# Some questions for the NRC commisioners



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Relative to the recent U.P. AR survey results, and your apparent lack of positive response, why have you decided to manage our deer herd for the super-minority 1/3 of hunters and landowners? Obviously the science was appropriate or you would not have approved the proposal for the AR in the first place, would you?, so why side with such a small minority? You can't use the 66% "guideline" as an excuse because you approved DMU 118 at 61% and you are to make decisions based on scientific research, so are we here in the U.P. to expect less from our commisioners? 

Do you feel comfortable going against hunters and landowners in the face of such overwhelming support and proven science?


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

NJ - was that figure 1/3 of all landowners and hunters, or the number surveyed? 

Swamper


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

My question to the DNR Commissioners would be: If we are bound by law to manage our deer herd by sound science, then why arent we doing it by implementing QDM?

We have tested QDM in both the U.P. and in the L.P. The data collected from those experiments should be the sole determining factor in whether QDM is implemented on a U.P.-wide or statewide basis. If the results of those experiments show positive results (which they have in all cases) and the DNR and the commission have chosen to ignore these data, then they have been remiss in their duties and in violation of the law, which require them to manage the deer herd according to sound science. Since this is obviously the case, then Leons comments in a previously closed thread, where he makes mention of taking legal action against the DNR makes perfect sense. Legal action may be the wisest use of QDM supporters time and money.

I used to be against QDM, but when I became educated on the subject and saw dozens of examples with my own eyes on how well QDM works, I became a supporter. Its hard to agrue with success.


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

Do you think our NRC commissioners are showing courage in their deer management leadership?

Do you think it's appropriate that NRC commissioners interpret Proposal G to mean they can use "social" science principles for implementing a constitutional mandate from the public to use only "scientific" principles? Do you remember voting on "social" science biological principles when we passed proposal G?

Do you think it is good public policy to have our NRC commissioners so actively micro-managing our deer herd?

Do you think certain NRC commissioners have intimidated NRC wildlife biology staff so they won't even recommend the practices of QDM publicly?


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Swamper, 

That was the number "surveyed" as required by law and regulations. It's statistical sampling and it's proven to be accurate. So, for all intents and pursposes, 61 percent of ALL U.P. hunters and 63 percent of ALL U.P. landowners want mandatory QDM regs.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

leon said:


> Do you think it's appropriate that NRC commissioners interpret Proposal G to mean they can use "social" science principles for implementing a constitutional mandate from the public to use only "scientific" principles? Do you remember voting on "social" science biological principles when we passed proposal G?


Leon, this topic came up with Rod Clute at the round table discussion in Lansing at the Deer and Turkey Spectacular. Rod`s interpretation is that Prop G said "sound science" not sound biological science. Therefore the DNR gives social science the same weight as biological science.

Maybe we need a decision by a judge as to what Prop G meant by "sound science".


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

Trophy, where can I find the data collected from the UP QDM experiments that you speak of?


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

The NRC Commissioners did not determine that the rest of you can not practice QDM. Just that it will not be forced down the throats of those not interested.

The deer herd is not being managed for 1/3 of the hunters. It was the rights and interests of the 1/3 (or 37%) that is being protected.

THANK YOU NRC!


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Bioman said:


> Trophy, where can I find the data collected from the UP QDM experiments that you speak of?


Contact the DNR or Superior Deer Managment for information on the central U.P. experimental QDM area, which is now in it's five and final year. Since I also hunt extensivly in the central U.P. I have also been collecting data since several years before the implementation of the experiment and the numbers are impressive.

You can also contact Ed Spin on this forum for data on the Clare County QDM experiment. That one show very good results as well.


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

Trophy, when I contacted the DNR for data on the U.P. QDM experimental units I was told that in no way are they going to give out any data until the five year test is complete in each unit. Am I wrong in assuming that there is no official data on UP QDMs that show positive results in all cases as you claim? And if this data should be the sole determining factor according to you, then why should the entire UP have QDM regulations before the data is available? 

I am the worlds biggest skeptic and would have a problem with any data soley collected by the sponsoring organazation. Kind of like the old fox guarding the hen house wouldn't you think?

So back to my original question; where is this data on UP QDM units that you claim shows positive results in all cases? I don't think it's there yet.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Bioman, I take offense to your remarks accusing me of making up data and I also take offense at your disparaging remarks about Superior Deer Management. As I stated, the DNR and Superior Deer Management both have data on the QDM experiments. If the DNR won't give it out to you, then don't blame me, blame the DNR. By the way, who at the DNR did you talk that wouldn't provide to you that information, and when did you talk to them?


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

trophy, sorry for any misunderstanding. But I was just looking for the UP data you mentioned that "show positive results (which they have in all cases)" Your words not mine. And I never mentioned Superior Deer Management and know nothing about them. I did say that I would question any information coming from any sponsoring organazation. That would include any subject based on science, not just QDM. As a QDMA member I have many questions about the movement and am looking for any data I can find on the subject.

As far as who I talked to in lansing I hesitate to mention any specific names online. I tried to get data when the proposal was submitted but was told it won't be available until after the five year experiment was done If you have contacts with the DNR that can get biodata about QDM units in the UP before the test is finished I would appreciate you relaying that to all of us.

And just for the record, it seems I am not the only one who might question data coming solely from any sponsoring organazation. I believe that was addressed in the proposed new guidelines. This is purely science and nothing to be offended about.

Again, I apologise if you were offended, certainly no offence was intended. Just desperatley searching for the facts.

Again, if you have the data you spoke of, please pass it on. We all want to get a better picture of what is happening to our deer herd. 

And please reread my post, I never even suggested that you made up data.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

Bioman,

I contacted a DNR biologist in Escanaba last fall and was told that he had started to tabulate the data from the three DMU's under manditory QDM regs after the first year but was told by DNR administration to not do further quantitative studies until the entire 5 year experiment was completed, supposedly because of a lack of manhours. This provision is part of the proposed new QDM guidelines which are available on the DNR website. I'm not sure what the purpose of that provision is as it's not explained very well. It seems to me that the more information made available in a timely fashion would assist all parties involved. 

I don't know about any sponsoring groups having accurate data or if they have the means to collect such info. If they do it would certainly be in their interest to present that data if it reflects the published predictions of these same groups. This information would certainly have been useful in forming opinions about the most recent QDM proposals, which is exactly why I inquired about the 4 year running totals to begin with.

Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

Thanks very much Glen. That was pretty much what I was told. I agree that the more specific scientific data we can get on a timely basis, the more informed we can be on what is going on with what is arguably Michigans most important game animal.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Bio and Glen,
Thanks for your input and your resonable, well thought out posts above Your comments about the need for unbiased studies and data are valid.

I'm not accusing any group, including the MDNR, SDM, QDMA, CIA, FBI, PDQ, AOL, USMC.........opps!....sorry, I got carried away.....:lol:

Anyway, I'm not accussing any group of manipulating a study and its related data to suit the need/desires of the organization. That may be done in some cases, but it has to be dealt with in other ways. If a study's results/data and the conclusions made from that information is to be accepted by a needed majority (be it simple or super) it needs to be trusted as impartial.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> I'm not accusing any group, including the MDNR, SDM, QDMA, CIA, FBI, PDQ, AOL, USMC.........opps!....sorry, I got carried away.....:lol:
> 
> .


Only conspiracy theorists are awake at 4am.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Brian S said:


> The NRC Commissioners did not determine that the rest of you can not practice QDM. Just that it will not be forced down the throats of those not interested.
> 
> The deer herd is not being managed for 1/3 of the hunters. It was the rights and interests of the 1/3 (or 37%) that is being protected.
> 
> THANK YOU NRC!


 
Communism at it's finest:yikes: :lol::yikes:


----------



## bogwalker (Aug 5, 2002)

Hey...perfectly stated and should be final.It wasnt "overwhelming support" and the "proven science" as applied to nature is seldom cut and dried,too many variables.Now everyone can hunt as they wish in the areas they choose to hunt and peace and serenity will prevail.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

bioman said:


> Thanks very much Glen. That was pretty much what I was told. I agree that the more specific scientific data we can get on a timely basis, the more informed we can be on what is going on with what is arguably Michigans most important game animal.


 Here is a link to th harvest results from DMU 118 after 3 years.
http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/articles/2001harvestdata.htm

Notice the very large increase in 2.5+ bucks the very first year AR's were implemented. The harvest data from the fourth year was also available , and if I find the link I will post it. In any case , i think the data shows why the support for AR's didn't increase after 4 years of AR's in DMU 118.


----------



## 2tundras (Jan 11, 2005)

I buy my car insurance from a NRC member. I'll ask him what he thinks when I pay my bill today.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

2tundras said:


> I buy my car insurance from a NRC member. I'll ask him what he thinks when I pay my bill today.


And do report back!!!!!!..........:lol:


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

2tundras,

Don't let John use the excuse that he had to follow the 66%. He didn't have to, the NRC has set precedent in the past not to, and the figures were overwhelmingly conclusive in support of the measure. But again, he'll use the 66% percent as his "scapegoate" and blame it on the system....not true.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Next time Mr. Madigan offers up the old "our hands are tied, the rules are the rules" excuse, remind of how he, and the NRC acted when presented with the DNR's recommendation that artificial feeding of deer be ended up in his neck of the woods.

The NRC shown the ability to throw "the rules", including Proposal G, out the window whenever it becomes convenient to do so.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

farmlegend said:


> Next time Mr. Madigan offers up the old "our hands are tied, the rules are the rules" excuse, remind of how he, and the NRC acted when presented with the DNR's recommendation that artificial feeding of deer be ended up in his neck of the woods.
> 
> The NRC shown the ability to throw "the rules", including Proposal G, out the window whenever it becomes convenient to do so.


*Touche`*


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> Next time Mr. Madigan offers up the old "our hands are tied, the rules are the rules" excuse, remind of how he, and the NRC acted when presented with the DNR's recommendation that artificial feeding of deer be ended up in his neck of the woods.
> 
> The NRC shown the ability to throw "the rules", including Proposal G, out the window whenever it becomes convenient to do so.


If a supplemental feeding survey were to be mailed out to hunters and landowners in the U.P. then I'd venture a guess that about 95 percent would be in favor of the practice.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Not that I'm suggesting this :evil: but it appears that many people are unhappy with the members of the NRC. You all are spending way too much time stewing about the DNR staff or the NRC...Whining to DNR staff, or Ms. Humphries herself, won't get it. Only the Governor has the authority to appoint...or remove....the members of the NRC..not the DNR. So get active and let the Guv and your legislators hear with rational, honest  examples, and ask for those culprits to be replaced. That's the only way things will change.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Are you sure they can be removed?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Bioman-""""Am I wrong in assuming that there is no official data on UP QDMs that show positive results in all cases as you claim? And if this data should be the sole determining factor according to you, then why should the entire UP have QDM regulations before the data is available?""" Good question.

Makes you wonder why they tried to push this reform through this year without seeing data from a QDM study area that was in its last year?!? brian S. and bioman have some good questions.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

if the support is so "overwhelming" then all those QDM supporters should have no problem what-so-ever doing it voluntarily and making it work then, right?   After all those few that don't support it will not make that big of a difference.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

boehr said:


> if the support is so "overwhelming" then all those QDM supporters should have no problem what-so-ever doing it voluntarily and making it work then, right?   After all those few that don't support it will not make that big of a difference.


Bottom line; the empirical data shows that without mandatory regs in the U.P., our hunters are harvesting a dizzying 75%-plus of each year's crop of yearling bucks.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

boehr said:


> if the support is so "overwhelming" then all those QDM supporters should have no problem what-so-ever doing it voluntarily and making it work then, right?   After all those few that don't support it will not make that big of a difference.


Many of these people want to make the change only if their neighbor also makes them. Without full compliance, many of these people are discouraged to take the nesessary steps on their own.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

You are right Neal It is easier when you know someone else cannot screw up your hard work (legally) by sittin across the fence row and shootin em down. There is a lot of reluctance because of this.

AW


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

60% plus want AR's,but the data(thats if you believe the DNR numbers which most disagree with the harvest numbers which the 75% comes from) shows that the deer we harvest are 75% 1.5 year olds. This all seems pretty shaky to me, considering the growth of QDM and voluntary AR among hunters inthe past 5 years,the 75% number continues to remain the same or at least people trying to pass proposals use it year after year. Either the %number is mis-used or people that claim they are follow QDM/AR are flat out lying, or the growth of QDM/AR is grossly overestimated!?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Neal said:


> Many of these people want to make the change only if their neighbor also makes them. Without full compliance, many of these people are discouraged to take the nesessary steps on their own.


Then support must not be sooooo overwhelming then. 

Which we again get back to what I have been preaching since day one.....education! The wall is being built higher and higher because of wanting to attempt to jam a method down the throats of others right from the beginning. If the movement wouldn't have came on so strong in the beginning there might have been a different outcome but this is another case of a new way (in Michigan it's still new) or my way is better.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

The U.P. is a very unique place. Again, between 70 and 80% of the U.P. is corporate or public. I wholeheartedly support voluntary QDM on private land...because voluntary works on PRIVATE land. But on public land that is a different story. You don't know your neighbors, you or your neighbors have no ownership interest in the property, you don't take care of the property on a yearly basis, you can't have meetings with area property owners, and you can't form co-ops. Voluntary does not work on public land and the survey illustrated this point.

What the survey showed was that despite negative misinformation and deceit, an overwhelming number support AR's IF MANDATED. On the otherhand, the survey results show that an overwhelming number support shooting yearling bucks, if legal. That's why all the education in the world will never work on public land..it's got to be mandated to be followed.

Again, the survey showed that support is extremely high...IF MANDATED. I might add that this survey goes along with the 40-50,000 votes+ all around the rest of the state as well to equal about 60% for mandated AR's.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Depending on where you're located in Michigan, somewhere between 65% and 90% of each year's yearling buck class gets wiped out each season. That's the reality. We are a laughingstock.

If there's anything being jammed down anyone's throat, it's Traditional Deer Management.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

I'll support all of those who are saying that a very large percentage of hunters want to raise the bar on antler restrictions.....IF everyone else has to also. The exception would be for kids 17 & under. In my social/hunting groups, I would say at least 80% support raising the bar, however with some, as soon as you mention QDM hairs go up on the back of their neck. They would never support a group that is known as a doe killing organization.
While I no longer believe this to be true, many do, and it is in part because of some of the individuals from this site. Appartently some of the QDMers on this site have never seen a doe that they wouldn't like to shoot or they think you should shoot every doe you see because you report that you saw a group of 8 antlerless deer recently. It doesn't matter that they know nothing about your hunting area.........just shoot the damn does.
I am not sure that the damage done by these indivduals can ever be undone, but several from this site are trying.
In summary, I believe that the 66% threshold would have been reached in the recent UP survey had it been known as an "Antler Restriction Change" survey. The fact that it was initiated by QDM was the coup de gras (sp?). 

L & O


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

L&O,

I believe fully that this proposal was shot down by one bit of misinformation....QDM and the QDMA was indeed labeled as a doe killing organization. Take that away, and it passes easily. That one bit of misunderstanding killed us and it was a huge obstacle to overcome. That's why our informational meetings were so successful. Once you came and heard the true facts, you were for it and that was by far the largest objection.

The ironic part of the entire process was that SDM has been the only organization to my knowledge to get the DNR to REDUCE permits..which happened to be in the QDM test area of DMU152 where they were able to get the permits reduced from 1800 to 600.

I have no problem with a hunter not wanting the proposal to pass because they truly wanted to shoot any buck that showed up...I found they were in a very small minority. But, if you voted against this because you thought doe permits would increase..you made a mistake.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> Are you sure they can be removed?


NJ-
I'd have to look up the statute that established the commission to be certain, but with most state commissions, the Governor appoints and/or removes members, with concurrence of the Senate. Not the most PC thing to do, but I believe it can be done. Just need to prove the case.


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Excellent point, FarmLegend, about who is stuffing what down our throats. Why isn't there a survey process asking if we like the dusty, outdated methods believed in so dearly by all those taking a DNR paycheck? I don't recall ever being surveyed about that. So, exactly, who is trying to shove something down our throats?

It's interesting that Boehr should point out the need for education. That's EXACTLY what the QDM proponents and the QDMA have been calling for, mostly on deaf DNR ears. WE'RE the ones that have educated ourselves on current management science. It's not the other way around. Talk about a pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I would imagine it would have to be extremely flagrent bordering on or actually criminal. My personal opinion is that there is a pretty low expectation for the position....so nothing really "earth-shattering" has been commited.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I believe fully that this proposal was shot down by one bit of misinformation....QDM and the QDMA was indeed labeled as a doe killing organization. Take that away, and it passes easily. That one bit of misunderstanding killed us and it was a huge obstacle to overcome. That's why our informational meetings were so successful. Once you came and heard the true facts, you were for it and that was by far the largest objection."

If that is true, can you explain why the support for the demo. project in DMU 118 didn't increase after 4 years? As i read the survey results there was no increase in the support for the plan after 4 years.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

Many of the hunters I've talked to after last years UP hunt talked of maybe trying QDM because the current system seemed to be failing. However, they were not speaking of the lack of larger, older, bigger antlered bucks. They were speaking of the lack of deer period. Many camps saw very few deer, many camps saw 0 deer and these are good sincere hard hunters who spend many hours in the woods before and during season. They not only saw greatly reduced numbers of deer but also very few signs of deer, so it can not be attributed to weather or nocturnal patterns or other reasons, just fewer deer.

Can any QDM proponents tell me that QDM will lead to a greater overall number of deer, an increase in deer/acre? I don't mean just after the first mandated year, for we all know that there will be an increase then because fewer bucks will be harvested the first year, but what about succeeding years? I'm sorry but I cannot find any assurance that the dwindiling numbers will be increased by QDM implementation on a longer term basis.

Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I understand what Boehr is saying and think he has a very valid point. I know that I wish I could turn back the clock and take back more than a few posts and use some different tact and I think I can say the same for some here. At least on some early posts a few years back. And there's still the occasional inflaming pro-QDM post that makes me cringe because I feel it's exactly what we didn't need to win hearts and minds of guys that only want or know TDM. I am certain that eventually, all the good work being done by many here will pay off and TDM will be history. I'm now 100% certain after the results of the latest UP survey. Maybe not in 2 years, possibly less than 5 years, probably in less then 10 years and certainly, God willing, sometime in my lifetime. However, I think what Boehr is saying is that the management movement stumbled out of the gate and probably set back the movement a couple years in Michigan. I think that is a very fair analysis. However, we all were finding our management legs too. All this talk is still less then 10 years old, for most of us. Don't forget, pretty much all of us were TDM'ers at one time. Some were militant TDM'ers. I know the "if you don't shoot the spike, someone else will" speech all too well. I should, because I used to give it at our camp. A couple years ago, I'd send nasty grams to MDNR people berating them for "screwing everything up". Every month I'd send a new tag idea to someone in MDNR that would fix it so mature bucks were behind every tree. MDNR would go broke, but there'd be bucks all over! LOL I also made some M-S replies in the past that only inflamed TDM hunters and did nothing to educate. I'd never do anything quite like that now. If anything, I think (hope) that that shows that the management movement has simply grown up and learned from it's mistakes. 
To me, momentum can only increase for our cause. There is no other way. Once a hunter learns what the whole program is, and puts QDM in one hand and TDM in the other and balanced them like a scale, nobody can then vote for TDM. It's only when fellow hunters remain uneducated, do we stand a chance of losing the future. IMHO


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Glen,

First off, thanks for asking about an area of QDM that you don't understand fully. That's the first BIG step that so many refuse to take. The willingness to understand before judging is greatly appreciated.

I'm certainly not the expert many of those on here are but I'll take a stab: Will QDM increase deer populations? In the U.P. it COULD. But it has nothing to do with so many perceive QDM to be. It has nothing to do with doe harvest, nothing to do with bucks. It's HABITAT.

QDM and the QDMA, in my understanding, promotes the methods that create ideal possible production (antler size, age structure, sex ratio, etc) from the deer herd. That's done by keeping the deer herd at a level the habitat can sustain. To do that, you must take does if you have a surplus. The U.P. doesn't have the surplus southern Michigan has so doe harvest may not be necessary. That's a decision to be made by sound, biological evidence not social pressure.

After you get the ideal herd size, you work on age structure, sex ratio and that's where antler restrictions come.

BUT HERE'S WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO MISS: The primary factor in all of this is habitat. Right now, parts of the U.P. are not able to support many deer. That's why they've issued doe tags in the past because X number of deer are wintering in areas that will only support Y number of deer and they starve.

The habitat simply isn't there. Blame foresting methods, fire suppression, whatever. But it's not able to feed many deer. NorthJeff can certainly speak to the changes in habitat, carrying capacity better than someone like myself who spends precious little time there. In my opinion, the ONLY solution to that is FULL implementation of QDM of which a major component is habitat improvement. That's easily done on private land. But is our DNR willing to do so on public lands? IF QDM were implemented properly and fully then, yes, I believe you would see an increase in the area's carrying capacity because you'd see habitat improvement.

Hope that helps some.


----------



## Leon2 (Mar 8, 2004)

I couldn't be more upset about this whole chain of events and I couldn't be more disappointed. 

I think the NRC and DNR, by their actions, are turning their backs on some who have been their biggest supporters. 

At a time when hunter numbers are shrinking and we are losing the battle to recruit new hunters, how do you turn your back on 60% of your constituent group and tell them their opinions don't matter when you asked for their input and their help in the first place?

I've hunted Michigan for 39 deer consecutive deer seasons. For the first time ever, I am thinking about doing my deer hunting in another state. I'd like to go somewhere (anywhere) where the resource people care more about my preferences as a hunter. I want to go somewhere where they care more about the quality of the hunting experience. I heard enough times that in Michigan, we are going to continue catering our hunting regulations and deer management strategy to satisfy the guy who has never hunted before and the guy who buys his license late Friday night for the Saturday opener.

The think our NRC and DNR have lost touch with their real customers.

I am also disappointed because I believe the NRC and the DNR have set progressive deer management back ten or more years in this state with their actions. With our long seasons, heavy baiting, and few restrictions on buck harvests, we will continue to kill an artificially high percent of our young bucks. That gives us one of the most manipulated and unnatural deer herds in the nation and it looks like we will continue down that path for the forseeable future. I am really saddened by this trend.

One of my most prized possessions is a 1939 poster from the Michigan "Department of Conservation" that lists all the hunting seasons and bag limits from the 1939-40 hunting season. I think a lot about what that term "conservation" meant when that poster was printed and what conservation means today in the QDM and similar deer management principles. If we are going to save hunting in this state, maybe we need recapture more of that "Conservation" spirit today that once existed in our DNR.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

You have a pretty good idea what I am saying Bob but we have kind of talked about it a little through PM's before. One could find on this web site where I have even joined QDMA. I believe in much of what QDMA stands for and I even practice it but I admitedly look at things with enforcement in mind and how is something, not just QDM but most things, get enforced fairly and equally. I also have seen that users of web sites like this are for the most part honest, good hunters who make an extra effort to obey and follow the laws regardless if they agree with them. Because of the honesty, it is sometime difficult, I believe, for those hunters to imagine what the people COs try to catch attempting to use laws and proposals for their poaching advantage.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Leon2 said:


> The think our NRC and DNR have lost touch with their real customers.


The problem is - the hunter/sportsman should NOT be the 'real customers.'

The customer is the resource and the NRC and DNR should be doing WHATEVER it takes to properly manage the resource.

ferg....
The questions for the NRC remain - are they propertly managing the resource based on sound science?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

"""I heard enough times that in Michigan, we are going to continue catering our hunting regulations and deer management strategy to satisfy the guy who has never hunted before and the guy who buys his license late Friday night for the Saturday opener."""" - Leon

And who are you trying to cater too with proposals like in the UP? Are you saying the proposals will not cater to people who never hunted before and what makes the guy who buys his license the night before any far less a hunter if both of you are sitting in a blind opening morning staring over a swamp or rye field? Is it because you have the time and resource to have private property and plant a rye field that makes you more worthy to buy your license in October? Its too bad the stigma of a guy buying a license the day before is somehow not worthy to be in the woods to hunt. Same attitude I have seen to guys that do not release a trout or have a St. Croix in their hands who are not worthy of fishing in certain stretches of water.

Is there a corralation to the rise of QDM to the decrease in hunter numbers?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

is about questions that you would ask the NRC - 

Please tweek thing back into line - 

B&N - easy with the fishing references - they have they own trouble in their own forums :yikes: 


ferg....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*As a reminder of what the topic of this thread really concerns here is NJ's initial post.*


*Some questions for the NRC commisioners* 
Relative to the recent U.P. AR survey results, and your apparent lack of positive response, why have you decided to manage our deer herd for the super-minority 1/3 of hunters and landowners? Obviously the science was appropriate or you would not have approved the proposal for the AR in the first place, would you?, so why side with such a small minority? You can't use the 66% "guideline" as an excuse because you approved DMU 118 at 61% and you are to make decisions based on scientific research, so are we here in the U.P. to expect less from our commisioners? 

Do you feel comfortable going against hunters and landowners in the face of such overwhelming support and proven science?
__________________


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

Whit, thanks for getting this back on topic.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Ferg said:


> The questions for the NRC remain - are they propertly managing the resource based on sound science?


According to Rod Clute, yes they are.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> """I heard enough times that in Michigan, we are going to continue catering our hunting regulations and deer management strategy to satisfy the guy who has never hunted before and the guy who buys his license late Friday night for the Saturday opener."""" - Leon
> 
> And who are you trying to cater too with proposals like in the UP? Are you saying the proposals will not cater to people who never hunted before and what makes the guy who buys his license the night before any far less a hunter if both of you are sitting in a blind opening morning staring over a swamp or rye field? Is it because you have the time and resource to have private property and plant a rye field that makes you more worthy to buy your license in October? Its too bad the stigma of a guy buying a license the day before is somehow not worthy to be in the woods to hunt. Same attitude I have seen to guys that do not release a trout or have a St. Croix in their hands who are not worthy of fishing in certain stretches of water.
> 
> Is there a corralation to the rise of QDM to the decrease in hunter numbers?


There is a correlation and disitnct difference between hunters who value their stake in what is going on in the woods around them, value the decisions they make and hunters who would mark their survey "no opinion". If you would mark a survey that directly effects your hunting as "no opinion" what does that say? Why should the DNR/NRC cater to and adjust hunting reg's based on indifference?


----------



## treestand6 (May 7, 2003)

Questions that I would ask the NRC:

Why are we surveying non hunters?

Why are the proposed deer mgmt. trial areas not set up by DMU?

What does it cost the hunting public for these proposed Mgmt. trail areas?

Why are we doing any survey? 

Why not let the NRC set hunting seasons?

Since when has it been a policy for non resident (state and country) to have a part in setting hunting policy?

Why is the sponsoring group that is proposing the deer mgmt. trail areas not paying the full cost?

:SHOCKED:


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Why are you afraid of managing our natural resources in a sound, scientific manner, vs. traditional opinion?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

treestand6 said:


> Why is the sponsoring group that is proposing the deer mgmt. trail areas not paying the full cost?


Instead, maybe the question should be: Why are we doing an antiquated, labor intensive, expensive U.S. snail-mail survey anyway when inexpensive technology is readily available using the Internet for a survey that would cost very little and would be a snap to set up. All you would need to do is set up a log in for hunters or landowners to enter their license number or property tax ID number and then let them vote on a pole on-line. I could set up such a pole in about one hour at no cost.


----------

