# Agenda for Thursday's NRC Meeting in Lansing



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Here's the link to the agenda for Thursday's NRC Meeting in Lansing:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/agnJUNE09_278975_7.pdf

Griff and I will be there. Hope you will, too!

John


Here is the first part of the NRC agenda:

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA
June 4, 2009
Lansing Center 333 E. Michigan, Lansing

(Unless otherwise noted, all meetings are open to the public.)

9:30 a.m. NRC POLICY COMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

1. Wildlife Conservation Order Amendments

a. Director&#8217;s Action on Statewide Bear Plan 

b. *Furbearer Regulations*

c. Field Trial Regulations

2. Updates

a. Statewide Deer Plan Process

b. Final Results of 2008 Deer Season

3. Wildlife Conservation Order Amendments (continued)

a. Antlerless Deer License Quotas

b. Managed Waterfowl/Early Season Regulations 12:30 p.m.


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

I can't make this one John,working in port huron for the rest of the week:sad: Thanks to you and mike for being there for us.Keep us posted on how it go's.Thanks again!!


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

I will try to be there again. Lansing is easier but work can be unpredictable.

Do you know what actions will be taken or what trapping issues will be discussed?

If I can make it it will be only for the public comment portion. Could someone tell me how to get pre-registered to speak or how to register on the day of the meeting?


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

John it looks like I may be able to be at the NRC meeting on Thursday. I hope to know for sure tomorrow and will post again. Have a good day!

Dale


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

I asked Adam Bump how the process worked and from what he told me, under the process the NRC will vote on the proposals Thursday morning. There will likely not be more public input prior to the vote. The public input session regarding the proposals was at the last meeting on May 7. The DNR has not changed their recommendations from what was proposed at the May meeting. (Actually, the way the process works I'm not sure they could.)

I hope everyone got their letters in!

John


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

So what happened with the vote?


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

FixedBlade said:


> So what happened with the vote?


 
Meeting is on Thursday.

Mike


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Can someone suggest to the NRC to put the meeting on the air via a web cam? This should not be too expensive and many people not making the meeting could click in and watch.

I mentioned this to Ms Gloden a awhile back but......................


Skinner


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

This is an old post. I though it was thursday of last week.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

The agenda says "June 4" and I posted the info from Adam yesterday. 

The meeting is this Thursday (June 4) in Lansing.

As I read the agenda, we'll know the results sometime between 9:30am and 12:30pm.

John


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

John and Mike 
I can and will be there tomorrow what time do you want to meet? Do you think it will do any good to show up early and work the board members? It looks to me like 220's on public land have to be vertical any chance the board members can change this or do they have to vote the hole thing up or down? Is there parking where the meeting is or do I need to find a parking lot or ramp?

Dale


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

John and Mike do you think it would do any good to be there for the public comment portion.

If I get there at 4:00 pm how would I find out what had been decided earlier in the day?

I want to do what I can to promote trapping but I cannot get out of work in time to be there earlier than 4:00.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Fur-minator

The way I understand it the vote will be in the morning. I'll pm you with my phone number and you can call me and I can fill you in.

Black powder I'm sending you a pm.

Mike


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Sounds like you got it covered, Mike.

Keep your fingers crossed, guys and gals!

John


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

How did it go at the meeting today?And agin,thanks to those who attended.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Just got in, it was a long day! The public land regs got changed to include 220's in restricted entry boxes just like the 160's. Private land sets are the same as the last meeting. All the other furbearer regs were left the same as the changes proposed at the last meeting. 

I'll fill in the rest of the details for you on Friday.

Mike


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

thanks to john, the nrc took the word vertical OUT of the regs. we can set 220s on public and privaet land inside of a baited box.that is more than we thought we would get. we had alot of support from the commissioners. more than I thought we did.furminator did an outstanding job when he spoke.wish he had stayed around I wanted to thank him. Ill do it now.good job and thanks.


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

Was a long day that turned out very good for us. We had a lot of support from the commissioners. There vote was unanimous in favor of the motion and amendment so they were all with us. No restrictions on 160's and 220's on private land and boxes on the ground on public property with restricted entry. No stop on the beaver snares and 8"X8"X36" colony traps. I think we came out of this smelling like a rose or maybe a little skunk essence Hummmm that smells good. John and Fur-minator spoke very well but this outcome probably would not have happened if everyone had not written letters. *EVERYONE* did a great job!

Dale


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Were there any changes made to the initial box requirements for public land? Are we stuck with the maximum 6 inch height of the opening?


----------



## Black Powder Trapper (Feb 15, 2008)

We are stuck with a six inch high opening on public land and an eight inch slot for the trap.

Dale


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

Gil, you guys are too kind. 

I felt like a nervous blubbering wreck up there but I *couldn't* let the last words they heard on the subject be "More restrictions on private land". 

I may not be a public speaker but I will stand up for what I believe.

Thanks to everyone else that was there and that wrote letters.

-Mark


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

By the way-

If you were wondering, this is what the commissioners were looking at.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Mark, 
Gil's right- you really did a great job! The Commissioners really put stock in what you said. Thorman's been saying for two years that they didn't have any problem with the current bodygripper regs. Now he smells blood in the water and stabs us in the back. When you got up there and did your "rebutal", it sealed the deal in our favor. Nice job- and thanks! BTW Great picture! 

Thanks to everyone who wrote letters and emails, made phone calls, and most of all- went to the NRC meetings. The Commission really knows you care when you take the time to show up and talk to them about these issues face-to-face.

I've really been impressed with how the trappers teamed up to address the proposed regs and help get them to something I think we can live with. Mostly what they did was define the term "Box or similar container inaccessible to dogs" and add public land 160s to the traps required to be in them. Remember, we alreay had to use a "box or similar..." for 220s on public land- the DNR had just never defined it so anyone setting 220s on public land were taking a chance of getting a ticket.

In a nutshell, the NRC voted to approve the following changes to the Michigan Wildlife Conservation Order:

1. To increase the maximum size of colony traps for muskrats from 6"x6"x24" to 8"x8"x36"

2. To authorize the use of snares to take beaver in open water conditions with the loop 1/2 or more in the water and with the snare set to drown the beaver. No stops are required.

3. To ban the use of bodygripping traps larger than 7 1/2"inside the jaw hinges (280s or bigger) on dry land unless they are set 4' or more above the ground

4. To require that body gripping traps set on dry, *public* land larger than 5 1/2" inside the jaw hinge (160s and 220s) be enclosed in box with an opening no larger than 6" measured from the inside bottom of the box. These traps must have spring slots at least 8" long and be set with the trigger at least 6" from the opening. 

The first three items were approved as requested by the MTA. The implemented version of 4th item is probably the best we could have hoped for.

Thanks again to all the trappers who got involved!

John


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

So now a 160 that is not baited must be "in a box on dry land", private and public? If thats the case we took a big step backwards. It's more restrictive than the origional proposal. Looks to me like they only removed the words baited, public and private from the old proposal. Or did I miss something?


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

FixedBlade said:


> So now a 160 that is not baited must be "in a box on dry land", private and public? If thats the case we took a big step backwards. It's more restrictive than the origional proposal. Looks to me like they only removed the words baited, public and private from the old proposal. Or did I miss something?


Baited sets must be in a box 160 and 220's on public land. 160's don't have to be in a box if bait is not used on public land. Six in opening on box on public land with trigger set back 6in from opening and 8in slots for springs.

Private lands do not have these restrictions on 220 and smaller body grip traps. So on baited cubby sets you don't have to use the restricted entry on your 220 boxes. 


Mike


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

I dont think we gave up anything.the way I understand this we can still use a 160 in a trail set,unbaited. but anything with bait has to be in a box. with the 6in opening. I dont have the final regs in front of me, so until I see them in black and white I cant say for sure. I do think we got the best out come we are going to get. time will tell.

one thing to keep in the front of your mind,anybody catches a dog this year. all bets are off. so lets be careful out there.

furmiator I would expect you to be nervous,I sure was.you did very well. I think you sealed the deal. so thanks again.


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

nice little lady you have there furminator, must take after momma.


----------



## Fur-minator (Nov 28, 2007)

gilgetter said:


> must take after momma.


----------



## David G Duncan (Mar 26, 2000)

Congratulations to MTA for pulling our bacon out of the fire!

Is there going to be any program to do a study on the effectiveness of the dog proof boxes?


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Thank you John for speaking for all the Trappers in Michigan. And thanks to Gil Turner, Mike Schippa and Dale Hendershot for being there to provide the necessary support to John. All 4 are officers of Michigan Trappers Association and represent why all trappers should belong to the association. Furminator, we have never met but a big thank you for your public appearance. Your presentation certainly reinforced to the NRC of how they needed to vote.
Dave: I hope John and I with the help of others can structure some testing that will be effective in dog proofing and be acceptable to the DNR and the hound groups. John has developed a trigger only mechanism that will duplicate the action of a body gripper that can be used in actual situations with dogs without any possible danger. I believe I have been able to take an actual body gripper and modified to be used for testing that will be also safe for dogs. Without questions the big issue is for ALL TRAPPERS TO USE BODY GRIPPERS WITH COMMON SENSE AND DO NOT SET IF THERE IS ANY REASONABLE CHANCE THAT SOMEONE'S PET COULD BE CAUGHT. If we do not live by this we will self destruct!!


----------



## Rustyaxecamp (Mar 1, 2005)

Great job guys!!

My sincere thanks to all who wrote, called and attanded the meetings.

As mentioned on here daily, we all need to stick together on this stuff.

Once again, THANKS.


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

Who is Thorman and what group/association does he represent,also,the way i'm understanding this,he (thorman)was asking that the coni restrictions INCLUDE private land,is this true?


----------



## gilgetter (Feb 28, 2006)

and I still dont know who he was speaking for. he did have quite the song and dance.he had the gaul to tell me I was antagonistic,I almost broke down. your understanding is correct.


----------



## Gary A. Schinske (Jul 10, 2006)

Mr. Thorman is a Director of the Hunting Dog Federation and normally representatives the Bear Hunters and **** Hunters at the same time. I do not know who he was technically speaking for at this meeting, but based on the past the NRC was probably under the assuption he was speaking on behalf of all three groups and maybe 4 if the UP Bear Hunters are a separate organization.


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

Thanks for clearing that up for me.At least now I know who the ENEMY is,and in my mind,that is exactly what they are!!!!!I expect B.S. like this from the animal rights nut-jobs,not fellow outdoorsmen.While I have allways hated to see fighting between outdoorsmen groups,and have allways done whatever I could to support ALL hunting methods,enough is enough!!!First snares then bob-cats and now THIS?The old saying of "with friends like that,who needs enemys"fits perfect here.I know we came out of this in pretty good shape,but the fact that another sportsmens group worked AGINST us,has really got me pissed-off :rant: I can appreciate/understand the trappers "turning the other cheek" as two wrongs don't make a right,I also feel we need to make it LOUD AND CLEAR that we will not continue to play nice.I can't believe i'm saying this,but,maybe it's time we start pushing for restrictions on free casting or ask that hunting dogs be leashed/tethered,dog owners be fined for their dogs tresspassing ect.ect....I know alot of you will say us sportsmen need to stick together,but,the "motto"about being [email protected]#ED once,is what i'm thinking.Maybe it's time for us to start doing the F%@#ING.


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

Thank you everyone that took the time to attend and of course write letters. 
I joined MTA this year for the first time in my life. Its looking like that was the best investment I have ever made. Thanks everyone!!!

Can someone clear one thing up for me. What type of restrictions are we looking at for 220s and 160's baited on public land if they are elivated? I believe the old rule was 4 feet? I never did this so it didn't matter to me but perhaps I will want to in the future.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Brandon

Above 4 feet they don't have to be in a box.

Mike


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Mike Thorman told me he was representing the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation and had their blessing to make a deal. The other gentleman was a Brittney breeder who had a dog he sold get caught in a body gripper. Mike also pointed out the the Federation represents all hunting dogs not just hounds.

Mike also said they didn't want to burn any bridges but lets make a deal. They wanted the same restrictions on private as public land. If we agreed to it they would support removing the vertical restriction on 220's on public land.

In his speech before the NRC they supported the same restrictions on public and private land. The Brittney breeder seemed a little bit more peturbed about the outcome than Mr Thorman. 

I think I'm going to try to get over to the Island Lakes shooting range this weekend in honor of the Citizens for a Quite Community. I'm willing to hire the terrible triplets to intimidate my politicle opponents any time. Gill and I almost couldn't stop laughing watching them during the meeting.

Mike


----------



## Bow Hunter Brandon (Jan 15, 2003)

griffondog said:


> Mike Thorman told me he was representing the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation and had their blessing to make a deal. The other gentleman was a Brittney breeder who had a dog he sold get caught in a body gripper. Mike also pointed out the the Federation represents all hunting dogs not just hounds.
> 
> Mike also said they didn't want to burn any bridges but lets make a deal. They wanted the same restrictions on private as public land. If we agreed to it they would support removing the vertical restriction on 220's on public land.
> 
> ...


Griff,
Put on your most PC voice or give it to us straight.
Was the dog group working against us on this? It sure sounds like it. They may not of been behind it (might) to start but it sounds like they jumped on board.


Tell us about the shooting range? I grew up 10 miles from that range.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

Brandon

I think Mr Thorman was there to make some members happy and to do a little politicking.
Let the NRC know they were keeping a eye on what was going on and to see if they could get private land and public rules the same. They weren't going to fight over it as he kept saying they didn't have many reports of dogs and body grip trap problems with our current regulations. 

It's not something to go to war over. Just politics as usual. Muddy up the waters a bit and see what happens. We wont have any problems over this just remember it and keep a eye on whats going on.

The ladies don't like the Island lake shooting range or any public shooting range. They were a bit upset over plans to expand the Bald Mountain range and were not happy with plans to try to increase the number of people in the shooting sports. All I can say is bang bang bang. I spend alot of time in that area and the road noise is louder the the shotgun reports.

A young lady from Hartland got a award for her archery accomplishments in a national shoot. I think she had a score of 298 out of 300. The DNR and the NRC are doing a good job on trying to bring kids into outdoor sports. I didn't know how large the archery program in the schools was.

Mark speaking in front or the NRC with a picture of his kids on the trapline was the cherry on the sundae. They seem to take notice of a private citizen speaking in front of them and spend some time talking to them. I noticed they treated Ed the same way at the last meeting.

Mike


----------

