase, they've been very quick to point out where the money is going. So they have communicated it.


This is exactly what I had just said in my original post JD. Its the politics side of things they tend to not give us. I think its great they put the money into the WMA's with the new biologists and whoever. I have gone to the open houses and seen the money being put back in. But at the end of the day, I feel they could be managed a little better. Those places are pressured hard but really that topic is another monster. 

As sportsman all of us should read through the entire Digest. I read it every year. There isn't a lot of changes in there from year to year for the most part but there are some. But none of us are required to read it. We are required to know the guidelines and laws throughout our season that is all. Posting information for the general public to see from time to time in regards to CWAC and the seasons framework would be more useful and informative for todays sportsman being we are living in a different world. I am 37, I was not born into the digital world but I have grown into it and have learned we all use it as an asset to gather information for the masses. Like someone said earlier our children do not use textbooks today.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Michigan Muck Hunter said:


> This is exactly what I had just said in my original post JD. Its the politics side of things they tend to not give us. I think its great they put the money into the WMA's with the new biologists and whoever. I have gone to the open houses and seen the money being put back in. But at the end of the day, I feel they could be managed a little better. Those places are pressured hard but really that topic is another monster.
> 
> As sportsman all of us should read through the entire Digest. I read it every year. There isn't a lot of changes in there from year to year for the most part but there are some. But none of us are required to read it. We are required to know the guidelines and laws throughout our season that is all. Posting information for the general public to see from time to time in regards to CWAC and the seasons framework would be more useful and informative for todays sportsman being we are living in a different world. I am 37, I was not born into the digital world but I have grown into it and have learned we all use it as an asset to gather information for the masses. Like someone said earlier our children do not use textbooks today.


Agree with everything you said!


----------

