# CWAC meeting results.



## goosemanrdk

Sorry that this is the first chance I have had to post anything. Yesterday was a long day with 6hours round trip driving, 3.5hours at the show and I still had to take some time run the dog when I got home at 8:30. So, posting something was at the bottom of my priority list.

Well here we go:

First things first: Zones/splits and federal rules.
The feds are changing their zoning rules, and as has been aluded too, the options beginning in 2011 will be:
4 zones NO SPLITS!!!!!
3 zones one split each
Changes can be made to the zones, and Grandfathering is not lost, one can go back to what they had if the new choice doesn't work out.

Now, the important things to remember about this when formulating ideas for our CWAC discusion at the March meeting next year, where a possible new choice will be decided. *What we choose is what we will be stuck with having for 5 years.* and the most important thing to consider when thinking about this: *Decide what would work best for our state if we were to have a restricted(30/3) framework. Don't make the decission based on our current liberal framwork.* Please re-read the last statement and ingrain it in the brain before even trying to formulate something.
I already know where I stand on this issue taking into account the last statement. I am sure many will want to know this stance, so here it is:
3 Zones is the only way to go, as the availability to have the split would be monumental if we were to go to restricted framework. I do see some benefit/potential in re-drawing the current zones, but 4 zones and restriced framework would not make for good seasons. Trust me when I say I have already thought long and hard about this. So, that is that.

On with the rest:
Russ Mason gave a division update, and I would say that the biggest thing that all of you would be most concerned with is mute swans. Basically put, they are going to be ERADICATED from public land. How? Not sure, as the division is going to wait to reveal their plan until after the elections to keep this from being political. Private land is private land, and if they want to have swans, well not much the division can do there.

The season recomendations from CWAC:
UP:
Ducks-Oct 2 -Nov 30(straight 60days)
Geese-Sep 16-Oct30(45days)
**Now this could be the one season(ducks) that may not get approved as we proposed. Both of the DNRE waterfowl workgroup proposals had this opening on September 25. My concern was that having this open with the middle zone would take 7days of duck hunting away from all michigan duck hunters, and another concern, from DNRE personnel, was that this took 7 days of goose overlap away as well. A final concern was more lost days, especially in the Western UP due to freeze up(late october traditionally). So, we will see on this one.

Middle:
Ducks-Oct 2-Nov 28, then Dec 4-5
Geese-Oct 2-Nov 8, then Nov 25-Dec 1

South:
Ducks-Oct 9-Dec 5, then Jan 1-2
Geese-Oct 9-Nov 14, then Dec 4-11

Fennville Goose:
Dec 4-23, then Dec 30-Jan 23

MWW goose:
Oct 14-Nov 14, then Dec 2-14

All other managed area goose to run concurrent with regular goose season.

Late Goose: Jan 1-30

Snow, Blue, Ross, Specklebellies, Brant to run concurrent with canada goose seasons.

Bag Limits
6 Ducks, Increase of pintails to 2birds for all 60days, Canvasbacks 1bird for all 60days, and all other restrictions remained the same.
Canada Geese, 5 in early and late season, 2 in regular season
Snows/Blues/Ross 20 per day.
Brant/Speckelbellies 1 per day.

So there it is, feel free to ask any questions or for more specifics as you feel necesarry.


----------



## BassFisher91

Not trying to start an argument AT ALL, so here it goes... do you think it will be beneficial at all to up the limit of pintails to 2? For one, I don't see many pintails at all around here, and if I do, I only take it if it's a real nice bull pintail, such as for a mount. So it seems that there is already not that huge of a population. And two, pintails are known to go down to the lower states of the U.S. for the winter, such as Louisiana and Texas. Two states that were hit hard with this stupid oil crises. Now I know that they're saying this oil crises isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but it still can't be good for the breeding grounds of these birds. Just my $.02. Seems to me they should increase the woodie limit, and keep the pintail limit the same, seeing as I have seen more woodies than I have ever seen before. 

Again, I'm just basing this statement of what I see around my areas that I hunt, so please, no hard bashing...

And is there any way I can know more about CWAC??


----------



## anon2192012

I posted this on the other CWAC thread, but I'll post it here too.


Just a random thought I'll throw out there. Maybe this idea has been thrown around before..not sure.

This year the UP and the Northern lower are proposed have nearly identical season dates. What if those two zones were to become one and then split southern MI into two zones east and west? Any thoughts on this proposition? Would it work? Why or why not? This way we would still have the option of a spit in all zones.


----------



## goosemanrdk

BassFisher91 said:


> Not trying to start an argument AT ALL, so here it goes... do you think it will be beneficial at all to up the limit of pintails to 2? For one, I don't see many pintails at all around here, and if I do, I only take it if it's a real nice bull pintail, such as for a mount. So it seems that there is already not that huge of a population. And two, pintails are known to go down to the lower states of the U.S. for the winter, such as Louisiana and Texas. Two states that were hit hard with this stupid oil crises. Now I know that they're saying this oil crises isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but it still can't be good for the breeding grounds of these birds. Just my $.02. Seems to me they should increase the woodie limit, and keep the pintail limit the same, seeing as I have seen more woodies than I have ever seen before.
> 
> Again, I'm just basing this statement of what I see around my areas that I hunt, so please, no hard bashing...
> 
> And is there any way I can know more about CWAC??


As for the Pintails, all I can say is that the Fish and Wildlife biologists "say" that based on their "harvest model" the population can support the harvest of 2 country wide. Seeing that they are the "experts" and knowing this stuff is their job, I can't really argue with them. 

Oil crisis was talked about, and right now the approach is wait and see, again from the FWS biologists. The ducks of concern in regards to the oil are redheads, canvasbacks and scaup as they rest and feed in the areas affected. Most others "stay" far enough inland to avoid the problem. Please remember that the FWS/DNRE knows what they are doing, and their first concern is the well being of the "birds" not us hunters.

As for info on CWAC, please go back through the threads from the last couple weeks, as there was a huge CWAC question and answer thread that will give you all of the information that you want. Unfortunately I don't know how to like that thead here for you.


----------



## just ducky

Huntermax-4 said:


> I posted this on the other CWAC thread, but I'll post it here too.
> 
> 
> Just a random thought I'll throw out there. Maybe this idea has been thrown around before..not sure.
> 
> This year the UP and the Northern lower are proposed have nearly identical season dates. What if those two zones were to become one and then split southern MI into two zones east and west? Any thoughts on this proposition? Would it work? Why or why not? This way we would still have the option of a spit in all zones.


As I said on the other thread, I like the thought. In reality what your proposing is to go more by weather and bird movement than by geography (UP being separated) when setting seasons. If goosemanrdk has a scanner, copy in that map of the state that the DNRE presented showing weather/freeze up dates. If you look at that map, much of the NLP historically gets a lot of the same weather as the eastern 2/3rds of the UP. Yeah, there are variations, especially right along the lakes on both pennisulas. But we have to think regionally when setting zones. A thought I have is to draw some kind of line east to west across the NLP, and it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A STRAIGHT EAST/WEST LINE EITHER...again think creatively here. Everything north of that line, including the entire UP, would be Zone 1. Then the remainder of the LP can be split with a north/south line of some kind, for instance following I-75? OR, if we decide to take the 4 zone option, we can now think about that remaining LP area being split THREE ways with north/south lines :yikes: Like say one following 131, and one following I-75. Again, get out your Michigan map and think WEATHER and BIRD MOVEMENT, not simple geography. 

Like the famous line from "Animal House"....
_this is gonna be great!!!_


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> I posted this on the other CWAC thread, but I'll post it here too.
> 
> 
> Just a random thought I'll throw out there. Maybe this idea has been thrown around before..not sure.
> 
> This year the UP and the Northern lower are proposed have nearly identical season dates. What if those two zones were to become one and then split southern MI into two zones east and west? Any thoughts on this proposition? Would it work? Why or why not? This way we would still have the option of a spit in all zones.


Just remember, they may not have the same opener, as several CWAC members after the meeting commented to me that they could see that part of the proposal being shot down. The DNRE has info that 40+% of hunters prefer the September opener. Combine that with the preference for as much goose overlap as possible, and the DNRE info on freeze up in the western UP, and it is very possible that the DNRE/NRC will change that season.

Again, I like the idea, but in a restricted framework how would that work. Having a split would almost be needed in restricted fromework, so rhat we could get both some early and late hunting in. If the UP and middle zones are together, where do you put the split so that somebody doesn't loose quality days.
Scenario as I see it: 30/3 and the UP/middle zones as one.
15 days in early october for hunting early migrants, a break and then some days starting late october/early november for later migrants. Well, based on info that the DNRE has, the western UP gets screwed due to freeze up as they traditionally freeze starting in later october. And then any option to keep the days earlier to avoid that freeze up, will be days of later migrants that the middle zone will not get to hunt.

There is *A LOT *that will have to be considered in this whole process. And based on discussions, with several CWAC members and non-members, drastic change may not be the "good" thing that we all hope it could be. Don't get me wrong, I am open to suggestions, but I want what is best for ALL michigan duckhunters on the whole in ALL scenarios.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> If goosemanrdk has a scanner, copy in that map of the state that the DNRE presented showing weather/freeze up dates.
> Like the famous line from "Animal House"....
> _this is gonna be great!!!_


Unfortunatley I am not that electronically savey to scan that map in, but I will check to see if it was included in my handouts and see if I can do something that can give people an idea of the information it presented.

_I ask one thing, and will continue to ask it repeatedly, during these discussions of zones:_
*Ask yourself, how would this work at maintaing hunter satisfaction and maximizing all hunter days afield during a restricted frame work of 30days/3birds.*
This very thought will be the sole driving force in the decisiion that I make on this issue.


----------



## anon2192012

If changes are made I know that we are stuck with them for 5 years, but are we stuck with the dates and how the splits are laid out? Or are we still able to move start/end dates around and change when the splits would be?

If there would still be some play in the dates.....

Combine the UP and Northern lower LP and set a start date late Sept./early Oct. and run a 60 day season. If and when the restricted seasons ever come into play you could always move dates and splits around some to accomodate the shortened seasons.

Start zone 3 east one to two weeks later(early to mid Oct. 2nd weekend) and zone 3 west (mid oct. 3rd weekend).

Interesting things to think about and hopefully this discussion will help pass the next 23 days!


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> ..._I ask one thing, and will continue to ask it repeatedly, during these discussions of zones:_*Ask yourself, how would this work at maintaing hunter satisfaction and maximizing all hunter days afield during a restricted frame work of 30days/3birds.*
> This very thought will be the sole driving force in the decisiion that I make on this issue.


It's a very good point to keep in mind. We should all be thinking that way, because that's what the DNRE folks will look at. That AND simplicity for enforcement reasons. The more complicated something becomes, it often also becomes an enforcement nightmare. So they'll be watching that as well.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> If changes are made I know that we are stuck with them for 5 years, but are we stuck with the dates and how the splits are laid out? Or are we still able to move start/end dates around and change when the splits would be?


Dates and splits in a general sense are totally up in the air and can basically be whatever whenever if taken independently. However, when you take into account DNRE hunter satisfaction surveys, freeze up models and harvest reports, the opening dates that we currently have are what is most favored by the majority and rightfully so.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

also remember, just because we don't see a lot of pintails, doesn't mean the population is doing bad.

That being said, i've seen more pintails the last 3-5 seasons than ever on the flats. Almost to the point we were killing our 1 pintail every outing.

one last thing on the UP/northern opener. If both those zones were to open together....I wished they all opened together. Either all seperate openers or all together. If they are ok opening the same week, then by all means they should be all one zone and give us 2 zones south of the saginaw bay...this way we maintain our splits and it won't matter if we get conservative or liberal season.


----------



## anon2192012

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> also remember, just because we don't see a lot of pintails, doesn't mean the population is doing bad.
> 
> That being said, i've seen more pintails the last 3-5 seasons than ever on the flats. Almost to the point we were killing our 1 pintail every outing.
> 
> one last thing on the UP/northern opener. If both those zones were to open together....I wished they all opened together. Either all seperate openers or all together. If they are ok opening the same week, then by all means they should be all one zone and give us 2 zones south of the saginaw bay...this way we maintain our splits and it won't matter if we get conservative or liberal season.


Exactly. *IF* the DNRE takes the recommendations of the CWAC and opens both of the zones on the same day, why are they not the same zone? 

SK, send some of those pinnies over to the west side would you? Still a rare occurence to see one over here.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Huntermax-4 said:


> Exactly. *IF*
> SK, send some of those pinnies over to the west side would you? Still a rare occurence to see one over here.


hehe i must add to my original statement.....we shot pintails when the birds were flying. last year was kinda dull year as a whole but I did shoot a handfull of them. My buds on LSC sure shot the crap out of them on the split the last couple years...nice colors.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> Exactly. *IF* the DNRE takes the recommendations of the CWAC and opens both of the zones on the same day, why are they not the same zone?
> 
> SK, send some of those pinnies over to the west side would you? Still a rare occurence to see one over here.


I am here to tell you, that is not what the majority of the hunters wanted. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but 43% of hunters surveyed by the DNRE wanted the UP opener on September 25th. This was the only discussion/subject/voting that I was VERY DISSAPPOINTED in. Basically, a rep from the UP twisted the survey numbers to fit his needs, and my take is that most of the CWAC members just feel that they will just give the UP reps whatever they want. One member even said that when he had the floor to speak.

The vote was 15 yes, 3 no and I abstained from voting.
Again with a goal of maximizing hunters days afield, that vote took 7 or more days away.

The days being:
Nobody from the below the bridge can travel across the bridge for potentially 7 extra days of early season action.
The western UP just lost 7 days on the early part of the season, which stinks given that they usually freeze up in late october and loose days currently.
7 days of goose/duck overlap were lost in the UP as well.

All this was lost for what, "overcrowding" and a little bit of a post opening weekend lull.

I will say again, I will not be surprised if the DNRE/NRC changes the proposal as several members of the DNRE waterfowl workgroup pulled me aside and complimented me for the above statements which I made during the discussion.


----------



## field-n-feathers

I think if they'll allow us to change some things up, it's a win-win. Let's keep the three zones, but redefine them. This will protect good hunting in the future in case of a less liberal season.

My vote goes for UP and NLP into one zone starting late September and running 60. The earlier the better for the UP guys. The earlier start will also appease some of the guys in the LP who wanted an earlier season to get into more teal and woodies.

Then split Zone 3 down the middle into east and west. I would say 69 North to Lansing and then 27 North to the new Zone 1 border. This gives our current Zone 3 two different starts. Start the east side a week or two after the Zone 1 start, then the west side a week or two after that. 

I can only dream of that happening. Talk about some unreal hunting. :yikes:


----------



## Fall Flight Punisher

Goosemanrdk... I will start by saying thanks for you efforts. I too would like to see a east-west split and a later start date on the west. I will take my chances on a freeze up, you cant control mother nature. I am glad you are stressing 30/3 becuase I think that this will be here soon.


----------



## anon2192012

Punisher, I hope you're wrong on the 30/3 and my gut tells me you are, but always smart to look at things from the worse possible scenario.

I don't hunt the UP at all for waterfowl and zone 2 very little so I'm not sure how this would impact those hunters. I would like to hear some input from people that hunt that region and know why this would or would not work.

I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I would think the majority of waterfowl hunters reside/hunt in zone 3. Just because we have the majority does NOT mean we want to forget about the hunters that hunt in the rest of the state.


----------



## Fall Flight Punisher

Huntermax-4.. I hope your gut is right. I agree with you 100% on the zone 3 comment. I am a zone 3 guy, but hunt 1 and 2 respectivly and a 30/3 three zone season as the zones are set now would make it tough. It would take away some quality. If it were to come to that I would push as hard as I can for the east-west split. As most of zone 3 west side is not as productive the first 2-3 weeks of the season IMO. When things slow down here we know we can hed north or east to try to get a quality hunt in. I think input from the 2-3 guys is very important. I could be wrong but I think that most of those guys dont really think that were freezing up here lets go south to where the birds are at.


----------



## Bmac

just ducky said:


> If goosemanrdk has a scanner, copy in that map of the state that the DNRE presented showing weather/freeze up dates.


Be careful with some of the DNRE's info. If this is the same map they have been using for years as part of the CWAC packet, they put it out as "freeze up dates" but it is actually the historical first sub 32 degree temp. I questioned one of them a few years ago on this and he admitted to what it actually was. In my neck of the woods, the water doesn't usually freeze solid and stay hard the first time the temp goes below 32.


----------



## bias

goosemanrdk, I again have to disagree with you on the UP opener. The other representative from the UP who cited the DNR's survey results pointed out that at least as many persons surveyed preferred an opener in October (2nd or 9th) as opposed to the 25th date. That doesn't even begin to answer the question about who they were surveying, where they live, and whether those surveyed ever come to the UP to hunt. 

As you are well aware, the mission statement of the CWAC provides that "members must present views and concerns which represent stakeholders from their area of the state. . . ." I have talked with, and been contacted by many waterfowlers who live and hunt in the UP. Their preference for the October 2 date was overwhelming, regardless of what a survey of folks from other zones might indicate. 

I am pleased that most members of CWAC give some measure of deference to the feedback received by the UP reps on Zone 1 issues, as we have always done when it comes time to vote on your season dates.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Bmac said:


> Be careful with some of the DNRE's info. If this is the same map they have been using for years as part of the CWAC packet, they put it out as "freeze up dates" but it is actually the historical first sub 32 degree temp. I questioned one of them a few years ago on this and he admitted to what it actually was. In my neck of the woods, the water doesn't usually freeze solid and stay hard the first time the temp goes below 32.



Not sure if the map they put up this year was the same as the past or not, unfortunately it wasn't handed out to us, I checked on my dinner break here at work. Anyways, the map that they put up looked to be spot on to "freeze up" at least based on my personal observations and the things I have "heard" through the grape vine over the years.

The hard thing with making any of these desicions, is that they really need to be made based on hard evidence and facts, not personal gut feeleings and emotions. Hence my frustration with the UP season vote. The "facts" spoke completely to the contrary of what CWAC voted for.

Some numbers to mull over: Now the numbers are not "exact" as I did not write them down, but this is a representation of the DNRE survey. This is all in regards to the "prefered" opening day in the zone.
Again these are NOT THE EXACT numbers, just a representation(my best recollection) to show you some of what needs to be considered.
UP
Sep 25 - 43%
Oct 2 - 22%
Oct 9 - 12%
Oct 16 - 9%
Other got the remaining %

Middle
Sep 25 - 20%
Oct 2 - 31%
Oct 9 - 14%
Oct 16 - 9%
Other got the remaining %

South
Sep 25 - 21%
Oct 2 - 24.6%
Oct 9- 23.9%
Oct 16 - 18%
Other got the remaining %

Then couple with this, that the DNRE has significant harvest information taken from opening day surveys(at least on the west side) that shows a huge drop in birds harvested on an Oct 16 vs an Oct 9 or 2 opener. With the majority of the lost birds being teal and woodducks. 

Whats my point, well, for the SW michigan guys that want a later opener give me some factual information that supports a later opener being in the best interest of hunter satisfaction and participation.

Hopefully, everyone can gather from this that the system is not black and white.

The DNRE's goal with seasons is hunter opportunity, satisfaction and recruitment.


----------



## anon2192012

goosemanrdk said:


> Not sure if the map they put up this year was the same as the past or not, unfortunately it wasn't handed out to us, I checked on my dinner break here at work. Anyways, the map that they put up looked to be spot on to "freeze up" at least based on my personal observations and the things I have "heard" through the grape vine over the years.
> 
> The hard thing with making any of these desicions, is that they really need to be made based on hard evidence and facts, not personal gut feeleings and emotions. Hence my frustration with the UP season vote. The "facts" spoke completely to the contrary of what CWAC voted for.
> 
> Some numbers to mull over: Now the numbers are not "exact" as I did not write them down, but this is a representation of the DNRE survey. This is all in regards to the "prefered" opening day in the zone.
> Again these are NOT THE EXACT numbers, just a representation(my best recollection) to show you some of what needs to be considered.
> UP
> Sep 25 - 43%
> Oct 2 - 22%
> Oct 9 - 12%
> Oct 16 - 9%
> Other got the remaining %
> 
> Middle
> Sep 25 - 20%
> Oct 2 - 31%
> Oct 9 - 14%
> Oct 16 - 9%
> Other got the remaining %
> 
> South
> Sep 25 - 21%
> Oct 2 - 24.6%
> Oct 9- 23.9%
> Oct 16 - 18%
> Other got the remaining %
> 
> Then couple with this, that the DNRE has significant harvest information taken from opening day surveys(at least on the west side) that shows a huge drop in birds harvested on an Oct 16 vs an Oct 9 or 2 opener. With the majority of the lost birds being teal and woodducks.
> 
> Whats my point, well, for the SW michigan guys that want a later opener give me some factual information that supports a later opener being in the best interest of hunter satisfaction and participation.
> 
> Hopefully, everyone can gather from this that the system is not black and white.
> 
> The DNRE's goal with seasons is hunter opportunity, satisfaction and recruitment.


 
A later opener in SW Michigan isn't going to help us any, but a later end date definetly would. A later opener would not hurt us either IMO because our group usually sees just as many teal and woodies the second weekend as the opener.


----------



## anon2192012

bias said:


> goosemanrdk, I again have to disagree with you on the UP opener. The other representative from the UP who cited the DNR's survey results pointed out that at least as many persons surveyed preferred an opener in October (2nd or 9th) as opposed to the 25th date. That doesn't even begin to answer the question about who they were surveying, where they live, and whether those surveyed ever come to the UP to hunt.
> 
> As you are well aware, the mission statement of the CWAC provides that "members must present views and concerns which represent stakeholders from their area of the state. . . ." I have talked with, and been contacted by many waterfowlers who live and hunt in the UP. Their preference for the October 2 date was overwhelming, regardless of what a survey of folks from other zones might indicate.
> 
> I am pleased that most members of CWAC give some measure of deference to the feedback received by the UP reps on Zone 1 issues, as we have always done when it comes time to vote on your season dates.


So Bias, do you think that UP waterfowlers would be against combining the UP and the Northern Lower into one zone?


----------



## goosemanrdk

bias said:


> goosemanrdk, I again have to disagree with you on the UP opener. The other representative from the UP who cited the DNR's survey results pointed out that at least as many persons surveyed preferred an opener in October (2nd or 9th) as opposed to the 25th date. That doesn't even begin to answer the question about who they were surveying, where they live, and whether those surveyed ever come to the UP to hunt.
> 
> As you are well aware, the mission statement of the CWAC provides that "members must present views and concerns which represent stakeholders from their area of the state. . . ." I have talked with, and been contacted by many waterfowlers who live and hunt in the UP. Their preference for the October 2 date was overwhelming, regardless of what a survey of folks from other zones might indicate.
> 
> I am pleased that most members of CWAC give some measure of deference to the feedback received by the UP reps on Zone 1 issues, as we have always done when it comes time to vote on your season dates.


Well, then we will have to disagree then. The survey is a fair representation of exactly what it should be, *ALL* hunters in the state of michigan. And all should be considered when determining the season. Just like you, I represent my stake holders, and all of them want 3 seperate openers, so they can travel and get more hunting in.

It amazes me how easily someone can manipulate survey numbers. If the way he manipulated those numbers is how that should be handled, then the Rick Snyder, the republican candidate for governor should not be the nominated person. He got something like 37% of the vote which means 67% wanted someone other than him. Follow me, and that is exactly how the numbers were manipulated. Surveys don't work that way. Every person surveyed had the chance to choose from all options, and the majority(43%) chose the September opener.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> A later opener in SW Michigan isn't going to help us any, but a later end date definetly would. A later opener would not hurt us either IMO because our group usually sees just as many teal and woodies the second weekend as the opener.


The harvest data from opening day surveys, reported to me from a trusted reliable source, speaks totally to the contrary.


----------



## highcaliberconsecrator

I for one would like to go on record and say I am satisfied with the way the season dates are set present day. Now I know a lot of folks on this thread will disagree to a point, As I cannot speak for someone outside of my hunting areas.

My "west sider" argument is that you all cannot sit here and tell me that you are disatisfied so much that you consider re-drawing boundaries (regardless of how old, or who set, and by what standards). An unhappy duck hunter would not keep visiting their favorite forum everyday from June all the way to the opener! You can't lie to me, waterfowl in general are the greatest things ever and you enjoy the fall in Michigan chasing these little critters. If I can't shoot them with a gun within some dates, I'll shoot them with a camera, no big deal.

MY HUNTING BIO....This will be my 14th season. I hunt everywhere except the UP and the East side during a typical season. When it freezes up....I get REALLY excited, cuz there is always a few GREAT spots you can find. Heck, I can find open water all year. Some years are better than others for me, it even varies at what point in the season. I have had good "lates" and bad "lates"....good openers and bad ones. Not on any of these occasions did a date on a calendar have anything to do with it.

The thing about ducks and geese is they have wings. These wings can take them to far away places whenever they choose (food source, water, photoperiod AND/OR weather). Good luck trying to pigeon hole these guys....

This is one *west siders* vote for no change. Good luck to everyone else, I hope you find happiness in what you seek.


----------



## anon12162011

Very well said!

I have always enjoyed the 3 seperate opening dates when that option is on the table, but I can see how the UP guys don't enjoy us trolls heading that way. Actually last year was the first year I headed up there and planned on making it a yearly treck, but if it opens the same weekend as Middle Zone, then I will stay put down here...no biggie and it will save me some gas and travel time.


----------



## just ducky

Huntermax-4 said:


> A later opener in SW Michigan isn't going to help us any, but a later end date definetly would....


This is the sentiment I've heard/seen for many years now, mainly on websites such as this. But yeah, I'm sure that's only a vocal minority speaking. What the west siders as a whole feel...guess that's up to the DNRE to decide.

I think it makes much more sense to try to find a way to create a "great lakes and connecting waters" type of a zone. Especially for those people who live for late-season layout and open water hunting in SE Michigan, who have been very vocal about it. What I call "zone 4" in my 4 zone arrangement is basically following I-94 from Port Huron on the north, down through Detroit, to I-75 south to the Ohio border. Anything east of that would be the new Zone 4, and would open a bit later, and close a bit later...how much later would be for those hunters to vocalize. One problem is you'd be taking in Harsen's Island and Point Mouillee. But last I recall, the Harsen's hunters favored a later end date too...maybe wrong there.


----------



## field-n-feathers

goosemanrdk said:


> Whats my point, well, for the SW michigan guys that want a later opener give me some factual information that supports a later opener being in the best interest of hunter satisfaction and participation.


I can get you all the band harvest data that you want that would point towards having a later season. Assuming of course that our non-banded harvest percentage falls in line with the banded harvest, I feel it's pretty substantial proof. 

I've posted it here and on MDHA already. The MDHA numbers were much more involved than I posted here though.


----------



## anon2192012

Highcal -Never said that I was dissatisfied, just that it could be better. I will continue to chase waterfowl whether it's a one week season or a 60 day season. My point isthat it could be better and these new changes could be just our chance to do so.

Ryan -The nice thing about what I have proposed is that you could still hit 3 openers and not travel near as far as you would have in the past!


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> So Bias, do you think that UP waterfowlers would be against combining the UP and the Northern Lower into one zone?


The bigger question is what do ALL waterfowl hunters in michigan think/want. We all share the entire state and hunt in it as well. Under our current 3 zone system, and if we were to have 3 seperate openers, a mobile/willing to travel duck hunter could hunt ducks for 74 days in the great state of Michigan. Yet again why my frustration with the vote on CWAC, as 74days was now cut to 67. 

As I said before, I know that several members of the DNRE waterfowl work group share my feelings as well.


----------



## anon2192012

just ducky said:


> This is the sentiment I've heard/seen for many years now, mainly on websites such as this. But yeah, I'm sure that's only a vocal minority speaking. What the west siders as a whole feel...guess that's up to the DNRE to decide.
> 
> I think it makes much more sense to try to find a way to create a "great lakes and connecting waters" type of a zone. Especially for those people who live for late-season layout and open water hunting in SE Michigan, who have been very vocal about it. What I call "zone 4" in my 4 zone arrangement is basically following I-94 from Port Huron on the north, down through Detroit, to I-75 south to the Ohio border. Anything east of that would be the new Zone 4, and would open a bit later, and close a bit later...how much later would be for those hunters to vocalize. One problem is you'd be taking in Harsen's Island and Point Mouillee. But last I recall, the Harsen's hunters favored a later end date too...maybe wrong there.


 
Depending on how real the 30/3 is though, I would be very much against 4 zones and no splits. With a guaranteed 60/6 I would be very much in favor of your idea, as long as it worked out for us SW MI guys too!


----------



## goosemanrdk

field-n-feathers said:


> I can get you all the band harvest data that you want that would point towards having a later season. Assuming of course that our non-banded harvest percentage falls in line with the banded harvest, I feel it's pretty substantial proof.
> 
> I've posted it here and on MDHA already. The MDHA numbers were much more involved than I posted here though.


That's fine, but the majority of all hunters surveyed by the DNRE want the earlier opener.

Which goes back to my point, you can not take just any one piece of information and use that in the choice/decision. The whole puzzle has to be put together.

I am also fairly certain, that most of those banded birds are being harvested by diehards, like those of us on this site, rather than the majority of hunters who hunt in the early season.

I mentioned in earlier threads that it is my guess that 10,000 or less of the over 40,000 waterfowl hunters in Michigan even hunt in the "cold" late season weather. So, which group is the majority? We can not afford to loose 1 single hunter in this dying sport. I am pretty sure that none of us who want later season, are going to quit hunting just cause we don't get them. I am pretty sure that we would loose some of the "fair weather" guys if we pushed the seasons back and they lost substantial harvest of their "bread and butter" ducks which are teal and woodies.

For the record, I personally would like to open the season in the south zone 1 week later, but when all of the puzzle pieces are put together, that is not the proper choice.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> The bigger question is what do ALL waterfowl hunters in michigan think/want. We all share the entire state and hunt in it as well. Under our current 3 zone system, and if we were to have 3 seperate openers, a mobile/willing to travel duck hunter could hunt ducks for 74 days in the great state of Michigan. Yet again why my frustration with the vote on CWAC, as 74days was now cut to 67.
> 
> As I said before, I know that several members of the DNRE waterfowl work group share my feelings as well.


I'm really not disagreeing with you. But we really are a vast state from the far north, to the far south, with lots of different ideas and attitudes. If we were all supposed to think alike, there would be no need to dedicate some seats on the CWAC, the NRC, and lots of other boards and commissions to UP residents. I've seen it with a lot of other state agency boards and commissions where the UP representatives think a lot differently...just a fact. We "trolls" laugh sometimes at the "yoopers" for some of their thoughts, but perception is reality, and as the UP guy said Saturday, crowded to them is two parties on a 100 acre lake  To some of us, that's roomy :lol: Trust me, I understand what you're saying about maximizing opportunity and participation. But we have to respect their "perceived" concerns about crowding when they have an opener a week before the NLP is valid...at least to them.


----------



## just ducky

Huntermax-4 said:


> Depending on how real the 30/3 is though, I would be very much against 4 zones and no splits. With a guaranteed 60/6 I would be very much in favor of your idea, as long as it worked out for us SW MI guys too!


I'm really not for or against the idea of 4 zones and no splits, but this is our opportunity to kick it around a bit in the next 6 months and see what falls out. Just another option on the table.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> But we have to respect their "perceived" concerns about crowding when they have an opener a week before the NLP is valid...at least to them.


I understand completely, but seeing that we are from the same State, shouldn't the reverse respect hold true in regards to concerns/issues as well. The survey of ALL hunters painted a totally different picture. 
In my opinion, the push for the later UP opener is all about the "overcrowding" and nothing more. So, with that, this starts to look very similar to a North Dakota resident only first week of season. Especially knowing full well, that very few from below the bridge will travel above if there is hunting below the bridge. Just look at BigR's comment and you can see exaclty what I mean.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> I'm really not disagreeing with you. But we really are a vast state from the far north, to the far south, with lots of different ideas and attitudes. If we were all supposed to think alike, there would be no need to dedicate some seats on the CWAC, the NRC, and lots of other boards and commissions to UP residents. .


That is the whole point of groups like CWAC to bring those ideas together and do what is best for the entire state.


----------



## anon2192012

It would be interesting to see what percentage of hunters actually travel to the different zones for their openers. My guess is very, very few except for us "diehards" on here. My point is then, shouldn't we do what is best for the hunters who hunt that zone day in and day out or even every weekend instead of what us guys want that might travel there once or twice during a season? Is it fair for the local hunter to not get what is right for his/her area because someone like me from SW MI might want a different opening date so I can travel to the UP for their opener and not miss mine?


----------



## field-n-feathers

It's no secret that I've been all for different season dates. I've been arguing it over and over again for years, especially over this past season. I keep hearing survey this, and ask that, and don't forget to survey these people over here that only hunt maybe 10 times total a year......blah, blah, blah.

Do what you want guys. I'm gonna lay 'em out regardless. Carry on.


----------



## woodie slayer

field-n-feathers said:


> I think if they'll allow us to change some things up, it's a win-win. Let's keep the three zones, but redefine them. This will protect good hunting in the future in case of a less liberal season.
> 
> My vote goes for UP and NLP into one zone starting late September and running 60. The earlier the better for the UP guys. The earlier start will also appease some of the guys in the LP who wanted an earlier season to get into more teal and woodies.
> 
> . :yikes:


great idea


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> It would be interesting to see what percentage of hunters actually travel to the different zones for their openers. My guess is very, very few except for us "diehards" on here. My point is then, shouldn't we do what is best for the hunters who hunt that zone day in and day out or even every weekend instead of what us guys want that might travel there once or twice during a season? Is it fair for the local hunter to not get what is right for his/her area because someone like me from SW MI might want a different opening date so I can travel to the UP for their opener and not miss mine?


I don't know for sure, but 43% in a statistically significat survey, it was asked of the DNRE at the meeting, wanting a September opener speaks volumes in my book.

If it is so few that go up there, then why is there "overcrowding"

While I agree with you, my issue is that I am quite sure that ALL of us down here would be glad to have some guys from up there come down and hunt the later season, and most of us would probably even host them. Why the issue with us going up there and getting some extra season, while they can come down here for some extra season.


----------



## Big Honkers

Thank you to goosemanrdk for taking the time to post up info on the CWAC meeting. 


I am a SW MI waterfowler and I am glad to see that this years potential regs are similar to recent years.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon

goosemanrdk said:


> I am here to tell you, that is not what the majority of the hunters wanted. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but 43% of hunters surveyed by the DNRE wanted the UP opener on September 25th. This was the only discussion/subject/voting that I was VERY DISSAPPOINTED in. Basically, a rep from the UP twisted the survey numbers to fit his needs, and my take is that most of the CWAC members just feel that they will just give the UP reps whatever they want. One member even said that when he had the floor to speak.
> 
> The vote was 15 yes, 3 no and I abstained from voting.
> Again with a goal of maximizing hunters days afield, that vote took 7 or more days away.
> 
> The days being:
> Nobody from the below the bridge can travel across the bridge for potentially 7 extra days of early season action.
> The western UP just lost 7 days on the early part of the season, which stinks given that they usually freeze up in late october and loose days currently.
> 7 days of goose/duck overlap were lost in the UP as well.
> 
> All this was lost for what, "overcrowding" and a little bit of a post opening weekend lull.
> 
> I will say again, I will not be surprised if the DNRE/NRC changes the proposal as several members of the DNRE waterfowl workgroup pulled me aside and complimented me for the above statements which I made during the discussion.



I for one appreaciate the fact that you did not just follow the crowd on this. Your right opening a week later really just means one less week of hunting for the majority of us in the UP. I know the layout hunters in the east side will still have open water but the west end certainly will not. I hope your right and the DNRE/NRC throws that out and goes with what the majority of the hunters in the state wanted. The UP is not a private hunt club we don't need to be keeping people from traveling here to hunt an earlier opener.


----------



## raisinrat

Does anyone else think we just need to get out and hunt already.lol

I have already started my scouting!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> I for one appreaciate the fact that you did not just follow the crowd on this. Your right opening a week later really just means one less week of hunting for the majority of us in the UP. I know the layout hunters in the east side will still have open water but the west end certainly will not. I hope your right and the DNRE/NRC throws that out and goes with what the majority of the hunters in the state wanted. The UP is not a private hunt club we don't need to be keeping people from traveling here to hunt an earlier opener.


 One of them that was lobbying for week later claimed combo hunting brought more business north. Guys could combo hunt deer/ducks or something like that. It was second hand information that I got, so I'm sure i missed most of the information on it.


----------



## Swamp Boss

I am for whatever moves Sag Bay out of the S zone and gives us an early teal season. 

Not sure what is driving the 3/30 talk. If it the standard baseline for planning I could understand that. Otherwise since there is a strong statistical bias in season lengths/bags I would like to see the data that is driving such a discussion.


----------



## LoBrass

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> One of them that was lobbying for week later claimed combo hunting brought more business north. Guys could combo hunt deer/ducks or something like that. It was second hand information that I got, so I'm sure i missed most of the information on it.


Yes, this was a point brought up in discussion. I, BTW, was 1 of the 3 that voted against the season as it was proposed.

My stance has a number of legs. 

First, the lost days. It is not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" you are going to get locked out. Brandon knows. He lives there. Very few guys are going to have shooting after the first of November in the west end of the UP. I have family and friends up there and they know what this means to their season.:sad:

Second, overlap. The overlap of goose season has been reduced and that is something that has been promoted and called for by every survey ever conducted!! 

Third, economic impact to a troubled region. BigR just pulled his dollars back to the northern lower. This decision probably results in a duck boat full of money never traveling over the bridge.

Fourth reason for my voting against this proposal, it simply was not creative AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right out of the gate the first motion was made and it was right off the list of MDNRE Waterfowl Workgroup suggestions. Why not give these guys a split? Why not start early and shut down during deer season for a couple of weeks to open again for the late season big water guys? The UP did not even exercise the split option! I just believe we could have been far more creative to cover all the bases.

Finally, the deer season overlap doesn't really hold water. If you want to hunt deer and ducks together just plan your trip according to the deer season-duck season will be open!! My belief is that guys that only hunt waterfowl have cancelled their trips altogether because they will hunt their "home" water below the bridge.

The entire reason these reps from the UP wanted the season to start later was to enjoy big water hunting later in the season. We could have accomodated everyone with some creativity. 

Now, we have cut the season short for guys in the UP and made a negative economic impact to a struggling region. 

My question is this-do the UP guys want to add the Northern Lower into Zone 1? My belief is that they will cry "BLASPHEMY"!!!!! Yet, it is EXACTLY what they asked for. Makes the zone restructuring very interesting indeed.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Swamp Boss said:


> I am for whatever moves Sag Bay out of the S zone and gives us an early teal season.
> 
> Not sure what is driving the 3/30 talk. If it the standard baseline for planning I could understand that. Otherwise since there is a strong statistical bias in season lengths/bags I would like to see the data that is driving such a discussion.


Teal, I knew I forgot to mention something. Basically put, no chance for a season or even consideration for a season for at least 2 more years. Sorry, but that is what we have to accept from the feds. They are in the midst of a study, and would not entertain any ideas until that study is completed in 2 years. End of that story for now.

What's driving the 3/30? Everything!!! When we make a change we are stuck with that change for *5 years*. Neither you or I or anyone else can predict when the populations may crash or the water dry up, but it is a real possibility that it could happen in the next 5 years. Water and population are the heart and sole of the Adaptive Harvest model that the USFW uses for determining seasons. Not long ago, mid 2000's we sat right at edge of liberal/moderate framework, and luckily the water came back, cause had it not we may have already been into restricted framework. So, basically put having the ability for splits would be very favorable if we ended up in restrictive frameworks.

Brandon, thank you for your support.

LoBrass, I am glad to see I wasn't the only one that felt that way.


----------



## just ducky

LoBrass said:


> ...Finally, the deer season overlap doesn't really hold water. If you want to hunt deer and ducks together just plan your trip according to the deer season-duck season will be open!! My belief is that guys that only hunt waterfowl have cancelled their trips altogether because they will hunt their "home" water below the bridge...


I was in the audience, and my take on that argument about "overlap" was referring to groups of Bow hunters coming to the UP. I used to be part of a gang of guys when we were in our 20's and 30's, and we tried each year to have a camp in all three zones each fall. I can only speak from my personal recollection of our gang...if they had the opportunity to bow hunt and duck hunt, they would've definitely held a UP camp. If they could only hunt ducks (such as if we opened up there on 9/25), our group would've been highly unlikely to go to the UP. You also have to remember some guys hunt ducks and pats, so opening on either weekend gives duck/upland hunters the chance. So yeah, there are several ways to look at this.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> That is the whole point of groups like CWAC to bring those ideas together and do what is best for the entire state.


There are definitely two ways to look at the way state agencies organize committees and work groups. Your take is they do it to try to get a common agreement throughout the state...to build a coalition, and I understand what you're saying. I really do. And it would be great if that happened. But I can just say my experience, having been on the administration side of many of these committees/boards/work groups, is the reality of it is it's more intended to get input from all parts of the state, not necessarily seek agreement. In order for any regulation to be approved through the regulatory process, what state agencies absolutely cannot have is some large association from some corner of the state saying "you didn't ask us". We all know that legislators listen to the masses more than the individuals...not saying that's right or wrong, it's just the reality. This is why commissions/boards include a majority of associations and organizations. That is felt to be the best way to get a cross-sectional opinion. But as I said before, the viewpoints are very different throughout the state. For example, a person running a hospital or a bar/restaurant in the west end of the UP has a DRASTICALLY different view of the world than one running a hospital or bar/restaurant in SE Michigan. I've been in those discussions. Some of the arguments can seem ridiculous...but they all have their view of the world, and they all matter. So to expect them to agree on regulations is not realistic. But again, not arguing with you. Just pointing out how these things normally go.

Okay, someone needs to tell me "enough of the politics 101 jd!" Sorry guys...force of habit.


----------



## Mike L

This discussion is and will continue to be interesting to say the least. The
members of this board have a ton of knowledge. And numbers to back up what they say...... Providing "Facts" and just not gut feelings will be key to good and productive discussion. But that's where the problem lies !

Everyone has an opinion, who decides whats best for everyone ? We could debate the zone structure til hell froze over. Each season is "Different" !
The weather decides what waterfowl do most of the time, and as we all know weather guessing is an art onto itself.


Ok, here's my opinion......
I see two problem area's in the state, the western U.P and the SW lower.
Currently in the state we have an early and late "Special" goose season.
Is it possible ? To have a "Special" late duck season ?
In other words, keep the three zones as they are now and when the regular season ends start up a "Special duck season"....
Kind of like the two day split but make it, lets say a 10 day special hunt period from X date to X date in the southern portion of the state.
Including the open waters of LSC etc. It's done for geese ? Why not ducks ? I know the reason for early goose etc. But having said late season would save us from messing with the zones the way they are now, and a possible bad decision that will affect us down the road.

Leaving the zones the way they are now doesn't hurt anyone other than the SW lower. Adding my "Special late duck" takes care of them and anyone else who desires the late chase for ducks. Again, I do not know if what I propose is possible. So there ya have it.......


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

i have no dog in this fight per say. i never go to the UP for ducks so don't really care. I have a feeling a lot of guys on the council pretty much felt same way. Thats what i got from talking to guys that were there for the meeting. Most wanted the UP reps to agree to something so they could pass it.


----------



## LoBrass

Mike L said:


> This discussion is and will continue to be interesting to say the least. The
> members of this board have a ton of knowledge. And numbers to back up what they say...... Providing "Facts" and just not gut feelings will be key to good and productive discussion. But that's where the problem lies !
> 
> Everyone has an opinion, who decides whats best for everyone ? We could debate the zone structure til hell froze over. Each season is "Different" !
> The weather decides what waterfowl do most of the time, and as we all know weather guessing is an art onto itself.
> 
> 
> Ok, here's my opinion......
> I see two problem area's in the state, the western U.P and the SW lower.
> Currently in the state we have an early and late "Special" goose season.
> Is it possible ? To have a "Special" late duck season ?
> In other words, keep the three zones as they are now and when the regular season ends start up a "Special duck season"....
> Kind of like the two day split but make it, lets say a 10 day special hunt period from X date to X date in the southern portion of the state.
> Including the open waters of LSC etc. It's done for geese ? Why not ducks ? I know the reason for early goose etc. But having said late season would save us from messing with the zones the way they are now, and a possible bad decision that will affect us down the road.
> 
> Leaving the zones the way they are now doesn't hurt anyone other than the SW lower. Adding my "Special late duck" takes care of them and anyone else who desires the late chase for ducks. Again, I do not know if what I propose is possible. So there ya have it.......


Yes.

The split which each zone has (currently) may be used however and wherever Michigan chooses to use it. The Federal Framework states that we may have 60 days of duck hunting within set dates. I don't have those dates handy but they are some time in September till sometime in mid to late January. There are no restrictions on the number of days within each split or the length of the close between splits. 

*Special *seasons must be allowed by the Feds. The steps required must be backed up by years of impact studies and other red tape that will NEVER happen.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> It amazes me how easily someone can manipulate survey numbers.


:lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

Stay 3 zones, leave Sag Bay in south zone, get rid of Jan split, close south zone Oct 11th-22nd, keep S zone open an extra 2 weeks. I'll gladly travel north during the S closure. Sure I'll get f'd once in awhile by ice, no risk no reward.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> Stay 3 zones, leave Sag Bay in south zone, get rid of Jan split, close south zone Oct 11th-22nd, keep S zone open an extra 2 weeks. I'll gladly travel north during the S closure. Sure I'll get f'd once in awhile by ice, no risk no reward.


your not ever gonna get a split in south zone in mid to late october. never happen.


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ...Most wanted the UP reps to agree to something so they could pass it.


Yep, old Ralph said it all Saturday when he said to the UP guys "make up your mind as far as what you want and we'll approve it" :lol: The reality was/is that there just isn't as much interest in what the dates are for the UP.


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> your not ever gonna get a split in south zone in mid to late october. never happen.


Was briefly kicked around in discussion Saturday...very briefly, then shot down just as briefly.


----------



## waterfowlhunter83

Rob,

What was the reasoning for the middle zone split not being a week later than what it is currently proposed?


----------



## LoBrass

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> your not ever gonna get a split in south zone in mid to late october. never happen.


Agree.

I would fight tooth and nail any proposal to close duck season when the beginning of the peak of migration hits this area. Fortunately, I believe it would be an easy fight-but one I hope to never have to undertake.


----------



## Chez29

I hunt mostly in the central UP Marquette, Baraga and Iron counties usually. The inland lake I hunt historically freezes around the 22nd of November, thats total lake freeze over. The earliest it froze was Nov 8/9 in 2003 and has stayed open til Nov 29 a few times. However as for flights of ducks usuall after Nov 20 they are very few. The last big push usually comes Nov 14-18 after that hardly any birds regardless of if the lake is open or not. This is all based off my own personal hunting records and observations. 
This constant changing of season opening dates in the UP is driving me nuts. I have to make vaction choices early in the year, usually by March, these changing dates are a pain in the butt. If they change this year will be the 3rd change in 3 years. It was Sep 29 in 2007, Oct 4th in 2008, Sep 26 in 2009 and now maybe Oct 2nd I thought last years set up is the way to go. Start last week of Sept. put a split in after Nov 20 and give the late season big water guys 3 to 5 days after Thanksgiving. Waiting til Oct really cuts down on early migrants like teal and woodducks and running til the end of Nov is pointless for 90+% of the UP hunting area. I wonder how these guys that want the last days of Nov to hunt the Bays would feel if all the duck hunters in the UP would pack up their stuff and go down to the few places that are open to hunt on those days. Maybe they would realise just how few places are available at those times and how quick they would fill up if people wanted to hunt there. No way they should consider later than first week of Oct opener unless it was a restricted season with no split.


----------



## goosemanrdk

goosemanrdk said:


> _I ask one thing, and will continue to ask it repeatedly, during these discussions of zones:_
> *Ask yourself, how would this work at maintaing hunter satisfaction and maximizing all hunter days afield during a restricted frame work of 30days/3birds.*
> This very thought will be the sole driving force in the decisiion that I make on this issue.


I am just bringing this back up in the thread, so everyone keeps it in mind as everyone seems to focusing only on the 60/6 in the discussion right now.

I am pretty sure if we had a 30/3, the DNRE/NRC would not entertain any closing dates that were even close to a normal risk of freeze up. Any potential lost days in that short of a season would be unacceptable to them. The only reason we can currently even discuss late closings is the fact that we have a liberal 60/6 framework.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> I have 30-40 guys that like it just the way it is, having the split used for the January hunt.


You're misinterpretting your results:lol:


----------



## just ducky

Chez29 said:


> I hunt mostly in the central UP Marquette, Baraga and Iron counties usually. The inland lake I hunt historically freezes around the 22nd of November, thats total lake freeze over. The earliest it froze was Nov 8/9 in 2003 and has stayed open til Nov 29 a few times. However as for flights of ducks usuall after Nov 20 they are very few. The last big push usually comes Nov 14-18 after that hardly any birds regardless of if the lake is open or not. This is all based off my own personal hunting records and observations.
> This constant changing of season opening dates in the UP is driving me nuts. I have to make vaction choices early in the year, usually by March, these changing dates are a pain in the butt. If they change this year will be the 3rd change in 3 years. It was Sep 29 in 2007, Oct 4th in 2008, Sep 26 in 2009 and now maybe Oct 2nd I thought last years set up is the way to go. Start last week of Sept. put a split in after Nov 20 and give the late season big water guys 3 to 5 days after Thanksgiving. Waiting til Oct really cuts down on early migrants like teal and woodducks and running til the end of Nov is pointless for 90+% of the UP hunting area. I wonder how these guys that want the last days of Nov to hunt the Bays would feel if all the duck hunters in the UP would pack up their stuff and go down to the few places that are open to hunt on those days. Maybe they would realise just how few places are available at those times and how quick they would fill up if people wanted to hunt there. No way they should consider later than first week of Oct opener unless it was a restricted season with no split.


I'm curious...did you contact one of the UP reps and let them know your feelings prior to the meeting? I hope so, because that's why we all have reps on the CWAC. As goosemanrdk said more than once, the reps are *supposed* to carry the message of the majority of their constituents, not their own personal opinion. At the meeting, one UP rep was in favor of 9/25 opener, and the other two were for 10/2.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> ...I don't know their rationale, but the common statement I heard from the guys I talked with was: Don't take away the 2 day January hunt!


for years now there has been a small, but vocal, minority of die-hard, big water hunters from LSC/Det.River/Erie that push for the two days. I'm personally no fan of it, but if you think about maximizing opportunity, if you didn't have that two days, I'd bet many of these guys would have their layouts packed away around Thanksgiving. JMO based on what I've read/heard.


----------



## just ducky

Branta said:


> ...there's something to be said for consistency and streamlining. wouldn't it be great to know that your season always starts on the last saturday in Sept. for UP, first saturday in october for NLP and 2nd saturday for SLP?
> 
> it seems that every 3-4 years we're bouncing UP and NLP to start on the same date; to have either 2 openers or three. I see they're proposing the 2-zone start....again....


Frankly I was very surprised at the meeting Saturday to hear the UP guys going towards the 10/2 opener. Yes, wouldn't it be nice to be able to plan a hunting trip a long time ahead. I don't have an answer, but I'm agreeing with you. Obviously the federal framework could affect the dates, but as soon as we knew this year that we were given the 6/60, we should all pretty much know the opening dates. But we continue to do this flip-flop?


----------



## ThumbDweller

*"Bag Limits*
*6 Ducks, Increase of pintails to 2birds for all 60days, Canvasbacks 1bird for all 60days, and all other restrictions remained the same."* 

Does this include the staggered bag limits on blue bills again? One, then two, then one? Or is the CWAC recommendation for two 'bills for the whole sixty days?


----------



## Bmac

Any mention of the Maple River area at the meeting? 

I've talked to a few guys that hunt the area and not one of them had heard a thing about the changes that are being made there.


----------



## just ducky

Bmac said:


> Any mention of the Maple River area at the meeting?
> 
> I've talked to a few guys that hunt the area and not one of them had heard a thing about the changes that are being made there.


Not at the meeting, but I talked with Dan Kennedy, the biologist in charge of it, at the break. He is preparing a press release and some other information for hunters that will come out soon. In short:

* Unit "A" west of the freeway has been drained for dike repair and other work, which means for this hunting season it will remain nearly dry, with the exception of some of the small potholes that were created years ago in the original ditching. Dan's feeling is unless you're willing, and daring enough, to try to get across the mud flats full of years of sediment, you probably aren't going to hunt this unit this fall. And he doubts there will be many ducks using it due to the lack of water. Apparently lots of geese in there right now though for you early goose guys, but again it will be hard to hunt.

* Unit "B" just east of the freeway will stay like it is. Although he said they had some vandalism to the pump and equipment, which partially drained this marsh also. They are making repairs to the equipment, but the river is so low right now they can't pump until we get some rain. This unit will be huntable however.

* Unit's "C" and "D" have been converted to refuge and are off limits to hunting.

* They determined that the newest units in the area, "X" and "Y" just north of Unit "C", which were completed in the 90's, need the water control structure lowered in order to get better water to them. They just completed survey work to determine dike and outlet elevations, and will be starting work on this area, but it won't be any better this fall. 

* he said they've mowed some areas, and done some other work this summer too. 

Again, the DNRE is supposed to be putting out some communications shortly. He claims they've updated the Maple River map that's on the DNRE website to reflect the refuge areas (I just tried it and it wouldn't open?)...*edit...found it *http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/sga/maplervwet.pdf and they apparently just posted signs with these maps in the parking lots. So they're trying. But the real take-away from our conversation was that the river and Unit "B" will be about the only good waterfowl opportunities for this fall (other than early goose maybe). Spread the word so no one shows up expecting to hunt "C" or "D" this fall.


----------



## just ducky

ThumbDweller said:


> *"Bag Limits*
> *6 Ducks, Increase of pintails to 2birds for all 60days, Canvasbacks 1bird for all 60days, and all other restrictions remained the same."*
> 
> Does this include the staggered bag limits on blue bills again? One, then two, then one? Or is the CWAC recommendation for two 'bills for the whole sixty days?


the whole season...no staggering.


----------



## Branta

Chez29 said:


> I hunt mostly in the central UP Marquette, Baraga and Iron counties usually...
> ...*This constant changing of season opening dates in the UP is driving me nuts. I have to make vaction choices early in the year, usually by March, these changing dates are a pain in the butt. If they change this year will be the 3rd change in 3 years. * It was Sep 29 in 2007, Oct 4th in 2008, Sep 26 in 2009 and now maybe Oct 2nd I thought last years set up is the way to go....



and there you go. there's one quick example of a fellow member that finds this "flexibility" a PITA. Of course, you would have to account for federal framework guidelines year to year (restricted to liberal seasons) which would account for changing dates, but we've been "liberal" for a long time now. I'd think we'd have a handle on what the date should be for starting a liberal season.

and we should have a REALLY good feel for the state framework 45 and 30 respectively. the topic at hand should be maximizing hunter opportunity and resource issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Still on the topic of UP start - I wouldn't necessarily run with these dates and tell your buddies you got the 411 on the Michigan Duck Season.

They'll take CWAC's proposal into consideration, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it's going to shake out. 

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see the UP fall back down to 9/25 when you consider one of the charges was to "have as much duck/goose overlap as possible".

how does goose starting on 9/16 and then duck not opening until 10/2 accomplish this? 9/25 gives you 7 more days of overlap, this portion might be overruled.

couple that with simplification of rules/regs and their changes... I wouldn't be surprised to see them revert back to '09 and stay the course.


----------



## just ducky

Here's another interesting and creative idea about the zone configuration...what's to say we don't draw a line somehow through the UP north to south, where ever the UP hunters feel is the best break, and break that into two zones? I specifically asked at the meeting about this, and was told it was possible. 

So for yuks, let's say:

1) everything west of the Alger and Delta County lines is considered zone #1, and it could open earlier than the eastern UP if that were the suggestion.

2) the remaining part of the UP and the northern lower would be considered zone #2. and my idea would be to include the west side of Saginaw Bay into zone #2. For instance, follow the shipping line out of the Saginaw River SW in to the river back to I-75, then follow I-75 up to say M-61, then somehow wiggle our way west to Lake Michigan, on whatever path we decide...doesn't have to be straight east-west. This would be the line between zone #2 and zone #3. 

Still three zones, and still the possibility of splits.

I have an electronic state of Michigan map that I could actually show this on, but I don't think you can post a word doc on this frigging forum...anyone know if there's a way.


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> Here's another interesting and creative idea about the zone configuration...what's to say we don't draw a line somehow through the UP north to south, where ever the UP hunters feel is the best break, and break that into two zones? I specifically asked at the meeting about this, and was told it was possible.
> 
> So for yuks, let's say:
> 
> 1) everything west of the Alger and Delta County lines is considered zone #1, and it could open earlier than the eastern UP if that were the suggestion.
> 
> 2) the remaining part of the UP and the northern lower would be considered zone #2. and my idea would be to include the west side of Saginaw Bay into zone #2. For instance, follow the shipping line out of the Saginaw River SW in to the river back to I-75, then follow I-75 up to say M-61, then somehow wiggle our way west to Lake Michigan, on whatever path we decide...doesn't have to be straight east-west. This would be the line between zone #2 and zone #3.
> 
> Still three zones, and still the possibility of splits.
> 
> I have an electronic state of Michigan map that I could actually show this on, but I don't think you can post a word doc on this frigging forum...anyone know if there's a way.


Based on the freeze map from the meeting, this is an idea I could easily get behind.

With the threat of 30/3, I don't think that 4 zones is even an option. Three zones with some adjustment to the zones/lines of the zones is very viable.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> Based on the freeze map from the meeting, this is an idea I could easily get behind.
> 
> With the threat of 30/3, I don't think that 4 zones is even an option. Three zones with some adjustment to the zones/lines of the zones is very viable.


Well I've always heard, including in this thread, that the west end of the UP and the east end are a lot different with respect to freeze up. So why not treat them differently? Again guys, think creatively. Separating by "pennisula" like we've always done it may not be as good of an idea as it once was. How about going by county, drawing the zone line along a county line, basically like the antlerless deer regs do? Just talking...


----------



## warrenwaterfowler

Wow. One of my favorite hunts in the southzone is (or rather, was)when goose re-opened thanksgiving.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Branta

What's the skinny on 30/3? 

What's going on in the gulf is a terrible mess with long lasting ramifications, i'm sure.

before knee jerking, I'd want to understand more what it really means as it relates to flyway wide managment of waterfowl.

certainly _could_ swing us from Liberal to restricted, but I'm more inclined (right now) to believe that given all things equal and the only change is the gulf oil spill... you'd only move to moderate and not restricted.

you could probably get alot of guys in Louisanna grousing that mallards have been short stopping their historical deep south wintering grounds for years.

at the same time, you'd have alot of boys in Arkie and Missouri zipping their mouths shut...


----------



## goosemanrdk

warrenwaterfowler said:


> Wow. One of my favorite hunts in the southzone is (or rather, was)when goose re-opened thanksgiving.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well that hunt will have to be on the weekend of 12/4 and 5 now. This was voted this way for several reasons:

1- concerns over field accesability for geese with gun deer season going on.
2- significant amount of geese still around that time of year, early December.
3- Increased hunter days a field.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Branta said:


> What's the skinny on 30/3?
> 
> What's going on in the gulf is a terrible mess with long lasting ramifications, i'm sure.
> 
> before knee jerking, I'd want to understand more what it really means as it relates to flyway wide managment of waterfowl.
> 
> certainly _could_ swing us from Liberal to restricted, but I'm more inclined (right now) to believe that given all things equal and the only change is the gulf oil spill... you'd only move to moderate and not restricted.
> 
> you could probably get alot of guys in Louisanna grousing that mallards have been short stopping their historical deep south wintering grounds for years.
> 
> at the same time, you'd have alot of boys in Arkie and Missouri zipping their mouths shut...


Gulf spill:
Basically nobody is quite sure what the out come is going to be. The feds plan is wait and see for now.

There is no real skinny on the 30/3, just a big concern amongst the CWAC members. It only takes a dry spring or two to drop the pond counts and the population numbers will follow. And those two items are the whole basis of the adaptive harvest model. 

Scenario of the 5 year plan:
2011 *1st year of new zones model, 4zones for the sage of arguement *- dryer than normal, ponds down, population slightly down, 60/6 season
2012 Even dryer than normal(usually how these things trend), ponds down even more, population down even more, 60/6 season if lucky, possibly 45/6 season
2013 Dry yet again, ponds down substantially, population substantially down. Here it come 30/3 season.
2014 Cause it takes a few years for the population and ponds to rebound 30/3 season.
2015 Still in recovery phase, 30/3season.

I wish I had a crystal ball, but if the above scenario happened, and we opted in 2011 for 4 zones, we would have 3guarenteed years of wishing we had kept 3 zones with the capability for splits. OUCH!!!!!!


----------



## warrenwaterfowler

I wonder how much consideration waterfowlers get when they make deer hunting regs... My guess, Zero
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## goosemanrdk

warrenwaterfowler said:


> I wonder how much consideration waterfowlers get when they make deer hunting regs... My guess, Zero
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And frankly, rightfully so. 40,000+ waterfowlers vs. 750,000 deer hunters. If I was running the business, I would listent to those that provided me the most money.

Do I like it, NO!!! But it is what it is.


----------



## Swamp Boss

Ive changed my mind now, I would like the bay included as part of the UP with an August 15 opening and then close Aug 30. Reopen Thanksgiving week when there is both good hunting and skating ice. I love a good hockey game after a hunt or a cast and blast ice fishing trip.


----------



## LoBrass

Have not seen the conversation move to the Canada Goose. 

We are now well over 300,000 birds again. Unless we can get some handle on this population explosion we may have to look into expanded opportunity on our resident birds:evilsmile.

Hats off to Dave Luukenen and the Waterfowl Workgroup for helping to get a stabilized framework, without it, the poor production of the MVP geese this spring would have resulted in a far different goose season.

2 geese per day, 45 day season.


----------



## LoBrass

there are more goose hunters in Michigan than duck hunters.


----------



## FullBody

TSS Caddis said:


> get rid of Jan split, close south zone Oct 11th-22nd, keep S zone open an extra 2 weeks. I'll gladly travel north during the S closure. Sure I'll get f'd once in awhile by ice, no risk no reward.


 
I love this idea as a SW hunter. Understand this would NOT work for the SE. Therefore, I like the idea of combining zones 1 and 2...split zone 3 down the middle. Then each zone can use thier splits how it would most benefit. The SW desperatly needs more time in Dec. Although I don't think a later opener is the answer. A mid Oct. split for the SW running 2 weeks longer in Dec. would typically be the ideal for us. Our peak migration certainly is NOT in mid Oct. here in SW. No way. 

I believe with no fancy polls and data to back it up that there would still be the same participation by the tennis shoe crowd having a mid Oct split. They only hit the first week of the season anyway before they start bow hunting. IMO the mid Oct split would work for them too. 

Its just SW MI and Saginaw Bay area have no business being in the same zone. Waaaay too different. ne_eye:

This would still work of we are stuck with these zones for 5 years and get the dreaded 3/30.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

FullBody said:


> I love this idea as a SW hunter. Understand this would NOT work for the SE. Therefore, I like the idea of combining zones 1 and 2...split zone 3 down the middle. Then each zone can use thier splits how it would most benefit. The SW desperatly needs more time in Dec. Although I don't think a later opener is the answer. A mid Oct. split for the SW running 2 weeks longer in Dec. would typically be the ideal for us. Our peak migration certainly is NOT in mid Oct. here in SW. No way.
> 
> I believe with no fancy polls and data to back it up that there would still be the same participation by the tennis shoe crowd having a mid Oct split. They only hit the first week of the season anyway before they start bow hunting. IMO the mid Oct split would work for them too.
> 
> Its just SW MI and Saginaw Bay area have no business being in the same zone. Waaaay too different. ne_eye:
> 
> This would still work of we are stuck with these zones for 5 years and get the dreaded 3/30.


i don't disagree with this statement at all. east side can't do a split in mid october....i understand it would work for the west side tho. until we get a split down the middle, its gonna suck. personally wish we went to a static october 15th opener....(this works for 60 day, 45 day and 30 day) season for zone 3. Only place it doesn't work for is the bay as it will be froze out FOR SURE for the last 10 days of it.

i'll risk a freeze out for our last week. thats my personal choice and many will differ with me and thats ok. I've seen what happens around december 1st if we have open water and i'll gamble for it every year.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> if the west was froze...the east is right behind it within a day or 2. All the bay guys want the early openers, its a fact. This also means fish pt managed area is already locked up tight. They fight harder than anyone to not get an october 15th opener. This tells me, give them what they want....zone 2.


Everyone eh? The only ones I know that would want it earlier are duck bingo guys whose flooded corn got ice so they whine about it since it would take scouting now to find birds.

It seems the world is revolving around duck bingo lately instead of the majority of hunters


----------



## anon2192012

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i don't disagree with this statement at all. east side can't do a split in mid october....i understand it would work for the west side tho. until we get a split down the middle, its gonna suck. personally wish we went to a static october 15th opener....(this works for 60 day, 45 day and 30 day) season for zone 3. Only place it doesn't work for is the bay as it will be froze out FOR SURE for the last 10 days of it.
> 
> i'll risk a freeze out for our last week. thats my personal choice and many will differ with me and thats ok. I've seen what happens around december 1st if we have open water and i'll gamble for it every year.


 
I'm on board. Get out there and lead the charge SK. I'll be your wingman. (after all, I am the shy one).


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i don't disagree with this statement at all. east side can't do a split in mid october....i understand it would work for the west side tho. until we get a split down the middle, its gonna suck. personally wish we went to a static october 15th opener....(this works for 60 day, 45 day and 30 day) season for zone 3. Only place it doesn't work for is the bay as it will be froze out FOR SURE for the last 10 days of it.
> 
> i'll risk a freeze out for our last week. thats my personal choice and many will differ with me and thats ok. I've seen what happens around december 1st if we have open water and i'll gamble for it every year.


From my memory, I don't think I've been frozen out on the Bay before end of season in years. Heck I think we could have went 2 more weeks last year and been fine. Previous last weekend , no problems either. Etc...

Again, I think your world is revolving around the duck bingo guys and those that surround duck bingo on the bay. Believe it or not, the is a whole world out there outside than draw buildings.:lol:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> From my memory, I don't think I've been frozen out on the Bay before end of season in years. Heck I think we could have went 2 more weeks last year and been fine. Previous last weekend , no problems either. Etc...
> 
> Again, I think your world is revolving around the duck bingo guys and those that surround duck bingo on the bay. Believe it or not, the is a whole world out there outside than draw buildings.:lol:


yeah i know, i never hunt anywhere else. i've never hunted the bay...ever...i've never had my gear moved 2 miles by sheets of ice...i've never been the only boat out there for miles because no one else could get out...never experienced a late season hunt on the bay (december 3rd)....i only hunt managed areas cuz they are easy...cuz you know i take the easy route. /sarcasm

Gene you seem to miss the point just about every time because you have an agenda or axe to grind. I've been trying to push zone 3 back for years (would benefit you on the bay as per your desire to hunt it well into december) but we have major stopping power on the bay arguing against it....so that puts us in the same "want" category...IF SO MANY want early season on the bay, we have no option other than to exclude them from zone 3 (move them to zone 2) to get a later opener. 

I'm sorry but maybe you should get involved instead of internet hating and pissing and moaning with your keyboard to get it done.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> Everyone eh? The only ones I know that would want it earlier are duck bingo guys whose flooded corn got ice so they whine about it since it would take scouting now to find birds.
> 
> It seems the world is revolving around duck bingo lately instead of the majority of hunters


this is fact, maybe you should attend a cwac for once and listen. Oh thats right, you sit on internet bitching all the time about how you never get heard.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Lets calm it down, I don't want this thread to go downhill like so many do.

Food for thought, take it or leave it.

Every single hunter is this state should be as happy as possible at the same time. And when taking this into consideration for zone 3, that really is what we have going on. And honestly, I don't think that the bay is having that much influence on this.

We have hunters that want as early an opener as possible, we have hunters that want January hunting, we have hunters that want the late season gunning. Guess what, under the current season proposal, that is exactly what we have, all because we currently get 60/6 framework. A winning combination for everyone to find some happiness in. 

The DNRE has final power, and I am pretty sure that they are very happy with the zone 3 proposal, as it scratches the itch of every waterfowler in zone 3. Based on all of the information that they use to come up with ideas,to help us get started, the only opening dates they entertained for zone 3 was Oct 2 and 9. They used the factual evidence to make these determinations.

I have to be honest, a part of me hopes for the 30/3 to show up sooner than later, so that everyone can look back and realize just how GOOD the current system is at scratching everyones itches. 

I mean really, if a waterfowler is mobile and adaptable, they can hunt ducks or geese somewhere in the state from September 1 thru January 30. The possibility to hunt some sort of waterfowl for 152 days. Sounds like a great system to me.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

sorry but caddis can get off the high horse and stop diggin on the bingo hunters. gets old.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon

Just a few comments:

1. This talk of combining the UP and norther lower into one zone is a good reason for the Yoopers to start talking about succeeding from lower Michigan again. So cut it out!

2. If you really want to combine the UP with the Northern Lower no big deal just pick the 3 zones put the western UP in its own zone the Eastern UP and Northern Lower in its own zone and then you SE boys can have the same problems you have now and it doesn't bother us. :lol:

3. Leave the UP out of this! 

4. Back on subject. When does the DNRE/NRC set the final seasons?


----------



## wavie

BHB
Maybe the UP should be sold to Canada, similar to when Alaska was bought from the Ruskies. Would help Michigans financial situation and we wouldnt have to worry about a UP zone. Thinking outside the box (and your dollar would be stronger, EH!).

I would much rather deal with an early freeze up if zone 3 was pushed back rather than worry about the potential of a 3/30 season. Its only for 5 yrs, not forever.

I'm still scratching my head on why there is such demand (so it appears) for a Jan duck hunt. If you hunt any other state where there is a split, regardless of the timing, when the birds are given a chance to rest, the opening of the second split offers some great gunning (more than just 2 days). If you can find open water in Jan, the probability of finding open water later in Dec should be pretty good too I would think.

To poll waterfowl hunters, why cant simple season opener ?'s, what zones do you hunt, ect, be asked when you purchase your waterfowl license? Heck i think they asked me how many doves i shot in MI last year, was that a trick question?


----------



## goosemanrdk

I caution everyone to be careful what they wish for, you may just get it. A point that I keep trying to make that seems to be being ignored is the fact that those of us that visit sites like this, and are die hards that search out those late season oustanding hunts, are the *MINORITY* of waterfowl hunters.

Say every single waterfowl hunter were to be surveyed on their opinion; I don't think most of you would like the results. For every one of us that visits this site, hunts the later part of the season and knows what CWAC is, there are 100 other waterfowlers that don't. I am betting that the majority of waterfowl hunters DO NOT know anything about CWAC, but the do know who the DNRE is. The employees at the DNRE offices talk to far more hunters than any one of us on CWAC ever will. You couple the information they gather from those conversations with their STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT surveys, and where does that get you. Right where I keep trying to point everyone:
*The exact season layout that we have been having.* 

The DNRE has factual information, through statistically significant surveys, that says the majority of waterfowl hunters prefer as early an opener as possible, prefer to shoot early migrants, like the January hunt ........

I have aluded to it before, and I will mention it again. Those of us that visit this site, and all of our hunting buddies are still the MINORITY of waterfowl hunters in Michigan.


----------



## Mike L

goosemanrdk said:


> I caution everyone to be careful what they wish for, you may just get it. A point that I keep trying to make that seems to be being ignored is the fact that those of us that visit sites like this, and are die hards that search out those late season oustanding hunts, are the *MINORITY* of waterfowl hunters.
> 
> Say every single waterfowl hunter were to be surveyed on their opinion; I don't think most of you would like the results. For every one of us that visits this site, hunts the later part of the season and knows what CWAC is, there are 100 other waterfowlers that don't. I am betting that the majority of waterfowl hunters DO NOT know anything about CWAC, but the do know who the DNRE is. The employees at the DNRE offices talk to far more hunters than any one of us on CWAC ever will. You couple the information they gather from those conversations with their STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT surveys, and where does that get you. Right where I keep trying to point everyone:
> *The exact season layout that we have been having.*
> 
> The DNRE has factual information, through statistically significant surveys, that says the majority of waterfowl hunters prefer as early an opener as possible, prefer to shoot early migrants, like the January hunt ........
> 
> I have aluded to it before, and I will mention it again. Those of us that visit this site, and all of our hunting buddies are still the MINORITY of waterfowl hunters in Michigan.


Then our discussion here and the idea's presented are futile. If we are the minority, we're just wasting our time. But ? Why did the DNRE then seek out our opinions ?


----------



## just ducky

Bow Hunter Brandon said:


> Just a few comments:
> 
> 1. This talk of combining the UP and norther lower into one zone is a good reason for the Yoopers to start talking about succeeding from lower Michigan again. So cut it out!
> 
> 2. If you really want to combine the UP with the Northern Lower no big deal just pick the 3 zones put the western UP in its own zone the Eastern UP and Northern Lower in its own zone and then you SE boys can have the same problems you have now and it doesn't bother us. :lol:
> 
> 3. Leave the UP out of this!
> 
> 4. Back on subject. When does the DNRE/NRC set the final seasons?


Brandon,

I was one of those talking about the UP, but I only started it because there seems to be a feeling among many in the UP that the west end and east end are drastically different with respect to freeze up and bird movement. If that's the case, then why not divide it up somehow so you have an earlier opener and close on the west end? Just throwing that out there. And if you combine for instance the east end of the UP with part of the northern Lower, so that they open/close at the same time, would you not be avoiding the perceived "crowding" issue that some UP guys talk about? Again, just kicking the tin can around walking down the road, because next year will be an opportunity to experiment *IF* we want to. Not saying we should, but we *could*


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

just ducky said:


> Brandon,
> 
> I was one of those talking about the UP, but I only started it because there seems to be a feeling among many in the UP that the west end and east end are drastically different with respect to freeze up and bird movement. If that's the case, then why not divide it up somehow so you have an earlier opener and close on the west end? Just throwing that out there. And if you combine for instance the east end of the UP with part of the northern Lower, so that they open/close at the same time, would you not be avoiding the perceived "crowding" issue that some UP guys talk about? Again, just kicking the tin can around walking down the road, because next year will be an opportunity to experiment *IF* we want to. Not saying we should, but we *could*


I'm sure Caddis is waiting for the bingo units in the UP to chime in so he can bring up his opinion on spinners. Be careful, don't want to give too much opinion on here JD, your a bingo guy you know.


----------



## just ducky

Mike L said:


> Then our discussion here and the idea's presented are futile. If we are the minority, we just wasting our time. But ? Why did the DNRE then seek out our opinions ?


Yes we on these sites represent a minority of the 40k duck/goose hunters. But I like to call us the VOCAL minority. We're the one's who get involved and speak out, so we're also the one's who have the ability to influence the decision makers. Like Andy Hartz said on a different post, we are the SOCIAL duck hunters, not the anti-social one's that just show up at the launches. As I said in another thread a while back  our world, no matter what you're talking about, has become a "squeaky wheel" world, and it's not enough any more to just participate, and show up at the launches or marshes. You have to get involved and speak up, and you have to be active in organizations that have a loud voice. Otherwise, you take what you get.


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I'm sure Caddis is waiting for the bingo units in the UP to chime in so he can bring up his opinion on spinners. Be careful, don't want to give too much opinion on here JD, your a bingo guy you know.


Truth be known, I hunt areas OTHER than bingo's 10X as much as bingo's each fall. But I'm not going into the mud again. :Modified_ Move along folks...nothing to see here.


----------



## anon2192012

goosemanrdk said:


> Not for the vast majority of guys that I spoke with. The vast majority(90%) would not give up the 2 day hunt in order to get more time in December. What we got in the proposal, is exactly what they wanted once they weighed all of their options.
> 
> Somewhat early opener.
> A little December hunting in the cold weather.
> A January hunt for the big water/concentrated unfroze areas in the cold weather.


I'm really curious as to who the 90% are. I hunt in quite a few different areas in zone 3 and talk to a lot of different hunters and very few wouldn't give up the 2 days in Jan in order to hunt longer into December. And you can't tell me it's the fair weather guys because they're not hunting it anyways!


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> I try each year to take one adult duck hunting who has never been, or has always wanted to try, but it's always been males...maybe we should organize something for women too?


That is great to hear. A woman thing is a great idea as well. My crew currently has two women who hunt with us on a regular basis, my wife and a buddies wife. They absolutley love it. We are even adding a third female to the crew this year. My Brothers 13yo step daughter is taking hunter safety the end of this month, and will start hunting in early goose season. I can't wait to see the expression on her face when the first flock of honkers bellies up and she gets to shoot. It will be great!!!

In regards to hunter safety: A trend I have noticed is the overall lack of involvement from fathers in the last 5 years. 5-10 years ago, a class of 20 kids would have 10-15 dads who stuck around for the entire class(4 seperate days). Now days, we are lucky if 3-5 dads hang out. If they aren't involved in the education, I am sure they're not involved in getting the kids outdoors as well. It's really sad when you think about it.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> I'm really curious as to who the 90% are. I hunt in quite a few different areas in zone 3 and talk to a lot of different hunters and very few wouldn't give up the 2 days in Jan in order to hunt longer into December. And you can't tell me it's the fair weather guys because they're not hunting it anyways!


I don't what to tell ya, I talked to roughly 60 guys, all die hard hunters.

Only 3 of the 60 were willing to give up the 2 day January hunt to get more time in December. They all wanted more time in December, but not at the expense of the 2 day January hunt. So, that makes it more like 95%

The group included:
The people in my crew.
All the members of the Delta Waterfowl group I work with.
Misc aquaintances from managed areas and not from managed areas.
and several people I didn't even know over the phone/net.

I will admit that I am about to get slightly pissy, but deservedly so:
I haven't and won't question the qualifications of the guys you speak with, please don't question mine.


----------



## anon2192012

goosemanrdk said:


> I don't what to tell ya, I talked to roughly 60 guys, all die hard hunters.
> 
> Only 3 of the 60 were willing to give up the 2 day January hunt to get more time in December. They all wanted more time in December, but not at the expense of the 2 day January hunt. So, that makes it more like 95%
> 
> The group included:
> The people in my crew.
> All the members of the Delta Waterfowl group I work with.
> Misc aquaintances from managed areas and not from managed areas.
> and several people I didn't even know over the phone/net.
> 
> I will admit that I am about to get slightly pissy, but deservedly so:
> I haven't and won't question the qualifications of the guys you speak with, please don't question mine.


No need to get pissy.

My post came out a little wrong. I guess that 90% number just shocked me as it is rare for me to find someone who wouldn't give up those two days in Jan. for some extra time during the regular season.


----------



## FullBody

goosemanrdk said:


> I will admit that I am about to get slightly pissy, but deservedly so:
> I haven't and won't question the qualifications of the guys you speak with, please don't question mine.


 
Don't know why you'd get pissy. He wasn't questioning your people, just the number...90% is hard one to swallow. Not saying at all that 90% of the people you talked to didnt tell you that. I would just agree with Huntermax that statewide 90% would be hard to believe.


----------



## goosemanrdk

FullBody said:


> Don't know why you'd get pissy. He wasn't questioning your people, just the number...90% is hard one to swallow. Not saying at all that 90% of the people you talked to didnt tell you that. I would just agree with Huntermax that statewide 90% would be hard to believe.


And I never said it was 90% state wide, and never have. It was 90% of the people I talked too, and those are the people I represent. I wish I could talk to every person, but I can't. So, I gather the information from the people I am able to talk with and then combine that with DNRE info and info from the other CWAC members and try to find a middle ground for everyone. That's how the sytem should work, does work and did work.


----------



## DEDGOOSE

Man this stuff never ends on here.. I guess I am the minority.. I take what they give me, I realize there is times their is going to be tons of ducks and geese and sometimes you dont have squat.. Some years they stick around and sometimes they push through quickly.. Some years your froze up some years your not..


----------



## waxico

Yeah, me too. Whatever I receive regarding seasons I take as a blessing.
I remember the 3/30 days all too well.

There are way too many sections of the state, way too many variables to make EVERYONE happy. I think the folks doing the scheduling do a heck of a thankless job.

So, thank you.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Huntermax-4 said:


> No need to get pissy.
> 
> My post came out a little wrong. I guess that 90% number just shocked me as it is rare for me to find someone who wouldn't give up those two days in Jan. for some extra time during the regular season.


Come a little farther north, and I will introduce you to a group that would lynch ya, cause they almost lynched me, for even mentioning taking away the 2 day late hunt.:evilsmile

This little mishap gets back to exactly what I have been trying to convey all along. We are a vast state, and there are all kinds of little areas that all experience things a little different, which is why we all need to COMPROMISE a little.

For the sake of arguement lets break things down into some generic numbers:
First, season opener date:
1/3 of hunters want as early as possible(oct 2)
1/3 of hunters want a moderate opener(oct 9)
1/3 of hunters want as late a opener as possible(oct 16)

Type of season:
1/3 of hunters want all the gunning before freeze up.
1/3 of hunters want to push freeze up and hunt into december.
1/3 of hunters want things to freeze solid for some big water gunning.

So you have both extremes and a middle ground. Compromise would mean that one should take the middle ground. Where do you end up:

*The exact season we have been having and was proposed for this year.*
And this is probably why CWAC discussed this very little and the vote was unanimous. Everyone of us understands that it is about the whole, not the parts.

Fyi, the DNRE survey for zones 3 opening date looked something like this:
September 25 - 21%
October 2 - 24.6%
October 9 - 24%
October 16 - 17%
Other - 13.4%
I am here to tell you, if left to the DNRE, the would most likely choose a September 25 opener before an October 16 opener, and they have final say.


----------



## goosemanrdk

DEDGOOSE said:


> Man this stuff never ends on here.. I guess I am the minority.. I take what they give me, I realize there is times their is going to be tons of ducks and geese and sometimes you dont have squat.. Some years they stick around and sometimes they push through quickly.. Some years your froze up some years your not..


Sound's like you are a guy who knows how to compromise.:evil:


----------



## goosemanrdk

waxico said:


> Yeah, me too. Whatever I receive regarding seasons I take as a blessing.
> I remember the 3/30 days all too well.
> 
> There are way too many sections of the state, way too many variables to make EVERYONE happy. I think the folks doing the scheduling do a heck of a thankless job.
> 
> So, thank you.


Another man of compromise. :evil:

Your welcome, and I thank you for your understanding.


----------



## FullBody

Rob, By me having a discussion with you on here about season dates and the reason behind them certainly doesn't mean I dont understand your postion and/ or not willing to comprimise. I think we all respect and thank you CWACies for your hard work.


----------



## Water_Hazard

goosemanrdk said:


> This little mishap gets back to exactly what I have been trying to convey all along. We are a vast state, and there are all kinds of little areas that all experience things a little different, which is why we all need to COMPROMISE a little.
> 
> For the sake of arguement lets break things down into some generic numbers:
> First, season opener date:
> 1/3 of hunters want as early as possible(oct 2)
> 1/3 of hunters want a moderate opener(oct 9)
> 1/3 of hunters want as late a opener as possible(oct 16)
> 
> Type of season:
> 1/3 of hunters want all the gunning before freeze up.
> 1/3 of hunters want to push freeze up and hunt into december.
> 1/3 of hunters want things to freeze solid for some big water gunning.
> 
> So you have both extremes and a middle ground. Compromise would mean that one should take the middle ground. Where do you end up:
> 
> *The exact season we have been having and was proposed for this year.*
> And this is probably why CWAC discussed this very little and the vote was unanimous. Everyone of us understands that it is about the whole, not the parts.
> 
> Fyi, the DNRE survey for zones 3 opening date looked something like this:
> September 25 - 21%
> October 2 - 24.6%
> October 9 - 24%
> October 16 - 17%
> Other - 13.4%
> I am here to tell you, if left to the DNRE, the would most likely choose a September 25 opener before an October 16 opener, and they have final say.


Not sure how many other ways you can put it, but this is pretty easy to comprehend.


----------



## goosemanrdk

FullBody said:


> Rob, By me having a discussion with you on here about season dates and the reason behind them certainly doesn't mean I dont understand your postion and/ or not willing to comprimise. I think we all respect and thank you CWACies for your hard work.


No offense taken at all. I am just hoping to clarify/clear things up a little for people if possible.

It's ironic, prior to being named to CWAC I was just like you and the others as far as what I wanted out of the season. Then something changed me. Could it be all those little puzzle pieces that create a big picture, probably sick of hearing that phrase, when put together? Yep.

I just wish people would show some acknowledgement for how good the current seasons/proposal really is given all of the pieces that have to be considered. Then commence/feel free to complain about how this or that would make your individual piece better. And if you don't want to then acknowledge how not good that may or may not be for another piece, thats fine with me.

We really do have a very good/great setup right now. It could be much, much worse.


----------



## field-n-feathers

KLR said:


> Here are my thoughts.
> 
> For 3 zones w/splits
> 
> 
> W UP (from say Manistique on) and SW MI (96 W from Lansing, 69 S from Lansing) = *Zone 1*
> 
> E UP, N LP, & Sag Bay = *Zone 2*
> 
> Whatever's left = *Zone 3*
> 
> 
> *Zone 1* opens last weekend in Sept runs through first weekend in Nov. Reopens first weekend in Dec and runs the balance of the season (Somewhere between 12-15 & 12-20)
> *Rationale:* Gives opportunity to W UP'ers to have an early start, also allows SWMI guys a chance to shoot local birds in Oct.
> The closure of the UP in Nov cost's them very few days before freez up(The only way they are getting 60 is if they open Sept 1), and allows the SW guys to hunt the "West MI" migration.
> 
> *Zone 2* opens last weekend in Sept closes after first weekend in Oct. Reopens third weekend in Oct and runs the balance (Some where between 12/5 & 12/10)
> *Rationale:* Allows tennis shoe Joe to chase Teal and early woodies. Closes during the lull that occurs after locals are blown up and before migrators show up in earnest. Allows everyone to hunt during the peak of the migration 10/20-11/20 and gives open water guys in the E UP & Sag Bay a chance to battle ice at the end.
> 
> *Zone 3* opens 3rd weekend in October closes 2nd weekend in Dec and reopens Jan. for whatever days are left.
> *Rationale:* Outside the bay I don't hunt the current Zone 3, so I really dont have any thoughts on these dates. If the majority want to swat skeeters instead of bust ice, then flop the split on the other end and open the whole state last weekend in Sept.


Not even close brother. SW Michigan migration in October? You can't be serious!! Nice pot stirring though.


----------



## Water_Hazard

field-n-feathers said:


> Not even close brother. SW Michigan migration in October? You can't be serious!! Nice pot stirring though.


I don't really do much SW Michigan hunting, but when do the teal and wood ducks migrate through there?


----------



## goosemanrdk

goosemanrdk said:


> _I ask one thing, and will continue to ask it repeatedly, during these discussions of zones:_
> *Ask yourself, how would this work at maintaing hunter satisfaction and maximizing all hunter days afield during a restricted frame work of 30days/3birds.*
> This very thought will be the sole driving force in the decisiion that I make on this issue.


Was looking close at KLR's proposal. If the above 30/3 were to happen, then what do you do for your new Zone 1. Somebody get SCREWED big time.


----------



## goosemanrdk

field-n-feathers said:


> Not even close brother. SW Michigan migration in October? You can't be serious!! Nice pot stirring though.


I think he was refering to the December "migration."


----------



## TNL

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> thanks wavie.
> 
> so from those stats i just read....could one assume that flight from michigan because of lack of jobs in the last 10 years would be more percentile than the hunter licenses percentage drop? lol.
> 
> from 850,000 licenses in 1964 to 790,000 licenses in 2005. 3%.
> 
> don't get me wrong, any loss is not good, but lets be honest...outside of TNL who teaches gun safety, has anyone seen or felt the hunter numbers have dropped. TNL being a safety instructor probably has first hand recruitment observations as his classes would get smaller and smaller.
> 
> just stirring the pot for more discussion.
> 
> from my observations....30 years of hunting SRSGA....our youth days have not moved in participation much...our hunter trips have not adjusted much (weather/conditions dictated the trend). I just hate seeing the hunter recruitment thing tossed into every conversation like it is the final say all for every ruling.
> 
> as far as loss of hunters (waterfowl) lead shot and 3 bird limit single handedly did the most damage to our participation than anything.


Here are a few data points from the Recruitment and Retainment Work Group from '06. Please pardon the selective editing. 

Youth face an increasingly complex
array of positive and negative leisure time choices.
By the time they reach 12, many are so busy in nonhunting
pursuits, often not involving parents, that they
never start hunting and lack opportunities to maintain
strong family bonds.​
As Frawley (2004) notes:
&#8226; Hunting in Michigan has become increasingly
focused on deer hunting.​&#8226; At least 91% of license buyers purchased a
deer hunting license.​&#8226; In 2002, 62% of the deer hunters purchased
only a deer hunting license&#8212;compared to
51% in 1968.​&#8226; In contrast, *a smaller proportion of small*
*game hunters purchased only small game*
*licenses in 2002 than in 1968.*​&#8226; A major drop-off in hunting participation​appears to occur between the late
teen years and early 20s.​

In 1968, *45% of small game hunters*
*purchased only a small game hunting*​*license&#8212;compared to 16% in 2002.*


...the proportion of
hunters in the Michigan population has declined
from an average of 10.1% in the 1960s to an
average of 8.7% during 2000-2002 (Frawley
2004).​*

Literature Cited​*Frawley, B.J. 2004. Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters.Report 3426. Michigan​Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated​Recreation. Washington, D.C.

I don't know of any studies directly pertaining to youth waterfowl. Small game, which has declined by 65% as cited above, is as close as I can get.


----------



## field-n-feathers

Water_Hazard said:


> I don't really do much SW Michigan hunting, but when do the teal and wood ducks migrate through there?


Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to base my duck season on measurable numbers of GWT and Woodies when they are here in good numbers into November anyway. 



goosemanrdk said:


> I think he was refering to the December "migration."


Yes, I was referring to the "migration" that typically happens in November and goes through mid to late December. The lakes and rivers that don't freeze are LOADED with ducks, even into January. You have to be creative, that's all I'm saying on that.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Ruger-44 said:


> Rob -- again, thanks for opening up this discussion, but I'm beginning to wonder what the point of it is? If we can't change anything because the DNR has their head in the sand and their feet set in concrete on what the current framework is, why get everyone worked up and talking about changing things. What I keep hearing is that the current system is the best there is and nothing will change. If that's the case, disband CWAC and just let the DNR dictate (and yes I used that word intentionally) our waterfowl seasons, dates, etc... I've been told by several people, including someone on the CWAC for a long time, that the new DNR director will listen to CWAC and waterfowler's voices. So instead of saying, we can't change it, how about giving it a try?
> 
> *I never started this to get people worked up, only to help inform people as to why things are the way they are. Great idea, disban CWAC, NOT!! Did you not read anything I have said, had it not been for CWAC, you would have likely gotten zero December hunting this year. Yes, the new director will listen, but as I keep trying to convey, ONLY TO A CERTAIN point. They have final say and a "agenda/plan" that can trump anything at any point in time. This year, the vote for everything other than the UP season were either unanimous or had 18 of the 19 vote for. Wonder why? Probably cause every CWAC person understands the big picture.*
> 
> If you're a regional/at-large rep on CWAC, your responsibility is to YOUR AREA of the state. It is not to the Bay guys, the UP guys or the SE guys. You represent YOUR AREA. That's why I PM'd you for info on the guy who reps my area. I wish he was on here or I had some way to contact him to give him my opinions. I think the CWAC at-large reps should hold public meetings, either at DU or Delta events, or at a local sporting goods store, to get input from their constituents on what they want. I don't see that happening except for you doing that on here.
> 
> *Don't tell me how to do my job, cause if you would open your eyes and mind a little, and get that CWAC/DNRE chip off your shoulder, you would see that I did my Job. I had people that wanted Early hunting, October hunting, November hunting, December hunting and January hunting. What did I vote for, a season that got all of them that.
> As for public meetings, I am a very passionate waterfowler, but just like you I only have so much time. I do have a job, wife, child, parents, family, friends, summer hobbies, etc. You do realize that we don't get paid. You can't even begin to fathom what I had to do with my work schedule just to be able to make the meeting last week, ya I work on the weekend as well.*
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, man, but you're shooting down every idea, even if you agree with it, because the DNR may say no. So what if they say no. If you don't ask, they can't say yes. I'm not saying every idea on here is good or should be presented, but to just shoot every idea down and try to convince everyone the current system is the only way to go is doing yourself, the CWAC and everyone on here a disservice.
> 
> *I not even suggesting that they will say no, I am telling you they will say no. They have their "agenda/plan" and lots of data that backs that. If what what were to be proposed contadicted that "agenda/plan", why wouldn't they shoot it down.*


Well, guys I have tried to help inform you of things and enlighten everyone, but I think it is time for me to step asside fromt his conversation. When I started the first CWAC conversation, I made a promise to myself that I would stop as soon as my blood pressure spiked due to a post. Well, Rugger-44 did just that. Good luck this fall guys, have a good one. I will check in once and a while.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> I am only guessing but I feel that my intuition is correct:
> Will the DNRE allow much later of a start, based on the above info, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow a break in the middle of October, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow the January hunt to go away, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow hunting much later into December, NO.


It appears you are opposed to presenting ideas at the CWAC meeting that you think will not go anywhere?

Isn't the point of CWAC to provide input? If so there is definetly benefit to working with options you think are on the table with the DNRE but in turn I don't think CWAC members should be silent with ideas because they think they won't get passed DNRE.

Like I said, I understand the need to work with what you think is on the table for the DNRE as options, better to pick from option 1,2,3 that the DNRE would consider to make sure you have say rather than propose option 4 and have the DNRE pick from 1,2,3 on their own. But I don't think ideas should be stifled because you don't think they would go anywhere either.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> The DNRE waterowl biologists would disagree with you for the most part. These birds that you see are not all flights or even that many "new" birds. Ever wonder why every year its a "week" after season closes that you see these "new flights".
> The DNRE's contention would be that those birds you see are not all flights as everyone so likes to think they are.
> Rather they are a cobination of:
> 1-Birds finally moving around due to the drop(closure) of hunting pressure.
> 2-The remaining birds concentrating on the remaining water as final freeze up occurs. Concentration of exiting birds rather than "new" birds.
> 3-The addition of the some new birds.


After 5 years vindication! 

Really though, it doesn't matter if they are technically new birds or not. I think freeze up is the #1 reason hunting get's better and if the goal is to give SW Michigan some better hunting, it doesn't matter if it is flight birds or freeze up that makes it better IMO mid Dec. The point is it just get's better for SW Michigan mid-Dec.


----------



## goosemanrdk

TSS Caddis said:


> It appears you are opposed to presenting ideas at the CWAC meeting that you think will not go anywhere?
> 
> Isn't the point of CWAC to provide input? If so there is definetly benefit to working with options you think are on the table with the DNRE but in turn I don't think CWAC members should be silent with ideas because they think they won't get passed DNRE.
> 
> Like I said, I understand the need to work with what you think is on the table for the DNRE as options, better to pick from option 1,2,3 that the DNRE would consider to make sure you have say rather than propose option 4 and have the DNRE pick from 1,2,3 on their own. But I don't think ideas should be stifled because you don't think they would go anywhere either.


You would have to attend a meeting to even understand. All of those ideas are stiffled by the DNRE waterfowl workgroup before we(CWAC) even begin discussing. Yet again here is how the meeting plays out:

1- Waterfowl workgroup meets during the week prior coming up with their ideas.
2-The workgroup presents their ideas, along with a mirad of other information, surveys, statistics and the like.( most of which stimeys all of these ideas you want presented)
3-CWAC does there thing.

Try attending a meeting once, you might understand the big picture more.


----------



## Shlwego

I'm going to back this conversation up a bit, because I think this is an issue we need to deal with:



just ducky said:


> I'm curious...did you contact one of the UP reps and let them know your feelings prior to the meeting? I hope so, because that's why we all have reps on the CWAC. As goosemanrdk said more than once, the reps are *supposed* to carry the message of the majority of their constituents....


How many of the est. 40,000 waterfowlers that we've discussed in this thread even KNOW that the CWAC exists? Do they know that there's anyone to contact with their preferences and concerns about their waterfowl hunting experience? Is there any official publication that _actually informs them_ about the CWAC and provides them with rep contact info? If so, I don't recall seeing it. If not, then WHY not? The most logical place for this info would be in the annual DNRE Waterfowl Guide, because I assume that's how most waterfowlers (who are not part of the "hard core" group we have here) are going to get their information. If the goal is to have representatives to the CWAC vote based on the preferences of their constituency, shouldn't that constituency be informed about how to contact their rep? Maybe I've missed something, and if so, please show me where it is......


----------



## Ruger-44

Rob -- Don't quit the conversation because of me or my comments. None of it was personally directed at you and I apologize if you think it was. As I said in my PM to you and publicly on here, you bringing these things up for discussion is a great idea and a service to all of us. I don't see many other CWAC reps doing that here. If anything in my post is directed personally at anyone, it's the rep for my area because I don't see him on here or anywhere publicly gathering the information so he can represent his area.

For what it's worth, I was told by a DNR biologist that the CWAC at-large rep's responsibility was to obtain information from his area and represent those interests at the CWAC meetings and that, in the past, many at-large reps did not do that, but instead just presented the opinions of the rep and his small group of buddies. I think you would agree that defeats the purpose of the CWAC.


----------



## jward

goosemanrdk said:


> I really like all of the ideas, I really do. But, all of you have to understand the DNRE has final authority and our input is only part of the equation that they use to determine seasons, albeit a decent portion.
> 
> Really you would need to attend a meeting/talk to the memebers of the waterfowl workgroup to understand. I will try to explain some as best I can, but this is becoming a case of you guys really need to be there/on CWAC to understand.
> 
> Here it goes:
> 1-(and this drives everything else) The DNRE's goal is participation, maximum days a field available, retention, recruitment and satisfaction.
> 2- They have surveys, that are statistically significant(how science works), that show most hunters support as early opener as possible.
> 3- They have harvest data that shows how important the earlier openings are.
> 4- They have population/migration surveys that show duck numbers in zone 3 begin building in mid october and peak out in the first week or 2 of November.
> 5 - They have a freeze map that shows when traditional freeze up occurs in all areas of the state.
> 6- They have some sort of survey, didn't see it but was told they had it by a DNRE workgroup memeber whom I respect and trust, that shows valued support for the January 2 day split.
> 7- They probably have a mirad of other biological data that supports the things they do.
> 
> I feel like I am beginning to beat a dead horse, but a lot of the ideas being thrown around don't have the support from the above information. CWAC could recommend some drastic change, and there is, in my opinion, a huge likelyhood that it would be shot down by the DNRE. They have that authority. The DNRE has whatever their "idea/agenda" is for the season, and basically put, what ever CWAC recommends needs to fit reasonably in that, or it will be a no go.
> 
> I am sure you all feel like I am the "saint of negativity" to all of your ideas. I am not trying to be, I am merely trying to help you all understand just how complicated the process really is. There is a mirad of pieces that need to considered, and the best COMPROMISE needs to be found. Are you all sick of that word yet.
> 
> I am only guessing but I feel that my intuition is correct:
> Will the DNRE allow much later of a start, based on the above info, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow a break in the middle of October, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow the January hunt to go away, NO.
> Will the DNRE allow hunting much later into December, NO.
> 
> The DNRE waterfowl workgroup meets during the week prior to our CWAC meeting. Why? To come up with their ideas, thoughts and plans that they feel they would like for the season to be. This information is to help as a starting guide for us at the CWAC meeting, and quite frankly, is probably meant to show us what they would tolerate for us to propose. Why do I say this, my local DNRE rep who was on the waterfowl workgroup told me the day after their planning meeting, *that for zone 3 the workgroups most favorable option was an October 2 opener with the January 2 day split.* Thankfully for everyones sake, the DNRE does now listen to CWAC and allow our input, so we were able to move the opener back a bit.


 So to sum all this up we are going to get what we get and thats it. Every idea thats been posted up has been shot down because the DNR won't allow it . I would rather have gone on being fat happy an ignorant then to get my hopes up that something might change. Then I find out that it's the same ol same ol lip service and we going to maintain the staus quo. Why is it that the "vocal minority " in the SE part of the state seems to be able to influence policy but the rest of us are just stuck with whatever we get. I am not trying to be an ass here but I am not seeing where the DNR is willing to budge an inch . Where is the "compromise" in that ?

jward


----------



## KLR

Shlwego said:


> I'm going to back this conversation up a bit, because I think this is an issue we need to deal with:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of the est. 40,000 waterfowlers that we've discussed in this thread even KNOW that the CWAC exists? Do they know that there's anyone to contact with their preferences and concerns about their waterfowl hunting experience? Is there any official publication that _actually informs them_ about the CWAC and provides them with rep contact info? If so, I don't recall seeing it. If not, then WHY not? The most logical place for this info would be in the annual DNRE Waterfowl Guide, because I assume that's how most waterfowlers (who are not part of the "hard core" group we have here) are going to get their information. If the goal is to have representatives to the CWAC vote based on the preferences of their constituency, shouldn't that constituency be informed about how to contact their rep? Maybe I've missed something, and if so, please show me where it is......


Its a bit of a chore navigating the MI DNRE website but the CWAC info is on there - 
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_48670---,00.html


----------



## Shlwego

KLR said:


> Its a bit of a chore navigating the MI DNRE website but the CWAC info is on there -
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-39002_48670---,00.html


 
Thanks! I'm glad this info does exist. But I still wonder how many of the unwashed masses of waterfowlers in the state KNOW it exists. Guys who don't go looking for this info are unlikely to stumble across it, and so they're input is potentially being ignored. I think having something printed in the Waterfowl Guide that _at least_ explains what the CWAC is/does and directs people to the web page would be a good idea.


----------



## goosemanrdk

jward said:


> So to sum all this up we are going to get what we get and thats it. Every idea thats been posted up has been shot down because the DNR won't allow it . I would rather have gone on being fat happy an ignorant then to get my hopes up that something might change. Then I find out that it's the same ol same ol lip service and we going to maintain the staus quo. Why is it that the "vocal minority " in the SE part of the state seems to be able to influence policy but the rest of us are just stuck with whatever we get. I am not trying to be an ass here but I am not seeing where the DNR is willing to budge an inch . Where is the "compromise" in that ?
> 
> jward


I am not sure that I can really help you anymore. We have very diverse group of waterfowl hunters in Michigan, they all want something:
Early october hunting
Mid october hunting
November hunting
December hunting 
January hunting
And that is exactly what our season provides, a little for everyone.

Compromise- DNRE wants Oct2 opener, CWAC gets Oct 9. Not sure what else I can tell you.

It is very frustrating for me to sit here and listen to everyone discount all of the information, surveys, statistics, biology etc. You do understand that that are college educated professionals. Yet everyone seems so willing to discredit them. You do need to understand that this info plays a major role in the decision making. It has "statistical significance," that is how that stuff works.

Food for thought:
If every CWAC member were to interact with 50% of the 40,000 waterfowl hunters in Michigan, they would need to each know 1,050 hunters. Now conversations would involve a little time. So lets say I give each individual 30mins. It would take me almost 22days, talking 24hours a day, to speak to that many people. IMPOSSIBLE, and still be married and have my child, friends and family still like me.

What is the point of this. All that scientific data that the professionals(DNRE) has plays a HUGE part in the decissions that need to be made.

*Again, I never started this to get anyones hopes up. I only hoped to help everyone understand why we get what we get.*


----------



## goosemanrdk

Shlwego said:


> Thanks! I'm glad this info does exist. But I still wonder how many of the unwashed masses of waterfowlers in the state KNOW it exists. Guys who don't go looking for this info are unlikely to stumble across it, and so they're input is potentially being ignored. I think having something printed in the Waterfowl Guide that _at least_ explains what the CWAC is/does and directs people to the web page would be a good idea.


And this is where the DNRE information comes into play. Those people may not know who CWAC is, but I am pretty sure that they know who the DNRE is. If you think that DNRE employees don't get talked to about seasons and the like, I can introduce you to a few that will disagree with you. They probably get as much, if not more input from hunters than do CWAC members.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shlwego said:


> Thanks! I'm glad this info does exist. But I still wonder how many of the unwashed masses of waterfowlers in the state KNOW it exists. Guys who don't go looking for this info are unlikely to stumble across it, and so they're input is potentially being ignored. I think having something printed in the Waterfowl Guide that _at least_ explains what the CWAC is/does and directs people to the web page would be a good idea.


Not to rehash, but the general concensus was that it is up to you to search out these organizations and find out if they exist if you want say, not up for them to find you or inform you. Right or wrong, that is the way it is.


----------



## just ducky

Shlwego said:


> Thanks! I'm glad this info does exist. But I still wonder how many of the unwashed masses of waterfowlers in the state KNOW it exists. Guys who don't go looking for this info are unlikely to stumble across it, and so they're input is potentially being ignored. I think having something printed in the Waterfowl Guide that _at least_ explains what the CWAC is/does and directs people to the web page would be a good idea.


As a whole they don't know...no question that's true. Just look at the posts we get each year on this and other sites asking "when do they set the waterfowl rules?". And the regulars on this site are supposedly the informed ones...think about the thousands out there who never have visited this or other websites, or have never gone on the DNRE website. But this not unique to waterfowl...many people who fish and hunt don't know the first thing about it either. But then whose fault is that? As I've said in other posts, in this "instant gratification" and knowledge age we live in, you almost have to try real hard NOT to get news blasted at you 24/7 from multiple angles. Fact is we're in an electronic information age, and it's getting worse all the time. So I kind of get tired of this argument of "you didn't tell me". Think about this for a minute...how did our father's, grandfather's, or others in previous decades find out about these kinds of changes? They usually heard it from a hunting buddy or relative, from someone in the local coffee shop or bar, read it in the newspaper, heard it on the radio, etc. Somehow they managed to stay informed. I said this in other recent posts  ...my opinion is in this day and age it's no longer enough to just participate in a sport...you need to be very active, including making sure you know what's happening with your sport. Now you can do that several ways in my mind...you can be active in organizations and associations which are supposed to give you updates in some fashion; you can be active on websites such as this; you can follow the DNRE's Facebook and Twitter sites; you can read things like MUCC's magazine, or Michigan Outdoor News; you can pay attention to the few newspapers in Michigan that actually still have outdoors columns; you can talk to those of your buddies who are active and in-tune with what's happening; or you can make calls or email directly to DNRE staff (who probably in many cases will send you to their website). 

So in this day and age of electronic information overload, do we actually have MORE access to these kinds of changes than our predecessors had? I'd say yes, but again, you have to get involved.

Okay, I'm done (for now :evilsmile)


----------



## jward

goosemanrdk , please do not take my comments personally. I don't intend them that way. I just do not understand why the possibilty of a 4th zone or changing the split dates was even brought up, if the DNR is not even open to changing the current setup. It seems like the DNR is trying to put a "spin" on this so they can claim they are listening to hunter input.


jward


----------



## just ducky

With all due respect to goosemanrdk, never say never. Rob is simply pointing out to all of us the reality of some things with respect to CWAC and the DNRE. When the DNRE has factual survey data, such as that saying a majority of the hunters favor keeping the two day late split, then the only way you can argue that is to show proof that they're wrong. It's possible you could come up with that, but it's lots of work. But can a vocal minority create enough grass-roots support for change? Sure can. If enough people get behind something, like the 4 zone arrangement for example. That is something that I personally have not seen data on whether hunters favor 4 zones or the current 3. So someone could take that and run with it. 

All I'm saying is don't take too much from the discussion on this entire thread...it's simply thought starters. Everyone has opinions, and they all have some merit.


----------



## goosemanrdk

jward said:


> goosemanrdk , please do not take my comments personally. I don't intend them that way. I just do not understand why the possibilty of a 4th zone or changing the split dates was even brought up, if the DNR is not even open to changing the current setup. It seems like the DNR is trying to put a "spin" on this so they can claim they are listening to hunter input.
> 
> 
> jward


It's not that they aren't open to changing things, they are, just as CWAC is. The thing I have been trying to get accross, is just cause we can, doesn't mean we should. There is a big picture that has to be looked at, and is the picture that both CWAC and DNRE look at when making these decisions. What ever is decided, needs to fit into the DNRE's goals:

Maximum days available(thus not lost to freeze up)
Maximize participation
Recruitment
Retention
Satisfaction

Just prior to leaving CWAC, we had a small preliminary discussion about the 4 zones, 3 zones, changing zones. The big take home message, that everyone in the room agreed about, was that just cause we can change, doesn't mean we should, and we should think long and hard about that choice. I then had discussions with several of the CWAC members at the show, and every one of us is very apprehensive about whether, in the big picture, and change would be good or necessary.

I do take a lot of this personally, cause a lot of comes across as if CWAC and the DNRE just don't care. Well, we do care, and care a lot.


----------



## jward

Man, I would love to see a 4th zone . It could run SW of a line going from the Lk Mi shore some where between Allegan and Muskegon to apoint on the state line Somewhat West of Detroit. 


jward


----------



## goosemanrdk

just ducky said:


> With all due respect to goosemanrdk, never say never. Rob is simply pointing out to all of us the reality of some things with respect to CWAC and the DNRE. When the DNRE has factual survey data, such as that saying a majority of the hunters favor keeping the two day late split, then the only way you can argue that is to show proof that they're wrong. It's possible you could come up with that, but it's lots of work. But can a vocal minority create enough grass-roots support for change? Sure can. If enough people get behind something, like the 4 zone arrangement for example. That is something that I personally have not seen data on whether hunters favor 4 zones or the current 3. So someone could take that and run with it.
> 
> All I'm saying is don't take too much from the discussion on this entire thread...it's simply thought starters. Everyone has opinions, and they all have some merit.


Agreed, and I am merely trying to point out what I consider the major obsticals to some of the ideas. It will be far easier for one, maximally productive idea that fits into the DNRE's main objectives, to be brought forward than a whole bunch of pot shot ideas that will be blasted out of the water by the DNRE's information. Their information has strong scientific backing, and I am not just talking biologic.

Take a surevey for instance. If you want to get one going great, it better be statistically significant, or it won't hold water plain and simple. So basically don't just go and survey the "guys" that you know, as that would creat a huge bias in your survey. Figure out some way to make your survey a RANDOM and LARGE ENOUGH sample, and now you will be headed towards "statistical significance"


----------



## goosemanrdk

jward said:


> Man, I would love to see a 4th zone . It could run SW of a line going from the Lk Mi shore some where between Allegan and Muskegon to apoint on the state line Somewhat West of Detroit.
> 
> 
> jward


Ok, now what happens if we have 30/3 frame work? Where do you run the season to keep most of the hunters in that zone happy? 

***
-Remember, no split allowed if we have 4 zones.
-The DNRE has scientific data that shows peak waterfowl numbers to be Late October/ Early November.
-Don't push the freeze up, lost days would be unacceptable in an already short season.


----------



## just ducky

goosemanrdk said:


> .... a lot of comes across as if CWAC and the DNRE just don't care. Well, we do care, and care a lot.


If DNRE Director Humphries and her staff didn't care, they could do away with CWAC. Remember folks, it's ADVISORY only. It's not created by statute. Fortunately for all of us, she does care, and openly encourages involvement. Go back and read my interview with her in the latest edition of the MDHA's _Michigan Waterfowler_, where she said she'd like to see MORE involvement in CWAC from members at large.


----------



## Water_Hazard

Bellyup said:


> I would wager a bet that the very same so called fair weather hunters don't duck hunt once deer season opens. *I hunt ducks all season, so I feel my opinion should count more than their opinion, I put more time in.*


Are you buying a more expensive license then them guys?

(make that 21 pages and counting.)


----------



## TSS Caddis

Bellyup said:


> I think I said it in another thread someplace. Politics suck. Look at this thread and my point is made. Too much red tape and too few people with common sense running things. And if they do have common sense, they can't use it because of the red tape. Welcome to the Socialist Territory of North America.
> 
> Ryan, don't take this personally.
> 
> It seems to me that CWAC does not need to exist. It was mentioned they got us hunting in Dec. One weekend... which is what most likely 90% of the 40,000 waterfowlers hunt on, the WEEKEND.
> 
> I also think the information the DNR is using is not accurate enough to base any decisions on. Someone please prove to me that they sent out 30,000 surveys and had 30,000 returned. Until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they truly have the majority of the waterfowlers opinions, they are simply sending steam out their pieholes. I have not gotten a survey except one year, and that was around ten years ago. Is SW MI truly represented to the DNR ?
> 
> I here talk about satisfaction and hunter retention and getting new blood into the sport. I can solve the first two of that with better season dates. I take out newbies. How in the He!! can I retain them when all we do is get up at 4:00 A.M. drive to some lake or river launch, motor around finding a spot spending an hour in the dark putting out the rig getting brushed in, etc. Come daylight woohoo a few small flocks give us some action. Then we sit for the next 5 hours with out coffee in hand, B.S.ing about ducks not moving. Now then, add in it is deer season and there is banging in the woods every 3 minutes. Tell me how I can retain a newbies interest ? Not only do you need to focus on hunter retention, which goes hand in hand with satisfaction.
> 
> I am not buying into all this what if thinking. You need to set down the coffee and start shooting, NOW. Does the DNR want more funding ? Provide the maximum opportunity for waterfowl hunters nationwide. It just so happens SW MI best opportunity for a great hunt is in Dec. Opening weekend can be fun, but in my experience it does not offer the same opportunity Dec would. Opener we shoot brown ducks, swat skeeters, sweat, make the kids do more work than we should because we are to sweaty, etc.
> 
> I simply think if the argument is going to be based on stats and surveys, they dam well better include everyone. I am fine with whatever the majority wants. That is how a Democracy is supposed to work. I am not buying that 40,000 waterfowlers in this state can be surveyed. MI does not even sell a waterfowl license..... they sell a small game license. We then buy stamps. What about the guy who buys a small game license at KMart and then goes to his local post office to buy a stamp ? You don't have to give any information when you do it that way.
> 
> As far as season dates and zones, I would take 4 zones. SW MI needs to be treated different. I will take what they give me, but there is so much room for improvement that it needs some pushing, shoving and arguments. It needs people&#8217;s toes to be stepped on. If we go to a 30 days season we are all going to suffer no matter what layout there is. So please, don't base the season suggestions on a bunch of hype and what if's. If someone wants to tell me it is based on majority wanting X date, then prove it. I want to see the sampling numbers.
> 
> See what happens when the internet is used... people become informed and now the old ways of pushing around and bullying no longer works. We can crunch the numbers now with facts.
> 
> I will retract many things I said if the sampling proves the facts as presented.
> 
> If we still had to go to a sporting goods store to buy our hunting license, we would not be in this position of Kmart idiots who work in housewares trying to punch in the codes for a waterfowler or turkey hunter... or doe tag, or buck tag. And then the DNR could have a true survey right there at time of purchase.
> 
> Just my opinion boys, so don't take offense, or take it personally.
> 
> And Caddis, I would present your idea for a year off..


I agree.

Seems to me the best place to get public opinion is from the public, not from groups that claim to represent their members, reps that claim to represent a certain region etc... 

In this day and age their is no reason not to go straight to the public.

The problem with groups and individuals claiming to represent others is, are they truely representing what the majority wants? Guessing what they want? Deciding for them what is best for the public? Or deciding what is best for that rep?

You have to take the migratory bird poll already, why not ask questions there? Why not have yearly public waterfowl meetings? Why not have yearly reg proposals o. The DNRE home page? Why not have a write up in the MDHA news letter before something actually gets implemented rather than after? Seems like there is plenty of opportunity to actively silicate input vs burying our heads in the sand and claiming what we have is the best.


----------



## Ruger-44

TSS Caddis said:


> I agree.
> 
> Seems to me the best place to get public opinion is from the public, not from groups that claim to represent their members, reps that claim to represent a certain region etc...
> 
> In this day and age their is no reason not to go straight to the public.
> 
> The problem with groups and individuals claiming to represent others is, are they truely representing what the majority wants? Guessing what they want? Deciding for them what is best for the public? Or deciding what is best for that rep?
> 
> You have to take the migratory bird poll already, why not ask questions there? Why not have yearly public waterfowl meetings? Why not have yearly reg proposals o. The DNRE home page? Why not have a write up in the MDHA news letter before something actually gets implemented rather than after? Seems like there is plenty of opportunity to actively silicate input vs burying our heads in the sand and claiming what we have is the best.


There ya go again Caddis, trying to make sense again. If only it were that easy.... Remember, this is the government we're talking about.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> The problem with groups and individuals claiming to represent others is, are they truely representing what the majority wants? Guessing what they want? Deciding for them what is best for the public? Or deciding what is best for that rep?
> .



Do you have any examples where things didn't work out for the Majority (obviously talking within means)? Only one I can think of is the Oct. 2 opener for the u.P. And that I'm not really sure what the majority wants because I know alot of hunters want less traffic for the opener. But then if you poll the businesses in the u.p. I would think they would want the traffic.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> Why not have yearly public waterfowl meetings? Why not have yearly reg proposals o. The DNRE home page? Why not have a write up in the MDHA news letter before something actually gets implemented rather than after? Seems like there is plenty of opportunity to actively silicate input vs burying our heads in the sand and claiming what we have is the best.


Do you attend the Cwac or other waterfowl related meetings? Do you frequent the DNRE home page? Do you read the MDHA news letter? I know alot of people don't. Have you come up with something better to please the majority?(that would be able to get approved) I have been reading all these season suggestions, and I haven't seen any that would appeal to the majority over what we have now.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Water_Hazard said:


> Do you have any examples where things didn't work out for the Majority (obviously talking within means)? Only one I can think of is the Oct. 2 opener for the u.P. And that I'm not really sure what the majority wants because I know alot of hunters want less traffic for the opener. But then if you poll the businesses in the u.p. I would think they would want the traffic.


I don't know what the majority wants. Seems that the CWAC guy posted some DNRE date surveys, so that is a good start. But IMO, no one knows what the majority wants since no one is trying to really find out. There are some half assed Internet forum polls that mean squat. CWAC members talking to their immediate circle, orgs that don't poll members but speak for them, etc...

I don't know what the majority wants and sadly, neither do the people representing us.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> *orgs that don't poll members but speak for them, etc...*
> 
> I don't know what the majority wants and sadly, neither do the people representing us.


I gotta laugh everytime I read that. It kinda makes me think you are referring to the spinner ban. Someone that never hunts Shiawassee, is all bent out of shape over it. Another example of the majority getting what they want. I would definately say you are in the minority on the spinner ban. Why don't you start coming to meetings, so you are better informed.lol.


----------



## Branta

guys, this is 21 pages and it's been going pretty well so let's not let it go south.



the DNR actually does a really good job in sampling the hunters. for one, it's not really practical nor cost effective to get input from every single hunter.

I for one would be really PO'd that they were wasting time, money and man hours if they even attempted it versus spending effort on other badly needed projects.

secondly, it's just not done. It's impractical - even in Customs inspection of products coming into this country.

for the MDNR, they take a statistically significant number from the licensed sales and then add even more to their sampling. this gives them a confidence level that's even better than 95% (that the data summarized in the surveys are representative of the whole pop).

this is not unlike the private sector or other public areas such as "who'll be the next president?" to quality control operations in mfg to ensuring that hazardous chemicals do not come into the country.

those survey results based on mil stds represent the population very accurately.

Like I said in a different thread, going crazy in sampling would just lead to _paralysis by analysis_ - you'd spend more time sampling than actually getting stuff accomplished.

Can you imagine a border crossing where everyone got the 5th degree, just to "be sure"? commerce would come to a halt.

~~~~~~
personally, I'm surprised that the UP season wasn't "overruled" so to speak. for all the reasons I noted earlier, it just doesn't seem to fit some of the global desires departmentally.


----------



## Fall Flight Punisher

for the MDNR, they take a statistically significant number from the licensed sales and then add even more to their sampling. this gives them a confidence level that's even better than 95% (that the data summarized in the surveys are representative of the whole pop).


Here's one from '07

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3496_258714_7.pdf


----------



## Chez29

If you want an idea of migration of waterfowl along the Lake Superior shoreline check out the Whitefish Point observatory blog. http://wpbowaterbirds.blogspot.com/

Interesting that they shut down middle of November I would think if their was a larger migration mid November on they would want to track that.  I always marvel at the huge numbers that are moving through in Sept and early October.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> If you want an idea of migration of waterfowl along the Lake Superior shoreline check out the Whitefish Point observatory blog. http://wpbowaterbirds.blogspot.com/
> 
> Interesting that they shut down middle of November I would think if their was a larger migration mid November on they would want to track that.  I always marvel at the huge numbers that are moving through in Sept and early October.


ya you do realize the migration difference in 5-6hrs right? consider the climate difference between whitefish and zone 3. consider the snow difference between lets say detroit and trout lake (UP) its amazing how much difference the climate changes between those 2 points. i can snowmobile in trout lake 3 weeks earlier and later each year than at my house......so now translate that into migration and its not all that surprising that we hit peak migration in SRSGA in november....if not later if weather is soft.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Water_Hazard said:


> I gotta laugh everytime I read that. It kinda makes me think you are referring to the spinner ban. Someone that never hunts Shiawassee, is all bent out of shape over it. Another example of the majority getting what they want. I would definately say you are in the minority on the spinner ban. Why don't you start coming to meetings, so you are better informed.lol.


Majority? Please back up that statement.


Branta brings up the cost arguement. Adding an additional dozen questions to the survey they already sent out is trivial.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> Majority? Please back up that statement.
> 
> 
> Branta brings up the cost arguement. Adding an additional dozen questions to the survey they already sent out is trivial.



caddis, give it a break man...seriously....we know you have an axe to grind on these groups and when they change a rule to benefit them. I'll say this one time real slow....

JOIN THE GROUP AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE


----------



## Branta

TSS Caddis said:


> I don't know what the majority wants. Seems that the CWAC guy posted some DNRE date surveys, so that is a good start. But IMO, no one knows what the majority wants since no one is trying to really find out. ....
> ....I don't know what the majority wants and sadly, neither do the people representing us.


I was commenting in reference to these comments. the MDNRe (statically speaking), knows exactly what the majority would prefer as it relates to the survey questions they've posed.

adding questions wouldn't take much, but that's not what I was addressing. there was a comment(s) made that at minimum, inferred that the MDNR should get input from everyone before making a decision.

my response to that would be that I'd be very disappointed if the MDNR couldn't make a decision without checking first with every single person. "Incompetent" would be one word I could use to describe that scenario.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> Majority? Please back up that statement.
> .


Simple. You find me x amount of people that hunt the area that are against it, and I will show you 2x amount of people for it.

Please note: _*people that hunt the area*_. Otherwise, it would be like polling people that don't even hunt the U.P. to see what they think the U.P. season dates should be.


----------



## TSS Caddis

I don't have an ax to grind against any org. The way the system is set up needs to be changed. If regs are based on science, the let the biologists make the decisions. If regs are social based, get input from the hunters. Really, that simple.

All we've heard is why we can't ask hunters. I don't care about spinners, what I do care about is how regs get passed. The DNRE, obviously polled about season date changes, yet polling about any other change appears to be rocket science.

All we heard about the spinner thing is how it was impossible to get public input, yet there are examples now of how to get it and you still don't want it. The answer seems to be join a group that has say if you want say. 

NC dnr lists proposed changes on their web site and silicates public opinion before making decisions, is that really that advanced of an idea? 

And yes I do find it absurd that the MDHA news letter didn't say boo about the proposed spinner ban until after it was passed. I've always assumed you guys were smarter than me, so I find it hard to believe that it wasn't kept quiet on purpose. Again, I don't care about spinners, it could have been a group pushing that you must hunt 100' within shore for all that matters. You guys can't see past that reg being your baby to see it is nothing about spinners.

WH, you've proved my point. None of us know what the majority wanted. It could very well have been to ban spinners, and that would have been fine. No one made the attempt to find out though.

I'm done commenting on it since any post I make you guys take take as me calling your baby ugly instead of the real intent.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> The answer seems to be join a group that has say if you want say.


You do not need to be a member to go to the meetings and give your input.


----------



## Water_Hazard

TSS Caddis said:


> WH, you've proved my point. None of us know what the majority wanted. It could very well have been to ban spinners, and that would have been fine.



The only point I proved is that you have no clue what the majority of hunters that hunt Shiawassee wants. You do not know what the majority wanted. Being that I spend most of my season there, I'm pretty confident of what the majority wants.


----------



## Chez29

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ya you do realize the migration difference in 5-6hrs right? consider the climate difference between whitefish and zone 3. consider the snow difference between lets say detroit and trout lake (UP) its amazing how much difference the climate changes between those 2 points. i can snowmobile in trout lake 3 weeks earlier and later each year than at my house......so now translate that into migration and its not all that surprising that we hit peak migration in SRSGA in november....if not later if weather is soft.


I fully understand that, which is why I think its ridiculous that the season is essentially identical for the whole UP and NLP. Your statement backs up mine 100%. My point was if the organization that tracks waterfowl movement along Lake Superior wraps up their count in mid Nov because of a lack of activity why are we pushing our season,zone 1, back to the end of Nov. Check out their counts the days in Sep and early Oct often have way more migration movements then any days in Nov. By the way they just started posting counts for this year today.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Chez29 said:


> I fully understand that, which is why I think its ridiculous that the season is essentially identical for the whole UP and NLP. Your statement backs up mine 100%. My point was if the organization that tracks waterfowl movement along Lake Superior wraps up their count in mid Nov because of a lack of activity why are we pushing our season,zone 1, back to the end of Nov. Check out their counts the days in Sep and early Oct often have way more migration movements then any days in Nov. By the way they just started posting counts for this year today.


Ok my bad, sounds like we are on same page then.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MCMANN

since when did the states duck hunting become all about what the boys club wants a SSGA 

many people have a great agurment about how you guys did things with the spinners I would guess if you got a vote from everyone that hunts SSGA the ban would have never passed 

you guys and your splits yes IN SOME AREAS IT MAY WORK but in most areas most hunters will lose alot of hunting 

you guys see it every yr the weather get colder people stop hunting plus its deer hunting time 

most yrs the end of duck season most water is froze so going deeper in winter dosnt make any sense in my eyes yes say lake st clair and erie could go on all winter and a few areas down in southern mi prolly could also but in general most areas are froze on a normal yr (i have seen sag bay froze soild many times the middle of nov so what good would a split do ?

we as hunters need to stick together before we dont have any more rights because all we do is want to change things to make it better for ME ME ME its all about me these days screw everyone else kind of like the spinner ban 


mike

IMO the season dates are just fine


----------



## Water_Hazard

MCMANN said:


> _*I would guess if you got a vote from everyone that hunts SSGA the ban would have never passed *_
> 
> 
> IMO the season dates are just fine



Just curious what you are basing that statement on. Have you been to the meetings? Do you hunt SRSGA quite a bit or even at all throughout the year?

I do agree that the southern zone dates are just fine. I would have liked to see an earlier opener for the U.P. however.


----------



## MCMANN

water

votes from EVERYONE THAT HUNTS SSGA not just the boys club votes 


mike


----------



## Water_Hazard

_*Just curious what you are basing that statement on. Have you been to the meetings? Do you hunt SRSGA quite a bit or even at all throughout the year?*_





MCMANN said:


> water
> 
> votes from EVERYONE THAT HUNTS SSGA not just the boys club votes
> 
> 
> mike


Could you translate? I'm not really finding the answer to the questions. The last two questions are yes/no. Hope that helps.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

blah, you guys kill me. you say its not about the spinners then you say its about the spinners.....blah blah blah. If either one of you (caddis - mcmann)had any gumption to care about what happens at SRSGA you would be involved with them. Otherwise your just a peanut gallery thinking you know everything and really you know nothing outside of something got banned (and mcmann has a vested interest as he sells product that gets affected by the ban). 

boys club is 423 strong. we want everyones opinion on everything, everyone is welcome.


----------



## Branta

again, keep the thread on topic of CWAC proposal/meeting results.

Shia flat org reference and boys clubs don't hold alot of water as they're but one vote in a group of 19.

to say the groups hold all the power over what we get for season dates is just ignorant. members at large ("joe hunter" regional reps) will always be in the majority in CWAC. and even then, cwac is but one input for final season formulation.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Branta said:


> again, keep the thread on topic of CWAC proposal/meeting results.
> 
> Shia flat org reference and boys clubs don't hold alot of water as they're but one vote in a group of 19.
> 
> to say the groups hold all the power over what we get for season dates is just ignorant. members at large ("joe hunter" regional reps) will always be in the majority in CWAC. and even then, cwac is but one input for final season formulation.


kinda ironic that it passed our meeting vote, then our council, goes on to cwac and passes their council, but yet boys club reference comes up a lot from the same 2 people. THE SAME TWO PEOPLE WHO NEVER USE THE PLACE.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> blah, you guys kill me. you say its not about the spinners then you say its about the spinners


Ok, now this is my last post.

For the umteenth time. I don't care what got passed. I don't care where it got passed for. I DO care how things get passed. 

I thought I have been pretty clear about it in every post, so I'm sort of surpised that you keep trying to drag it back. I'm assuming by now you understand but want to keep trying to make it about spinners or still are not comprehending.

Your small spinner thing is just a catalyst to show some flaws in the system. 

You "may" have a majority of flats users that want spinners banned, or you "may not" have a majority. No one knows. By the time it got to Avers for her backing and to CWAC, I would have hoped one of them would have pushed for better information, especially after gooseman has made many statements about needing statistically significant surveys and that MS polls are not the end all be all. Couldn't Avers pull some cards from last years draw and have done her own 100 person survey? If she or anyone had, we would not be having this conversation.

You very well may have had a majority, unfortunately we do not know.

A couple quotes: 

*"None of the polls taken were even close to showing disagreement." * 

Huh? What about an MDHA poll showing the majority did not want a total ban? Not even close to showing disagreement?


_*"When polls of this nature are done, whether for antler point restrictions, or any other new regulation, non-votes, or "neutral" votes are considered approval...not my rule, but fact."*_

So any org that stayed neutral or member of MS that didn't participate in a poll are counted as "positive" :lol: That scares the heck out of me.

*"And the reason many organizations chose to stay neutral was not because their members disagreed with the proposal, but that they don't hold regular meetings, or could not in touch with their membership in the time period we requested (one month) due to lack or no emails, etc."*

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel good knowing that orgs stayed neutral because they could not poll their members, that makes me feel good that they try to represent their membership. I do not feel comfortable knowing that when an org does the right thing and stays neurtral vs taking a stance that their members do not want, that their neutral is counted as "FOR" a change whether that is how survey's are normally done or not.

Again, the issue is not spinners, the issue is the level of scrutiny that changes appear to now go through.

Now I'm done, so feel free to bash away.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

just curious, if segregation would came up for a popular vote...how would that have ended up?

branta has pointed out the bureaucracy issue that is involved many times yet you seem to think that polling absolutely everyone to make a decision is the answer....careful what you wish for.

What if the DNR decided to make a rule change without SFCHA's opinion because doing it your route is too hard for them (costs too much) so they just implement it anyways as it makes $$$ sense to them. You seem to see it one way and only one way.....the "it aint fair" way. I'm glad DNR asks for our opinion and even lets our participating members vote on it internally and come to them with our recommendation for local decisions... and you know, we don't have to time to poll every single member to get something done. we would be so bogged down in red tape we would never accomplish anything.

the alternative is no input at all. If you rather we took this position, your free to advocate that and i'm sure we can oblige if enough want that. I have a strong feeling we did what was right in the situation and frankly we've got a ton of feedback supporting this. 

I've had 3 complaints about the spinner ban. 1 from caddis, 1 from McMann and 1 from KLR. If anyone else would like to file an official complaint feel free to PM me and i will add you to the list to show at the next meeting.


----------



## MCMANN

AS ive said many times i could CARE LESS if spinners get banned 

my problem is the way the boys club went about it you didnt let the public know anything about it besides at the boys club meetings 

also i dont have any products that i sell that are SPINNERS so get your facts straight ( windsocks and flappers aka fliers)

i did notice one thing at the bay city show the boys club booth was reallt slow all weekend 

also show me where you informed the public about the opposed ban before the banned was in place im talking the people outside the boys club people that only hunt there a few times a year i guess their vote dosnt matter

once again i dont care if spinners are banned or not 

and NO i dont hunt or go to the meetings the boys club would not want me at the meetings 
not hard to understand you DIDNT GET EVERYONES VOTE ON THE MATTER 

enjoy your season i hope you now feel youll have a quality hunt for the $13 a season you pay to hunt a buffet of food 


mike


----------



## TSS Caddis

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I've had 3 complaints about the spinner ban. 1 from caddis, 1 from McMann and 1 from KLR.


Heck, by current polling standards, that put's me in the majority since I get to count non responses and neutrals :lol:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

MCMANN said:


> AS ive said many times i could CARE LESS if spinners get banned
> 
> my problem is the way the boys club went about it you didnt let the public know anything about it besides at the boys club meetings
> 
> also i dont have any products that i sell that are SPINNERS so get your facts straight ( windsocks and flappers aka fliers)
> 
> i did notice one thing at the bay city show the boys club booth was reallt slow all weekend
> 
> also show me where you informed the public about the opposed ban before the banned was in place im talking the people outside the boys club people that only hunt there a few times a year i guess their vote dosnt matter
> 
> once again i dont care if spinners are banned or not
> 
> and NO i dont hunt or go to the meetings the boys club would not want me at the meetings
> not hard to understand you DIDNT GET EVERYONES VOTE ON THE MATTER
> 
> enjoy your season i hope you now feel youll have a quality hunt for the $13 a season you pay to hunt a buffet of food
> 
> 
> mike


there ya go mike, let it all hang out.


----------



## Bellyup

If y'all want to debate on your boys club and spinners please revive the previous threads on it. 

I disagree with Branta, and a few others. I feel that waterfowlers are a small bunch to begin with, something that has been pointed out in this thread a lot. So then, all thoughts on polling everyone is rather weak. If we are such a small group, why not ? Don't tell me that it is not possible and not cost effective, I am not buying that, they already pay a survey company to poll how many birds we shot. Not to mention how many of waterfowlers might fib a little on it. That I am betting is a HUGE curve in the sampling, more than anyone would admit. 

Now then, how can I get involved more ? I already mentioned I had no clue how it works until I got on this site. I bet you ask the majority of hunters if they know how this deal works and you will get a bunch of I dunno's. I want what is best for the birds first, the hunters second. And I am not buying if we went longer into Dec that the birds would suffer. The feds would not offer that to us like they already do if that was the case. 

Please keep in mind, this is my opinion, and is not intended to piss in anyone's coffee. Branta, nothing personal, just not agreeing with you on this subject.


----------



## duckbuster808

I will say, I can agree with the ban, as I have personally seen things and how they work for better/worse at Shiwassee......

BUT, you have to look at it from the point of view, as someone who may not see the negative affects of the spinners on the hunting of pressured birds and who put out 6 or 8 of them at a time (seems to me I know someone who hiunts their all the time that used to put out a ton of them....)

what I DON'T agree with, is the way it was brought about....I hunt the Shi. a few times each season, but knew nothing of a ban even being planned on until it was posted that it had passed.....Personally, I can't say that I would have voted to have them banned, because they do work, and they do have a time and place, you just have to know when to shut them off or put them away....

The other thing I do not agree with is the lack of data that was presented to even support the ban other then "This is what we see....this is what we want" kind of information....No scientific evidence was ever presented (that I've seen anyway) to support that Robo's have a negative or possitive effect on the hunting at Shi....


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

duckbuster808 said:


> I will say, I can agree with the ban, as I have personally seen things and how they work for better/worse at Shiwassee......
> 
> BUT, you have to look at it from the point of view, as someone who may not see the negative affects of the spinners on the hunting of pressured birds and who put out 6 or 8 of them at a time (seems to me I know someone who hiunts their all the time that used to put out a ton of them....)
> 
> what I DON'T agree with, is the way it was brought about....I hunt the Shi. a few times each season, but knew nothing of a ban even being planned on until it was posted that it had passed.....Personally, I can't say that I would have voted to have them banned, because they do work, and they do have a time and place, you just have to know when to shut them off or put them away....
> 
> The other thing I do not agree with is the lack of data that was presented to even support the ban other then "This is what we see....this is what we want" kind of information....No scientific evidence was ever presented (that I've seen anyway) to support that Robo's have a negative or possitive effect on the hunting at Shi....


weren't you under McMann's tent last week selling calls corey? ah thats right.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

MCMANN said:


> i did notice one thing at the bay city show the boys club booth was reallt slow all weekend


um. so spending all day on the phone walking around the parking lot while corey manned an empty booth = getting lots of traffic? c'mon dude, taking a dig like that when you haven't got anything better is kinda weak.


----------



## MCMANN

thats right on the phone booking hunts as muched as you guys were watching what i was doing all weekend you would have seen my booth was rarely empty with people buying stuff and booking hunts and also talking with me about the ban which many had the same stuff to say about the lil boys club i had a few people from this site even stop in and say hello and agreed with me on what my point is again my point isnt the ban on spinners its on how it was handled 

So kid whatever makes you sleep better at night is what your going to do or say thats your choice unlike many didnt have any say or choice on the ban 

yes corey was in my booth selling his calls he makes a great call and even won the state duck calling comp so not sure what point your trying to make on this one

again enjoy your season at the flats hope all works out for you

people like you with the me me me attitude is whats going to hurt our hunting rights as i stated we all need to stick together and stop trying to tell each other what a quality hunt is and just enjoy life and the hunts trust me youll be alot happier 

mike


----------



## duckbuster808

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> um. so spending all day on the phone walking around the parking lot while corey manned an empty booth = getting lots of traffic? c'mon dude, taking a dig like that when you haven't got anything better is kinda weak.


I can say the same for you kid....taking a dig like the one that follows is kinda weak:



Shiawassee_Kid said:


> weren't you under McMann's tent last week selling calls corey? ah thats right.


What exactly is your point on this one...Yes I was under McMann's tent selling the calls I make that weekend, and sold a few of them to a couple members on these forums as well....but I am my own person, and I am entitled to my own opinion...Last time I checked this is a free country and I'm entitled to my opinion...except at Shiwassee of course, considering that what "I want" is decided for me apparently


----------



## Cardinal

I don't really know what to say except last year was the first year that I caught all 3 opening days in a row. It was a great experience, there is just something special about any opening day. 

My .02 = My first 2 years waterfowling as a kid is what hooked me for life and they were the 3/30 "point system" seasons. I will never forget that. 

Every season since then for me has been gravy.


----------



## Branta

Belly, please feel free to disagree with anything I say.

my comment on the survey was only in response to earlier posts that at minimum, inferred that the MDNR has no idea what they're doing or any understanding of hunter desires as it relates to seasons. I will defend them "statistically" speaking, they know what they need to know.

all this {bleep] about spinners was not in the scope of my comments. and quite frankly, I'm sick of reading about it. 

~~~~~~

and DB, your comment about gathering scientific data on spinners is just one reason why they actually should look at the ban. somewhere... anywhere. how else would they gather data? you need to do a test which brings me to 

the point everyone on both sides seems to forget is that this spinner ban is a 3-year test.

repeat.....

*a TEST.*


Personally, I still contend that I'd fire the whole (MDNR) lot if govt officials had to ask every single person what they should do. it makes no sense at all. what do you need them for then? just get a secretary in lansing to keep track of everyone's opinions. 

aren't they suppose to be the professionals? Shouldn't they be competent enough to actually do their jobs?

I don't remember the MDNR asking me if they could drain the Maple river either. They didn't ask me about shell limits at the other GMA's.... maybe it's big brother and their special interests groups taking over the state. 

(getting a sense for my temperment on this issue yet?)

this is the last comment. 

Robert, the thread appears to have run it's course 

that being like most with so many views and posts, she's in a death spiral so we might as well give it the _Coupe de Grace _now so I can get some sleep tonight.


~~~~~~
just so I'm clear:

I don't care (personally) one way or the other about Shiawassee spinners. What I care about here is how people have lost respect for each others opinions/positions in their posts.

healthy debates are fine and actually encouraged, but as I've said a number of times before; once you start acting stupid, it's over. 

And I'm not going to let playground behavior drag down a pretty good site - I don't need another PM about this and how the membership is sick of reading it as well. 

Try the ignore list feature if someone just grinds your cheeze. The rest of us are not interested in your running gun battles.

thank you.
(no more PM's please)


----------

