# Another ugly truth



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Seldom said:


> In regard to low numbers, I can't objectively say because I haven't studied them as I do coyote but when we use the term "low" to what are we comparing numbers to? In my County there has been a steady spreading of the population for the past 8-9 years to a point of "commonness" (if that's a word). A question comes to mind, would the population of any specific area be more or less than the mink population, or muskrat population, or coyote population within the same area? When I hear talk of high, low, or moderate populations of anything, I always wonder by what standard is the comparison being made to.
> 
> That being said and being that my family is from the Tower/Onaway area I'm very familiar with that area has having spent a good portion of my childhood and adult life vacationing/hunting/fishing and owning property in that area. From my experience and observations there has been a "population" of bobcats within a parallelogram formed by Onaway-Hillman-Cummins-Lewiston area as far back as I can remember. As to if the population was low I can't say, I can say that I saw cats and observed cat sign very frequently over the years. I've owned property just north of the Fish Lab on the Hunt Cr Rd for many years and most years I had a litter of cats on that property as far back as the early 80's.(that's as far back as I can be specific to)


 As far as low numbers...Alot of it would have to do with personal observance. I belive though that the DNR considers the population too low for public land trapping.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

I would hope that were the only reason Brushbuster.

That being said though, I am concerned with the DNR's philosophy of land and resource availability. I still feel that the guide services in Zone 2 disimagrate against folks like Freepop. I described a general area in northern MI that I'm quite familiar with and most of it is State land with a huge amount of cedar swamps and other prime cat habitat. I don't think that Freepop would get permission to trap cats for a week in the Black River Ranch, the Canada Creek Ranch, or any of the vast expanse of "Club" ground east of M33. Why should trappers be disallowed to trap cats on the same public property the guide services are using for their business? Shouldn't the opportunities and availability of a natural resourse be equal?

I'll try and use mink trapping as an example. Lets say there are 3 mink, a finite number running a given stretch of waterway. Does it matter how I catch those three mink as long as I catch or my goal is to catch each of the three. So with the bobcats, there is a finite number of cats in some given area, does it make a difference how they are harvested? Does it or should it matter to the DNR that if from the area's available cat population that instead of the guide services harvesting 20 cats; or the guide service harvesting 10 cats and the trappers harvesting 10 cats?

Just my off-the-cuff- thoughts.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

I'll digress from topic in part by saying that the population of coyotes has no bearing of why cable can't be used on State lands. I will also state that I personally have been "warned" by a specific coyote-hunting group, not to even be using foothold traps on State ground!!!!

You cannot appease the unappeasable and you can't compromise with the uncompromisable!!!


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Seldom said:


> I would hope that were the only reason Brushbuster.
> 
> That being said though, I am concerned with the DNR's philosophy of land and resource availability. I still feel that the guide services in Zone 2 disimagrate against folks like Freepop. I described a general area in northern MI that I'm quite familiar with and most of it is State land with a huge amount of cedar swamps and other prime cat habitat. I don't think that Freepop would get permission to trap cats for a week in the Black River Ranch, the Canada Creek Ranch, or any of the vast expanse of "Club" ground east of M33. Why should trappers be disallowed to trap cats on the same public property the guide services are using for their business? Shouldn't the opportunities and availability of a natural resourse be equal?
> 
> ...


You get no arguements with me on the subject.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Seldom said:


> the guide services harvesting 20 cats; or the guide service harvesting 10 cats and the trappers harvesting 10 cats?


There are no guide services of any kind in this state killing 20 cats a year. I would be impressed if you showed me any guide service (or anyone for that matter) killing even remotely close to half that number. 

My question to you is if harvest is equal (trappers getting a week and hunters getting 2 months), and reaching DNR goals, what does it matter how long the respective seasons go? 

If the DNR is trying to manage for equal opportunity for all user groups, and harvest is currently equal, where is the problem? 

It takes you 19 hours to catch two cats. It takes someone calling two months to kill two cats. I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in opportunity.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Is there a reason for not allowing trappers to trap cats on state land? If not then why not? I guess i always thought it was low numbers.But if that is not the reason then why shouldnt i be able to lay some steel out on public ground and catch one?


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

I wasn't addressing length of season, I was talking about trappers being restricted to private lands and the hunters are able to use both private and State lands. That is a difference in opportunity to me.

My use of the number 20 was only for an example as was the mink number and the number(s) had been used in a previous post. Could be 2, 20, or 200, makes no difference. I do not care how many cats the guide services or hunters take.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

So I'll pose a question that may or may not be relevant:

The now closed and somewhat successful first ever Wolf season was opened with the goal of taking 43 animals within a certain area with the responsibility of the hunter to call in each day to see if the goal had been met and the season officially closed. So why can't the same be put in place for cats? We set up license sales for deer and turkeys within certain geographical boundaries as well. So why is it far fetched to think that we couldn't set aside 'X' amount of seals for trapping and 'X' amount for hunting for each section or zone, and go from there. Make it a mandatory call in to report harvest data and also to check to see if the quota had been met? I'm sure the number crunchers could come up with data to support the number of seals issued to each group respectively, and then everyone would have an equal opportunity based on scientific data, and allowing all those interested in pursuing these animals the opportunity to do so via their preferred means?

-Chris


----------



## DFJISH (Mar 30, 2009)

Sounds to me like some guys believe that their facts are more important than another guy's facts when the real fact is that almost all of those facts are actually opinions. Just sayin'.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

brushbuster said:


> Is there a reason for not allowing trappers to trap cats on state land? If not then why not? I guess i always thought it was low numbers.But if that is not the reason then why shouldnt i be able to lay some steel out on public ground and catch one?


Cat trapping season is mid-December down here. I always assumed it was due to possibly interfering with ditch goat waiters. I agree that trapping should be allowed on state/private land just the same. It doesn't really make sense that you (for example) could trap the cat on private land, but I couldn't trap the same cat on state land a mile down the road. The cat certainly doesn't know property lines.


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Seldom said:


> I wasn't addressing length of season, I was talking about trappers being restricted to private lands and the hunters are able to use both private and State lands. That is a difference in opportunity to me.


My apologies, I misunderstood. Yeah, I agree with you there. Public or private should make no difference. Maybe if someone from the DNR is browsing this forum, they could enlighten us as to the reason for the restriction to private land only.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Magnumhntr, Interesting idea on better controlling the harvest of bobcats and creating an equal opportunity for both user groups...and it seems plenty worthy of more discussion among us here.
For what ever its worth I would sure like to hear the pro's and con's folks on here could contribute.

This part of my post is a little off topic, but I do have an opposing viewpoint on the wolf hunt and am compelled to comment. I do realize there has been some press reports out there trying to morph public opinion into thinking it was a success. It wasn't. In a meeting prior to the wolf hunt one of the NRC commissioner's asked the Wildlife Division Chief, "what's your plan "B"....reportedly, his response was....as told to me by an individual in the meeting was, "we won't need a plan "B". 

It would have been simple enough to allow the wolf season to remain open until the 43 wolf quota was reached, or at least extended the season long enough to increase the opportunity. 

Another serious flaw in the design of the wolf hunt was the lack of easily identified boundaries. Bottom line here is, the objective of the wolf hunt FAILED to meet the desired harvest. A plan B would have been a good idea.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

magnumhntr said:


> So I'll pose a question that may or may not be relevant:
> 
> The now closed and somewhat successful first ever Wolf season was opened with the goal of taking 43 animals within a certain area with the responsibility of the hunter to call in each day to see if the goal had been met and the season officially closed. So why can't the same be put in place for cats? We set up license sales for deer and turkeys within certain geographical boundaries as well. So why is it far fetched to think that we couldn't set aside 'X' amount of seals for trapping and 'X' amount for hunting for each section or zone, and go from there. Make it a mandatory call in to report harvest data and also to check to see if the quota had been met? I'm sure the number crunchers could come up with data to support the number of seals issued to each group respectively, and then everyone would have an equal opportunity based on scientific data, and allowing all those interested in pursuing these animals the opportunity to do so via their preferred means?
> 
> -Chris


I asked the same question, the answer was that it cist too much to do. I said we should charge more.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

srconnell22 said:


> There are no guide services of any kind in this state killing 20 cats a year. I would be impressed if you showed me any guide service (or anyone for that matter) killing even remotely close to half that number.
> 
> My question to you is if harvest is equal (trappers getting a week and hunters getting 2 months), and reaching DNR goals, what does it matter how long the respective seasons go?
> 
> ...


Access to the resource is limited. My parent's have property west of Claire. There is a good population of cats in the area and in 20 years there has been a total of one hound group in there once. Their property is under water when the season is on, so no foot holds then. The adjacent state land is off limits to me and isn't utilized by the hounds group.
My license money is used to manage this resource and access is extremely limited.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Magnumhntr, Interesting idea on better controlling the harvest of bobcats and creating an equal opportunity for both user groups...and it seems plenty worthy of more discussion among us here.
> For what ever its worth I would sure like to hear the pro's and con's folks on here could contribute.
> 
> This part of my post is a little off topic, but I do have an opposing viewpoint on the wolf hunt and am compelled to comment. I do realize there has been some press reports out there trying to morph public opinion into thinking it was a success. It wasn't. In a meeting prior to the wolf hunt one of the NRC commissioner's asked the Wildlife Division Chief, "what's your plan "B"....reportedly, his response was....as told to me by an individual in the meeting was, "we won't need a plan "B".
> ...


They chickened out and took trapping off the table and were doomed from then on. 43 wouldn't have made a dent, so they didn't make half a dent.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

FREEPOP said:


> I asked the same question, the answer was that it cist too much to do. I said we should charge more.


IMO that is nothing more than a cop-out. There is minimal cost to set up a call in system where one would be able to press 1 to report a catch, press 2 to inquire on the quota, etc. I would dare say there may be a sportsman amongst us that could code it for free/beer at the local pub. Even a database off their website, etc. I could probably set something up using Access for Christ's sake....They could even side step the reporting process and do it as a draw... we do it with half our species now... what's one more?

The fact that you have inquired about it and were given such a bs excuse just points in one direction... some political agenda weighting the issue down so that everything stays status quo. 

Either way it may be something to re-visit with them. I would be up for anything that would allow equal access to the resource amongst all interested parties...

-Chris


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Magnumhntr, Interesting idea on better controlling the harvest of bobcats and creating an equal opportunity for both user groups...and it seems plenty worthy of more discussion among us here.
> For what ever its worth I would sure like to hear the pro's and con's folks on here could contribute.
> 
> This part of my post is a little off topic, but I do have an opposing viewpoint on the wolf hunt and am compelled to comment. I do realize there has been some press reports out there trying to morph public opinion into thinking it was a success. It wasn't. In a meeting prior to the wolf hunt one of the NRC commissioner's asked the Wildlife Division Chief, "what's your plan "B"....reportedly, his response was....as told to me by an individual in the meeting was, "we won't need a plan "B".
> ...


I agree that the harvest was not a success within itself ~ the real success is that it started the process to prove that the taking of 'x' amount of animals will not decimate a population, therefore setting a precedence of fact to support the additional method of trapping to attain the goal or reducing 'the pack' by 'x' amount. Basically it got the foot in the door. The downside is the extra attention by the anti's and bleeding hearts ~ of which I don't foresee the end result being in their favor. There is no way to cast a dove as a 'killing machine' who may be after your child or pet. Yet their is irrefutable proof of wolves doing what wolves do that can be used to back up the need of management. That is where I see the success... but I am usually a glass half full person so I like to find a positive...:chillin:

-Chris


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

SR, Not trying to start a food fight here....and I concede to you the information I received on the number of bobcats accounted for by two guiding operations in the NLP cannot be verified. So, I made a follow up post giving the benefit of the doubt and called the numbers BS. But, on the other hand, I do not understand how anyone could possibly know how many cats guiding operations are accounting for. Nobody knows how many guiding operations even operate in Michigan. And, with today's technology and tactics employed by some....so is the effectiveness of those making money off of it.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

srconnell22 said:


> My apologies, I misunderstood. Yeah, I agree with you there. Public or private should make no difference. Maybe if someone from the DNR is browsing this forum, they could enlighten us as to the reason for the restriction to private land only.


Certainly no offense taken!


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

magnumhntr said:


> IMO that is nothing more than a cop-out. There is minimal cost to set up a call in system where one would be able to press 1 to report a catch, press 2 to inquire on the quota, etc. I would dare say there may be a sportsman amongst us that could code it for free/beer at the local pub. Even a database off their website, etc. I could probably set something up using Access for Christ's sake....They could even side step the reporting process and do it as a draw... we do it with half our species now... what's one more?
> 
> *The fact that you have inquired about it and were given such a bs excuse just points in one direction... some political agenda weighting the issue down so that everything stays status quo. *
> 
> ...


Your thoughts Chris are sound and commonsensical to me *BUT* there's always *THE AGENDA* hiding in a dark place which seems to trump logic and commonsense!!


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Seldom said:


> Your thoughts Chris are sound and commonsensical to me *BUT* there's always *THE AGENDA* hiding in a dark place which seems to trump logic and commonsense!!


Maybe there is a way to eliminate the agenda? The biologist at the DNR certainly know how many animals can be taken from a given area and still have a sustained population ~ therefore couldn't a 'draw' be put in place so that anyone could pursue a cat by whatever means they wish? 

Lets say whatever model they use supports the taking of 10 animals per 100 sq/miles of section 'A' ~ then wouldn't 10 tags drawn for section 'A' allow 10 people to pursue, regardless of method? Some years there may be more trappers, some years more houndsmen, some a mix. The issue of cost would be addressed, as well as the issue of unfair use. 

Would restricting trappers to 'toms only' allow the issuing of more tags and keep the population growing?

Maybe I'm out of line, or there may be information that I am not aware of, but it seems this should not be that hard to address...

-Chris


----------



## srconnell22 (Aug 27, 2007)

Chris, 

Be careful what you wish for. 

Making it a draw only tag would make them a prize, increase their value, and increase Rooster's much hated guiding operations (and their prices). 

We had tons of bear in this state when you got a bear tag with your deer tag. Hardly anybody outside of the hardcore bear hunters targeted them. The state made it a draw system, which made them a trophy, and immediately everybody wanted to hunt them. Now we have the issue of "I've waited six years for this tag, I'm shooting a bear," regardless of what that bear is. Due to the mentality the draw has created, too many sows and sub-adults are killed each year which has steadily destroyed the population.



FREEPOP said:


> They chickened out and took trapping off the table and were doomed from then on. 43 wouldn't have made a dent, so they didn't make half a dent.


I don't want to get off topic too bad, but I would like to see a trapping only season next year on wolves. Open it November 1st (or whenever furs become prime) and close it March 1st (or whenever furs start to go bad) or when the quota is close to being met to avoid over-harvest (whichever comes first). I don't think the season would make it out of November before the quota was filled. 

As we continue to manage them, one thing is certain, we can't do it the way we did it last year. We need to either open them up to being run with hounds, add trappers, extend the season with an option to close upon meeting the quota or a combination thereof. 

Trappers are the most effective way to manage wolves quickly and quietly.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

SR is 100% correct on the affect of the lottery system on bear. Wisconsin experienced the same sudden increase in hunter numbers when they went to a lottery system for bear. Wisconsin does have a lottery system on cats and it takes years to draw a cat tag. Only user it benefits is the guiding operations....they don't need to draw a tag to operate.

I believe we all know....there's a lot of trappers that exceed the bag limit on cats. With the high fur price its just a simple matter of buying a furharvester licenses for family and friends and registering cats under their name. Find a way to stop folks from exceeding the bag limit and cat numbers will increase.

At the same time, limit the number of guides and assign specific areas they can operate in....rather than allowing them to pound the same area until cat numbers take a big hit.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Last week I filled out the DNR bobcat survey and I recalled an incident that I incurred when I went to the Bay City office to get my CITIES tag and deliver the cat's skull. A Tech who was about my age and his helper were very professional and while the helper was taking measurements the Tech ask questions and filled out a form. I noted the form's questions were pertinent and when we were done and I was about to leave, the Tech commented how lucky I was that there weren't any officers in the building when I was there.

That kind of stopped me and being the easy-going, congenial person that I am, I asked why diid that make me lucky? The Tech explained that whenever a trapper brings a cat in to be tagged, officers love to ask the trapper a million questions! With that comment I felt myself straining to maintain my lovable-self but I did and asked the Tech if he would do me a favor. I ask him to circle my address and phone number and put a note beside them that I would extremely interested and look forward to being contacted by an officer or two or three and answer any and all questions they have pertaining to my cat. The Tech actually did as I ask but I never was contacted and I'm still waiting!!!


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> I believe we all know....there's a lot of trappers that exceed the bag limit on cats. With the high fur price its just a simple matter of buying a furharvester licenses for family and friends and registering cats under their name. Find a way to stop folks from exceeding the bag limit and cat numbers will increase.


 I agree but it's no different really than the cable restraint Regs that have been proved time and time again to be violated! It appears to me as personal opinion, that many of the trapping Regs of today have been compromised to the point of illogicalness that all you need it a little dash of greed and a pinch of thievery to make a recipe for a behavioral disregard for Law.
Again, just my personal opinion, nothing more but nothing less!


----------



## CaptainNorthwood (Jan 3, 2006)

Seldom said:


> I ask him to circle my address and phone number and put a note beside them that I would extremely interested and look forward to being contacted by an officer or two or three and answer any and all questions they have pertaining to my cat. The Tech actually did as I ask but I never was contacted and I'm still waiting!!!


That's their modus operandi Mike. I have sent 4 emails to 2 individuals within the DNR with a very simple yes or no question and haven't heard boo from them. The old joke was DNR = Department of No Results.....I am thinking its more like Department of No Response. I better get right on that Bobcat survey they sent me.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Seldom said:


> I agree but it's no different really than the cable restraint Regs that have been proved time and time again to be violated! It appears to me as personal opinion, that many of the trapping Regs of today have been compromised to the point of illogicalness that all you need it a little dash of greed and a pinch of thievery to make a recipe for a behavioral disregard for Law.
> Again, just my personal opinion, nothing more but nothing less!


Mike, I'm thinking your two posts here are the answer to your question on the CO's and their questioning when someone brings in a cat for registration 

-Chris


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

magnumhntr said:


> Mike, I'm thinking your two posts here are the answer to your question on the CO's and their questioning when someone brings in a cat for registration
> 
> -Chris


:lol: Hmmm, maybe I was waving a flag AND holding up a sign! :lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

Seldom said:


> :lol: Hmmm, maybe I was waving a flag AND holding up a sign! :lol::lol::lol::lol:


LOL. I like to try and give people the benefit of the doubt ( CO's included ), so it makes sense to me that if there are problems with individuals over harvesting cats, that the CO's would ask alot of questions of those who are in registering them ~ trying to trip up the violators. If it were me, I'd thank them for doing their job ~ but I've never been burned by one either 


-Chris


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Oh, I was very serious when I requested the officers to contact me. I have a very good relationship with one of the two in my area but I've yet to met the other but I'm looking forward to meeting him some time in the future. As I understand it, the officer enjoys trapping **** and I'm happy he does and it means he has hands-on experience with trapping in general! This fact I appreciate! 

In fact, the property where I harvested this years cat, I was contacted by the property owner several years ago to reduce the coyote population due to the officer's recommendation.

My post that I thought might be construed as flag and sign-waving was for some other folks benefit, not the DNR.


----------



## Ole Trapper (Mar 31, 2014)

The trapper that catches an extra bobcat and has his wife tag it is not legal by law. The guide who trees the cat and has his client tag it is legal by law. Besides the technicality of the law the two instances are not that far apart in reality. Someone does the work of arranging for the harvest of a cat and another person tags it. The trapper gets an extra $100 for his fur and the guide gets anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500 from his client for the cat. Let's carry this one step farther. This trapper is pretty darn good and has a decent cat population in his area, so he is lucky to get a cat for each of his two boys to tag as well during his 10 season on private land only. Now he has taken an extra three cats and pockets a cool $300 but is technically violating the law. We go back to the guide who is only average but hunts in many counties for cats. Since at best he is only average he is able to catch only 10 cats for his clients during his 60 day season hunting on private and public land. He pockets a measley $10,000 to $25,000 but is legal by law and had only to pay $50 for a guide permit and had his liability insurance requirement waived by the DNR. (Yes, I am aware he had other expenses.) I am not advocating breaking the law just looking at things in a different perspective. There are many different ways to look at these two instances, I am only presenting one. Not going to get into a food fight, just trying to present a different look.


----------



## WinkyJ (Jan 31, 2013)

Ole Trapper said:


> The trapper that catches an extra bobcat and has his wife tag it is not legal by law. The guide who trees the cat and has his client tag it is legal by law. Besides the technicality of the law the two instances are not that far apart in reality. Someone does the work of arranging for the harvest of a cat and another person tags it. The trapper gets an extra $100 for his fur and the guide gets anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500 from his client for the cat. Let's carry this one step farther. This trapper is pretty darn good and has a decent cat population in his area, so he is lucky to get a cat for each of his two boys to tag as well during his 10 season on private land only. Now he has taken an extra three cats and pockets a cool $300 but is technically violating the law. We go back to the guide who is only average but hunts in many counties for cats. Since at best he is only average he is able to catch only 10 cats for his clients during his 60 day season hunting on private and public land. He pockets a measley $10,000 to $25,000 but is legal by law and had only to pay $50 for a guide permit and had his liability insurance requirement waived by the DNR. (Yes, I am aware he had other expenses.) I am not advocating breaking the law just looking at things in a different perspective. There are many different ways to look at these two instances, I am only presenting one. Not going to get into a food fight, just trying to present a different look.


There are many different ways to look at these two instances, but the state has to look out for the interests of the entire population. In that light, complaints focusing on the guide are easily dismissed by the state. The guide is only an enabler of the hunter and can't lawfully help the hunter take more than the hunter's lawful share of the prey.

The guide didn't tree the cat, the hunter hired the use of the guide's dogs to tree the cat. The state has no interest in making it illegal for a person to use hired dogs for hunting while it is otherwise legal to use dogs for hunting. You pretty much have to ignore the fact that the guide is making all that money. That's between him and the hunter. The state's only interest in that money is in taxing the income that the tourism generates.

The issues here are hunting vs. trapping on public land and season lengths. The issues of using the tags of children and wives are the same for hunting and trapping, although it would be harder to use your spouse's tag on a guided hunt. Guides are a straw man.

I'm not a fur taker. I'm a mostly unsuccessful predator caller and I trap private land for predator control. But I can see the fur taker's perspective that they should be allowed to take cats from public land, up to the same limit as hunters can take, and season lengths should be set accordingly.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Ole trapper, You're right about the DNR waiving the insurance requirement for individuals guiding on state land. Maybe you didn't know, MDNR has also waived the state land use permit fee for guiding. In a meeting at MUCC headquarters in Lansing on January 15, 2012 the Wildlife Division Chief stated it was him that waived the insurance requirement for guides and also waived the permit fee. To operate guided hunts on bobcat in any of the three national forests in Michigan guides are required by law to apply for a Special Use Permit for outfitter/guides, and carry $500,000 in liability insurance naming USFS as co-insured. Big difference how the USFS deals with guiding. Obviously, MDNR caters to commercial operations.

Winkyj, maybe you are unaware, guides have a much higher success rate than those hunting for sport. Even MDNR acknowledges guiding requires oversight....they just have not provided any. When it comes to bobcat harvest in the NLP by guiding operations, responsible management would require measuring the impact they have on the resource, rather than giving away free permits. They certainly didn't have any problem determining harvest limitations on trappers.


----------



## WinkyJ (Jan 31, 2013)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Winkyj, maybe you are unaware, guides have a much higher success rate than those hunting for sport. Even MDNR acknowledges guiding requires oversight....they just have not provided any. When it comes to bobcat harvest in the NLP by guiding operations, responsible management would require measuring the impact they have on the resource, rather than giving away free permits. They certainly didn't have any problem determining harvest limitations on trappers.


The higher success rate doesn't matter. The higher success rate comes from using dogs, not from making money guiding. The hunters are still the takers, not the guides. That's how the state will see it. I'm not saying the guides don't need to be regulated, just that focusing on them is a losing strategy. If the resource is being depleted, the takers need to be limited, not the people who help them take (and help the state's economy by doing so).

If somebody paid an experienced trapper to accompany him and help while setting up a trap line, should that "trapping guide" be held responsible for the take?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

The higher success rate does matter because it impacts the bobcat population. One hunter, one tag is correct but, the guide brings in more hunting pressure than would normally take place with all of his tag-holder clients...resulting in a heavier harvest. Add that to other guiding operations pounding the same area until numbers are depleted. 

Regarding the statement of "the people that take them and add to the state's economy" I am wondering how free state land use permits to guide on state land is helping the economy. Only small business in Michigan that gets to operate on state land for free. And, I am wondering how it is guiding is the only small business in Michigan that easily evades all the legal requirements of small businesses in Michigan because transaction are almost entirely untraceable cash payments. None of that benefits the state's economy.
And, as far as hunter retention goes once the resource is depleted hunter retention falls. We are experiencing that here in the Western U.P. in living color.


----------



## WinkyJ (Jan 31, 2013)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> The higher success rate does matter because it impacts the bobcat population. One hunter, one tag is correct but, the guide brings in more hunting pressure than would normally take place with all of his tag-holder clients...resulting in a heavier harvest. Add that to other guiding operations pounding the same area until numbers are depleted.


Again, it's the use of dogs, not the making of profit.



> Regarding the statement of "the people that take them and add to the state's economy" I am wondering how free state land use permits to guide on state land is helping the economy.


It's "the people who help them take". The hunter has paid for the use of the state land with his license. The question you didn't answer, illustrates the principle.

_If somebody paid an experienced trapper to accompany him and help while setting up a trap line, should that "trapping guide" be held responsible for the take? _

The experienced trapper most likely helps increase the take. If the hunting guide should be held responsible, why shouldn't the trapping guide?



> Only small business in Michigan that gets to operate on state land for free.


Would a trapping guide have to get a permit?



> And, I am wondering how it is guiding is the only small business in Michigan that easily evades all the legal requirements of small businesses in Michigan because transaction are almost entirely untraceable cash payments. None of that benefits the state's economy.


Not reporting income is not limited to guiding. If you have knowledge of guides evading income taxes, report them. Anybody who buys anything with their unreported income is still helping the economy, because they're increasing the income of the people they buy from. The sellers of dog food, gasoline, and all other related dog hunting expenses benefit and that helps the state. It's just not as simple as "blame the guides".



> And, as far as hunter retention goes once the resource is depleted hunter retention falls. We are experiencing that here in the Western U.P. in living color.


The DNR definitely needs to manage the take and to balance the interests of all involved. Blaming the guides just isn't helpful. It's very easy for the state to just ignore it.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

The individual that would hire a guide pays the guide to do the actual hunting. The profit accounts for the motivation to bring in individuals that would not otherwise be there. In turn it inceases the hunting pressure and the harvest above what normal hunting would account for in a given area. You failed to address the impact of increased hunting pressure and harvest guides account for in areas they operate in. Instead you simply stated, Its the use of dogs not the making of profit." You are overlooking the fact the guides would not be their if it was not for the money.

Years ago New Hampshire's DNR became concerned over a decline in bear numbers. During this time they found an increase in guiding operations operating in the state. They opted to limit the number of guides and measure the impact. They now have over 24 years of data on the impact guiding had/has. Initially, they sought to manage guiding to aproximately 10% of the annual harvest. According to N.H's Black Bear Team Leader Andrew Timmins, they have been successful in holding the harvest on guided hunts to about 10%. Their philosophy is, "their intention is manage their natural resources for the sportsmen and not for commercial interests. The state of New Hampshire is about half the size of the U.P. About 70% of the state is bear habitat. And, they sell on average 9,700 bear kill tags annually over the counter. No lottery. And, they do not have a problem with hunter retention. Might be interesting to note....they only allow 35 individuals to guide for bear and they are limited to the taking of 6 bears. If their bear population increases enough they will allow an increase in guides.


You are right the hunter has paid to hunt on state land, but the guide paid nothing to operate his business there and profit off our natural resources.

Just for the record, its not "blame the guides" with me. The DNR created this mess and its the DNR's failure to manage that has a negative impact on the resource as well as on other users. I operated as a bear guide off and on since 1968 and understand it real well.

Regarding the idea of a trappers "guide" that's an interesting hypothetical you posed. I hope some of the trappers will respond to that. I do a little trapping and will have to answer you just based on my limited lifetime experiences.....There are plenty of trapping clinics, and folks serving as instructors and there would never be a need for a trappers guide. But, if there was such a thing as a trapping guide and the guide hauled in customers from around the state into an area and over harvested it seems limitations would be called for.

I believe we do agree, the DNR does need to manage the commercializing. I do favor limited guiding because they will help weed out the illegal operations and those who do become qualified licensed guides in Michigan will likely be more conservation minded. 

Thank you for your opinion on this matter. Its been an interesting debate.


----------



## WinkyJ (Jan 31, 2013)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> The individual that would hire a guide pays the guide to do the actual hunting. The profit accounts for the motivation to bring in individuals that would not otherwise be there. In turn it inceases the hunting pressure and the harvest above what normal hunting would account for in a given area. You failed to address the impact of increased hunting pressure and harvest guides account for in areas they operate in. Instead you simply stated, Its the use of dogs not the making of profit." You are overlooking the fact the guides would not be their if it was not for the money.


I'm not overlooking that. I'm pointing out why it's irrelevant. If you're going to make it "wrong" for hunters to hire experts, you're going to have to make it "wrong" for trappers to hire experts. Otherwise, the double standard nullifies your argument. Don't make the assumption that I'm defending guides. I couldn't care less whether they exist. I'm showing you the weakness of your arguments against them.

I didn't "fail to address the impact of increased hunting pressure and harvest guides account for in areas they operate in". The state will tell you that it's a non-issue, because the state can't afford to be anti-profit. Population size has to be addressed through harvest quotas and season lengths, not through telling hunters that they can't hire experts to help them kill the same animals that trappers are profiting from.



> Years ago New Hampshire's DNR became concerned over a decline in bear numbers. During this time they found an increase in guiding operations operating in the state. They opted to limit the number of guides and measure the impact. They now have over 24 years of data on the impact guiding had/has. Initially, they sought to manage guiding to aproximately 10% of the annual harvest. According to N.H's Black Bear Team Leader Andrew Timmins, they have been successful in holding the harvest on guided hunts to about 10%. Their philosophy is, "their intention is manage their natural resources for the sportsmen and not for commercial interests.


What they do in some other state for some species where trapping and selling of the parts is not tolerated is irrelevant. Fur taking is a commercial interest. Not only can you sell the furs, but you can sell the meat, the glands, the bones, etc.. You're pitting one commercial interest against another while ignoring that one of the commercial interests is what it is.



> You are right the hunter has paid to hunt on state land, but the guide paid nothing to operate his business there and profit off our natural resources.


Anti-profit arguments are easy to dismiss, especially when they come from one of the people who profits. Unlike hunters, trappers, loggers, firewood cutters, shed hunters, mushroom harvesters and others, the guide takes nothing from the land. His profit does not come from the land. It comes from the hunter. You're basically talking about charging somebody for running one type of dog on public land while allowing others to run their dogs on public land for free. The only difference is the profit that doesn't come from the state's natural resources.

If too many guides operate in the territory, their success rate will drop and their profit will drop and then their numbers will drop. That's self-regulating, just like the numbers of trappers.



> Regarding the idea of a trappers "guide" that's an interesting hypothetical you posed. I hope some of the trappers will respond to that. I do a little trapping and will have to answer you just based on my limited lifetime experiences.....There are plenty of trapping clinics, and folks serving as instructors and there would never be a need for a trappers guide. But, if there was such a thing as a trapping guide and the guide hauled in customers from around the state into an area and over harvested it seems limitations would be called for.


Somebody would have to have a permit for walking along with a trapper and giving him advice on where and how to trap, just because the trapper is paying him? That doesn't seem ridiculous to you?



> I believe we do agree, the DNR does need to manage the commercializing.


I don't think we agree at all, because I don't think the guides are the issue you think they are. But like I said, focusing on the guides is a losing strategy, because the arguments against them are so obviously self-serving examples of double standards.



> I do favor limited guiding because they will help weed out the illegal operations and those who do become qualified licensed guides in Michigan will likely be more conservation minded.


That would serve the interests of some guides at the expense of others. I doubt it would do much to serve the interests of trappers, predator callers, or hunters who have their own dogs.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Nice try winky.


----------



## Ole Trapper (Mar 31, 2014)

I totally agree, Winky. A trapping guide should be treated no different than any other guide. I also agree that it is not the guide that is at the core of the problem but the DNR's failure to enforce the laws/regulations equally or to create them equally. 
(Maybe they are part of the Obama administration.) If you re-read Seldom's post, it talks about the trapper being singled out as a possible game violator which is wrong. Perhaps if they questioned those that harvested by means of a guide, they would find illegal operations there as well. I do not agree with you that money has no part in the illegal harvest of animals. Do you think the trapper would go out and buy his wife or kids a furbearer license if a bobcat was only worth $10? Do you think a guide would be in business if he could only get $50 for a guided bobcat hunt? Money drives illegal activity; can we all spell d r u g s? This thread has gotten into a guide issue and that is not how it started out. The issue is the inequity that the DNR created between different harvest methods/user groups as pointed out previously in this thread. If you can only harvest a certain number of cats, why the need to have such drastic differences in method of take? Politics verses sound scientific management? The user groups have been very selfish, wanting everything their way regardless of the needs/wants of their fellow sportsman. Their lobbying with the DNR and NRC has helped create this problem. It is time the user groups stop their bickering against each other, and start holding the DNR accountable for their actions, or lack of action, for the future of all our sports. Personal agendas/politics need to be taken out of resource management. It is time to truly put the sound scientific management of our natural resources as our top priority and hold accountable those charged with executing this mission. Time to get off the soap box and go do something constructive.


----------

