# White Oak pipe dream



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Spartan88 said:


> Remote locations off public roads, camps being watched on the ground, and eyes in the sky. Thats why the 'truck loads of bait' comments crack me up, camps do get fly overs.


I know about the plane, they used to circle 65/ hubbard lake trail,, then east of 65 at the alp/alc county line  then they would fly doctors club on the way across turtle lake,, then random sweeps,, Pilot eats at the paddle in in Mio,,,,, if you know the area you are laughing at the owners names i didnt mention 

cant beleive I didnt a rise out of the candians comment


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

solohunter said:


> I know about the plane, they used to circle 65/ hubbard lake trail,, then east of 65 at the alp/alc county line  then they would fly doctors club on the way across turtle lake,, then random sweeps,, Pilot eats at the paddle in in Mio,,,,, if you know the area you are laughing at the owners names i didnt mention
> 
> cant beleive I didnt a rise out of the candians comment


Yeah I know the area you mention, met the pilot a few times too.  

I'm looking forward to seeing the bear survey data when that gets released.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

The White Oak proposal, should it become a bear management zone would set a precedence for landowners to join forces, exercise their political suck (as they did in Club Country via Keith Charters) and begin taking control over resources we all have a stake in. The White Oak scenario is a statewide issue even us Yoopers have a concern with. Not sure how we are starting a war with folks on the other side of the bridge. We get plenty of opinions on wildlife management from folks downstate, and it is most often well received. 

It would be great if we could get opposing facts from folks favoring a White Oak Zone, but so far it has been just gut feeling and no facts.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> The White Oak proposal, should it become a bear management zone would set a precedence for landowners to join forces, exercise their political suck (as they did in Club Country via Keith Charters) and begin taking control over resources we all have a stake in. The White Oak scenario is a statewide issue even us Yoopers have a concern with. Not sure how we are starting a war with folks on the other side of the bridge. We get plenty of opinions on wildlife management from folks downstate, and it is most often well received.
> 
> It would be great if we could get opposing facts from folks favoring a White Oak Zone, but so far it has been just gut feeling and no facts.


The more bear we have to hunt in white oak will possibly reduce the number of people headed to the UP,s bear mills, from what was said your count is down,, ours is way up, why should I hunt in the UP when I can hunt at my camp down here?? Like near where the 663 lb bear was taken a few years ago?? issuing more permits to the red oak zone spreads the tags out across the state and does not focus more tags in the area with the high population, possibly overhunting the west side of the state where they have much fewer bears. F*&%^ common sense here. also an idea ; if they issue a lower mich deer tags -v- UP tags to control the kill ratio


----------



## hubbarj (Jan 30, 2007)

Spartan88 said:


> You should stick to forestry since you want to paint with such a broad brush...


I'm not saying that all clubs are feeding but don't make it sound like it is not going on. I am just saying from my personal experience more were feeding than weren't. I did really unberstand why they had nice food plots and still insisted on baiting.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

hubbarj said:


> I'm not saying that all clubs are feeding but don't make it sound like it is not going on. I am just saying from my personal experience more were feeding than weren't. I did really unberstand why they had nice food plots and still insisted on baiting.


Fair enough, there are over 30,000 acres in the area and I'm only familiar with a very small piece of it.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

The Upper Peninsula contains 16,452 square miles (42,610 km²), almost one-third of the land area of the state Source of data;
wikipedia org/w iki/Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan

Red Oak Area

Alcona 674 square miles
Antrim 602 square miles
Alpena 574 square miles
Presque isle 660 square miles
Emmet 882 square m
Oscoda 572 square miles 
Otsego 526 square miles
Missaukee 574 square mile
Roscommon 580 square miles
Montmorency 562 square m
Cheboygan 885 square mile
Charlevoix 417 square miles 
Kalkaska 380 2/3 0f 571 square mile
Crawford 375 2/3 of 563 square miles 
Ogemaw 383 2/3 of 575 square miles 

RED OAK aprox 5254 miles One area,
UP Bear areas 16452 miles seven areas / 7 , = @ 2350 per area average 
( actually most are smaller due to the large size of newberry area. ) 

These are estimates due to three countys being split by approx 1/3 

So why not split up such a large area when there is a marked increase of bear on one side of the state?? This area is to big and diverse to manage as one unit with the growth of the bear population in certain areas.
Maybe the DNR will wake up and see this problem is present and act accordingly, unlike when the deer population in club country went out of control and it took the TB scare to start reducing the herd.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Solohunter, I agree with what you are saying. But we both know the potential white oak area has no public access, its an issue on this board and it will be an issue that the NRC will avoid even with 'sound science' data under their noses. They will keep the majority happy, thats the way they do business.


----------



## Islander26 (Feb 23, 2004)

Not sure why you guys want to jump on Rooster for the info he is trying to pass on to you. If you were so concerned about bear numbers, you too would have attended that meeting with Rooster and had your opportunity to express your feelings to the folks that deserve it. Not the messeger. 


Thanks for the info Rooster


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Islander26 said:


> Not sure why you guys want to jump on Rooster for the info he is trying to pass on to you. If you were so concerned about bear numbers, you too would have attended that meeting with Rooster and had your opportunity to express your feelings to the folks that deserve it. Not the messeger.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info Rooster


As pointed out to me by Rooster,, that meeting was not posted in any DNR website. he was informed of it during a phone conversation unrelated to the meeting. he had to call and get date and time. 
I would guess this was a meetng of the committee and not posted for public.


Spartan88 ; Public access on my side is pretty big if you look at blockhouse swamp, the area south of Curran thru hoist lakes, across to mack lake, and beyond, I will not suggest that because we own it we have any right or say in the managment of it??
MAybe there should be a White oaks Bear hunters coalition established and get a members list of property owners, family and guest hunters,,


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

One of the factors relating to the White Oak issue came from a previous bear management meeting. MDNR biologists believe the primo habitat in Club Country may be a key part of the entire Red Oak zone's ecosystem...where a significant percentage of bear originate, and disperse outward. They have a genuine concern increasing the kill in the proposed White Oak area could be a major setback far beyond the proposed zone. Some may not agree, but this at least explains MDNR reasoning...and it is not a result of some sort of bias.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> One of the factors relating to the White Oak issue came from a previous bear management meeting. MDNR biologists believe the primo habitat in Club Country may be a key part of the entire Red Oak zone's ecosystem...where a significant percentage of bear originate, and disperse outward. They have a genuine concern increasing the kill in the proposed White Oak area could be a major setback far beyond the proposed zone. Some may not agree, but this at least explains MDNR reasoning...and it is not a result of some sort of bias.


 

"where a significant percentage of bear originate," thats because we have alot of bears, = more cubs. Bioligists must hve missed that day in school, :evil: Over the years the number of permits / hunter sucess had been low the numbers have gone up, I have gone 9 years without drawing a tag and have seen bear every year I bow hunted. there is no way to incresa the numer of tags in that area without issuing the tags in the western area also where numbers are much lower, doing this would not balance out the number of bears across red oak but reduce the number in areas with already low numbers. ( west side )
But as their own "bear managemtn plan mentions 
"1. Maintain a viable bear population that is compatible with habitat, land use, recreational opportunities, and public acceptance;" 

SO I would guess they will ignore the "plan" in the concern that the CLub Country/ White Oaks is the only place in the NLP bears breed at??
If we have such a great habitat and breeding grounds then not controling the numbers of bears will lead to ovepopulation, increased contact and damage by bears seeking food, more car/bear accidents, attempted removal of problem bears, - 
Wait ! we have that now!!!


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Islander26 said:


> Not sure why you guys want to jump on Rooster for the info he is trying to pass on to you. If you were so concerned about bear numbers, you too would have attended that meeting with Rooster and had your opportunity to express your feelings to the folks that deserve it. Not the messeger.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info Rooster


I hardly think we're jumping on Rooster, I happen to like him even if I dont agree with him. If you want to see someone who got jumped on, take a look at the red oak survey thread. I was at the Hillman meeting early this year and if there is another one and its published I'll be at that one as well.

Rooster, only way to find out if the bear are disbursing from club country is to collar and track them. All of which takes money that the DNR doesnt have. 

Islander, I do more than go to meetings. I have taken the DNR out to look at bear dens and I will assist the survey crew this spring if asked.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Spartan, you're right about MDNR not having money for bear studies. They don't have any money for law enforcement either. Its hurting all of us. 

Wonder how many folks could support legislation creating a bear baiting permit costing maybe $12.00. Its fair to say all hound hunters bait same as bait hunters. So, it would not be impacting just one user group. It would be simple enough to print off 3 bait ID tags (same as they do with fur harvesters when they print off bobcat tags). If the revenue it brought in was required to be used only for bear management and enforcement of bear regulations...the sport would pay for itself.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Congrats on your wife's bear, she really packed on the pounds since her capture, ~100lbs! Green 31 was captured the morning of July 31st in Montmorency County at 29N 4E in the northwest quarter of section 27. She was in good condition when we captured her and weighted in at 174lbs. We noted that she was not lactating and appeared old with worn teeth. I'll be aging all the teeth from this season and should have a more precise age by the end of the week if your interested. Some of her measurements were: head length 32cm, head circumfrence 55cm, chest circumfrence 89cm and contour length was 153.5 cm. If you'd like all her measurement I can fax you or mail you her complete capture record. 
The other marked bear you've seen, could the tags have been yellow? We didn't put out any white tags but they tend to look white on camera especially at night. If you have any pics of them that you can send me I can try to identify them and give you their info as well. 
Thanks for the harvest info & the sighting info, it's very helpful.
Amy
[email protected]

This is from the other thread, seems there is bear study and collaring going on, its a MSU ?? student project, Any cross refferance from them to the DNR as far as movement? seems they have collars and data, I have seen them in the past tracking animals in my area, they did deer during the initail TB push, I had the collar frequencys in my scanner,  maybe the DNR likes these projects to letting a student fly a plane,,


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Spartan, you're right about MDNR not having money for bear studies. They don't have any money for law enforcement either. Its hurting all of us.
> 
> Wonder how many folks could support legislation creating a bear baiting permit costing maybe $12.00. Its fair to say all hound hunters bait same as bait hunters. So, it would not be impacting just one user group. It would be simple enough to print off 3 bait ID tags (same as they do with fur harvesters when they print off bobcat tags). If the revenue it brought in was required to be used only for bear management and enforcement of bear regulations...the sport would pay for itself.


there were 57,285 applications at 4 each. = 229140
11,272 license issued at 15 each = 169080
398220
maybe this money could be used fo bear managment, 
with the university doing bear studies for them ,,,,,,?????


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Maybe you're right solo. Its more fun to complain than to offer suggestions.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Maybe you're right solo. Its more fun to complain than to offer suggestions.


Ouch,
so what does it cost the DNR for the students to do research?
where does this data go and how is it used?

seems there is data available for study on movement of bears ect.

anyone read it?? ( question)

I am not sure what or how the money for licenses goes back to the DNR, I am afraid to ask as politicians are involved,, and state budgets and general fund and allocations and rainy day dam failure funds, eco disaster funds,,


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> There was a good deal of discussion at the Bear Management meeting in St. Ignace last Saturday on the proposed White Oak Zone in Club Country. The consensus among all in attendance was...QUOTE]
> 
> from the minutes exactly who was in attendance, and who offered comments??
> Or who maintains the minutes of the meetings?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Solo,

You might consider emailing Adam Bump, MDNR's leading fur bearer specialist. Try reaching him at: [email protected]

He can tell you if MDNR has any involvement in the study. Far as I know the study is independant from MDNR and they are not funding any of it, but it would be best to verify it through Mr. Bump. I would do it for you just to get to the bottom of this, but he apparently does not like to respond to my phone calls and probably would not respond to an email from me. 

I certainly do not disagree with you on the questionable handling of finances by our politicians or certain MDNR administrators. Any license increase ought to have very strong language established as to what the funds must be used for.


----------

