# Managed Area Changes



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

With everyone else talking about changing season frameworks and dates I figured I'd throw this out for conversation as I think this has a bigger impact on my hunting than what dates. We've discussed this on here before as well on several occasions. 

One of my biggest pet peeves, and a reason I don't hunt managed areas as much as I could has been the lack of opportunities for single person hunting.

I understand the reasons for limiting/not allowing single parties in the zones, but I still think there's a couple simple things that could be done to allow better chances for single hunters. Couple ideas to vet.

1. Designate at least 1 zone in each field that can be taken by a single. Doesn't have to be the whole zone, just one field. Ideally it would be in the middle of the field and not a fringe field. This would allow a single hunter to at least get close to the action on any given day, if not be able to have the "hot" zone. The single zones could still be taken by parties if they're higher in the draw just as they can now, but at least if a single is drawn high, they'd still be able to have some good options.

2. If the total number of parties in the draw is something like 75% less than the total number of fields available, singles could pick any zone. This is more for those days where there's only a handful of parties in the draw so having a single hunter pick a zone really wouldn't have any impact on the overall picks of the others. 

Anyhow, just something to think about.


----------



## deadduck365 (Nov 5, 2010)

Harsens has some really kick ass single zones. Putting a single in the other zones is not practical. A single can hunt any of the marsh and IMO the 4 best corn fields.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

srsga added more single zones this past season. now we have south prior, north miller and 6-7-8 were added (miller rd.).


----------



## Mike L (Sep 8, 2003)

1fish said:


> With everyone else talking about changing season frameworks and dates I figured I'd throw this out for conversation as I think this has a bigger impact on my hunting than what dates. We've discussed this on here before as well on several occasions.
> 
> One of my biggest pet peeves, and a reason I don't hunt managed areas as much as I could has been the lack of opportunities for single person hunting.
> 
> ...


Oh ! thank you, thank you, thank you,.......lol I've tried, and tried, and tried with no success. It's all about the numbers and they WILL NOT change. I think it was three years in a row I brought it up to the powers that be and made no head way....I mean NONE !

A party as you well know is 2 to 4 people. A party equates into 
*Numbers* and that is what the DNRE is all about. The only way to get a party area at FP if you are a single hunter is to "Pass" when your number is called the first time around. "After" all of the numbers have been called, then they go through the pass numbers, if a party area is available you can "Then" take that area.

I *Don't* think it's fair, the single hunter is getting the shaft, even if he gets a good draw. I understand it I just don't like it !!

And ya it "Really" hits a sore spot with me !!!


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> srsga added more single zones this past season. now we have south prior, north miller and 6-7-8 were added (miller rd.).


Guess I should have elaborated more. Yes Shia does have a lot of single zones, but they're all concentrated into whole fields. My question is what would be the pro's/con's of spreading the same number of zones into more fields?

It's no secret that on any given day, a particular field is likely going to be better than others, often times drastically better. So instead of having 1-5, 6-8, and 61-66 available to singles, why not take those 14 zones and spread them out to all of the fields?

For example: 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 34, 37, 41, 42, 46, 57, 58, 64, 63? Those wouldn't have to be the exact zone numbers, but gives the idea. We'd still have the exact same number of single party zones, but gives a single party hunter at least a chance to get into each field and allow them a better chance at doing well on any given day during the season. They'd still have to go through the draw and take their chances just like anyone else, but, if you did get drawn high and for example the 30's were really hot, at least you'd have a chance at being able to get into the field.

Then for my second idea, again looking for pros/cons, what harm would it cause if you're at Shia and there's 10 parties in the draw if a single hunter could pick any zone they wanted? All parties are still going to be able to hunt so there would be no decrease in hunter participation but the single hunter would again have a chance to get into whichever field they felt they were going to have the best chance at being successful in.

To me at least, this seems like a better setup than what is currently in place.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

It's definitely partially about numbers, but not entirely. It's also to avoid some "gamesmanship" going on. Here's what I see happening A LOT. 

#1 - lets say a field has 9 zones to choose from, and lets just say they were all allowed to be drawn by a single hunter. What I see happening is a group of guys coming together, each choosing a different zone. The one who gets the highest pick in the draw chooses the hot zone. Some, or many, of the others scratch. Then AFTER THE DRAW, some of them hook up and hunt togther in the hot zone. 

#2 - same could happen if only one of the 9 zones in that field allowed singles. Let's say that particular zone is a hot one. The guys could all apply as singles, giving them better odds of getting that one zone, then scratch/add like I said above.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

just ducky said:


> It's definitely partially about numbers, but not entirely. It's also to avoid some "gamesmanship" going on. Here's what I see happening A LOT.
> 
> #1 - lets say a field has 9 zones to choose from, and lets just say they were all allowed to be drawn by a single hunter. What I see happening is a group of guys coming together, each choosing a different zone. The one who gets the highest pick in the draw chooses the hot zone. Some, or many, of the others scratch. Then AFTER THE DRAW, some of them hook up and hunt togther in the hot zone.
> 
> #2 - same could happen if only one of the 9 zones in that field allowed singles. Let's say that particular zone is a hot one. The guys could all apply as singles, giving them better odds of getting that one zone, then scratch/add like I said above.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go through the draw, you're not allowed to add on to another party, even if you pass/don't pick a zone. You're only allowed to add on to another party if you didn't go through the draw in the first place. If so, your above scenarios wouldn't work and wouldn't provide any statistical advantage.


----------



## Mike L (Sep 8, 2003)

1fish said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go through the draw, you're not allowed to add on to another party, even if you pass/don't pick a zone. You're only allowed to add on to another party if you didn't go through the draw in the first place. If so, your above scenarios wouldn't work and wouldn't provide any statistical advantage.


You are correct !....The only way you can add on is if you came late and the draw was over. You can add on to a party if they have openings....less than 4 people.


----------



## Tom_Miller (Apr 23, 2010)

I would also like to see some sort of change to benefit single hunters. I normally hunt alone and there have been times when I was first or second in the draw but passed so I could get a chance for certain areas after the others had all made their selections. Maybe the river blinds could be for individuals? They are seldomly picked anyway.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

1fish said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go through the draw, you're not allowed to add on to another party, even if you pass/don't pick a zone. You're only allowed to add on to another party if you didn't go through the draw in the first place. If so, your above scenarios wouldn't work and wouldn't provide any statistical advantage.


Well all I can say is I've seen it happen. Or for instance two different parties of two guys come to the draw. They go through the draw, and they get units right next to each other. After the draw, they turn back in their permits, and all four re-select one of the two units, leaving a spot wide open, and in essence, cutting down their competition. It happens guys. Now another late comer party can select that leftover one...true. Or another sad reality...those two parties of two hunters each end up setting up together in one unit. A violation? Yep. Does it happen? Yep. How many times have you guys been checked by a CO after you're set up in your zone? Not me?

Don't get me wrong...I hunt a lot as a single too, and I'd be glad to have more units available to ANY party from 1-4 hunters. But the obvious...the numbers/dollars game is probably the root issue here.


----------



## lonzo (Oct 12, 2010)

i think single hunters should be allowed to hunt any zone or some managed areas should open more single zones or keep designated single zones for single hunters and not allow group hunters in single zones unless they are left over kinda put the shoe on the other foot for the single hunter


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

Mike L said:


> Oh ! thank you, thank you, thank you,.......lol I've tried, and tried, and tried with no success. It's all about the numbers and they WILL NOT change. I think it was three years in a row I brought it up to the powers that be and made no head way....I mean NONE !
> 
> A party as you well know is 2 to 4 people. A party equates into
> *Numbers* and that is what the DNRE is all about. The only way to get a party area at FP if you are a single hunter is to "Pass" when your number is called the first time around. "After" all of the numbers have been called, then they go through the pass numbers, if a party area is available you can "Then" take that area.
> ...


I can't speak for FP as I hardly hunt it, but I think the current set-up at SRSGA is a good way to go. Singles have plenty of areas they can get into, and at certain times of the year, are definitelythe hot fields. Also, all of the scramble zones can be taken by a single. at that point it just becomes luck of the draw..

Their are quite a few places a person can get away from others for the better part of 3/4's of the season and still do well out there.

However, I will say I do like the idea of if for example; there are less than 15 parties or so in the draw, then any party can choose anywhere, no matter what your size is. Most often these are draws towards the end of the year or during really slow times. If your continuing to utilize these areas when most others are not willing to, then you should be allowed to choose your zone as you draw...

If I am able to get up to the next meeting up there, I will bring it up. I definitely think its a change for the better


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

i like 1fish's idea about spreading the singles out more. Here's some con's.

Just Ducky pretty much covered the main one...which is zone covering. i've seen singles cover hot zones...to NOT hunt them....their buddies drawing behind them will take the next best zone in the field and kill birds. again just drawing scenarios that will happen if you give an inch, people will find the exploit.

i can see it working if you lets say made the closest fields to the parking lots single zones. To be honest the state doesn't want singles venturing long trips on their own...so this may work in favor. I could see north prior back 3 fields, south prior back 3 fields, miller rd 9-14 back couple (9-10-11), north miller 1-3....etc. its actually a solid idea. expanding the number of available zones of corn will not be a priority tho. There is a ton of single hunter options, and i'm not about to favor taking away party zones from higher participants (2-3-4) hunters that could be in it.

i've already been down this road with DNR. I'm a single hunter 90% of the time. I agree with singles and low participants....say 15 parties and under i think they should get fair crack at the board. I also see chance for exploit here tho....parties could split right before draw cut off and put that over 15.....or even lets say expand it to 14 when their was only 6-10 parties originally. Someone coming late would see 14 covered zones when their really is only 6 parties out there hunting.

again i'm a supporter of the single hunter...but you guys gotta look at it from both sides before you say "every zone should be available for a single hunter"...its just not in the best management of the resource.


----------



## flintfisher44 (Jun 19, 2009)

just ducky said:


> Well all I can say is I've seen it happen. Or for instance two different parties of two guys come to the draw. They go through the draw, and they get units right next to each other. After the draw, they turn back in their permits, and all four re-select one of the two units, leaving a spot wide open, and in essence, cutting down their competition. It happens guys. Now another late comer party can select that leftover one...true. Or another sad reality...those two parties of two hunters each end up setting up together in one unit. A violation? Yep. Does it happen? Yep. How many times have you guys been checked by a CO after you're set up in your zone? Not me?
> 
> Don't get me wrong...I hunt a lot as a single too, and I'd be glad to have more units available to ANY party from 1-4 hunters. But the obvious...the numbers/dollars game is probably the root issue here.


I respect this concern JD. However, I am frustrated by the prospect that we create these rules for a public SGA where we know that the current rules can and are broken by a minority and inhibit the majority of consciencious hunters who adhere to the rules where their hunting experience is can significantly be diminished. 

We know rules can, and will, be broken. The idea is to create a framework to guide our behaviors so that we all may have a good experience in the outdoors. I feel that the way the managed areas are currently organized, inhibit a single hunter from having a good hunt. 

Additionally, the concern that the rules aren't enforced anyway is also frustrating to me. it wouldn't take much time or effort for those that participate in the draw to recognize questionable behavior and to have a CO occasionally review the cards of those hunting.

I think it is worth while to at least consider a trial of change for single hunter. I commend you 1Fish, on bringing up this controversial topic and I think that the first option is the most feasible at Shia/FP/NQ.


----------



## lonzo (Oct 12, 2010)

the managed area i hunt is moullie with 2 zones open to single hunters 9 and 13 wich 13 is always picked up by a group but there is only 12 zones there so i think the single hunter zones should be keep open for single hunters only or give us a chance at all other zones heck the walking in far part shouldnt apply at moullie for concerns of being alone cause the front 2 zones are party only and thats right at the parking lot


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

flintfisher44 said:


> I respect this concern JD. However, I am frustrated by the prospect that we create these rules for a public SGA where we know that the current rules can and are broken by a minority and inhibit the majority of consciencious hunters who adhere to the rules where their hunting experience is can significantly be diminished.


Just curious, how does the current rules significantly hurt the single hunter?? 

I understand when there is a ton of parties you may not get the most ideal field if you draw well enough... ok point taken... But not just one field is going to be good... Many other options that can produce.

A single could have taken one of the hotter fields the last few weeks of season this past year... S prior or Miller rd 1-5. Sure the 40's were good too, but frankly I know I speak for myself and not most, but that is a hike that late in the season by yourself, albeit dangerous as well.

I know of a few guys that did very well in 29 this year, a single can access that area, the rookery, the woods... All have times they get HOT, as long as you do your scouting and homework.

Its not just about having access to 56 or 58 to shoot a limit on the area.

Hell for the first week of the season my buds and I were shooting darn near limits in after draw fields...

A field a single would have had access too as we were drawing dead last most times


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Ferris_StateHunter said:


> ... All have times they get HOT, as long as you do your scouting and homework...


You're right there. SRSGA has plenty of options now, and honestly if you do a weekday draw two or three weeks in, there will only be 20-30 parties, so an "afterdraw" for a single can be really productive. It's all about knowing what's out there for options, and doing a bit of homework.

Having said that though, I kind of like the idea of mid-season when things get a bit slow, if there are say 15 parties or less, let singles choose any unit...I'm talking specifically about SRSGA now. As Ferris said, some of the units (30's and 40's for instance) are really not practical to try as a single because of the dike pulls...even a bit dangerous. Yeah it can and is done by singles, but just won't be a high pick for singles. But lots of spots could be. So I wouldn't mind seeing that idea floated out there. 

Shi Kid....you say this idea has been floated before, and the DNR shot it down? or was it the SFCHA that shot it down? Just curious if I want to try climbing a slippery slope here :lol:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

just ducky said:


> You're right there. SRSGA has plenty of options now, and honestly if you do a weekday draw two or three weeks in, there will only be 20-30 parties, so an "afterdraw" for a single can be really productive. It's all about knowing what's out there for options, and doing a bit of homework.
> 
> Having said that though, I kind of like the idea of mid-season when things get a bit slow, if there are say 15 parties or less, let singles choose any unit...I'm talking specifically about SRSGA now. As Ferris said, some of the units (30's and 40's for instance) are really not practical to try as a single because of the dike pulls...even a bit dangerous. Yeah it can and is done by singles, but just won't be a high pick for singles. But lots of spots could be. So I wouldn't mind seeing that idea floated out there.
> 
> Shi Kid....you say this idea has been floated before, and the DNR shot it down? or was it the SFCHA that shot it down? Just curious if I want to try climbing a slippery slope here :lol:


it didn't get far with either. i proposed it like 3 years ago. best i got was this year they gave us 6-7-8 to the singles zones.


----------



## Po'Boy (Oct 15, 2010)

I'll preface my two cents with the fact that I've only hunted alone at Shiawassee once in 35 years. I think the ideas presented are good one's in that they wouldn't restrict or reduce access/participation. Yet give the solo guy an equal chance to get in a "hot" field. I'm not necessarily in agreement that the rules favor increased participation are just about the economics as some have suggested. It's seems to me that public land should be managed to allow for maximum accessibility. 

I too have seen over the years where the draw rules which are designed to create fairness and equal opportunity to use the resource have been ignored. I'm not sure how that can be corrected. I have been checked in the field a couple times in the last 5 years. The focus of the check seemed to be more on number of shells, plug in the gun and birds shot being within the limits. I've resigned myself to the fact that my circle of influence only includes me and the guys I hunt with. We've committed to following the spirit of fairness of the draw rules and that the extent of what we can control.


----------



## MCMANN (Jan 13, 2010)

over hunting is the biggest problem at managed areas 

singles do get the shaft on hunting spots alot but i understand the point again if guys are adding on after they have been in the draw thats the workers fault for letting them join on once in a draw your in the draw and cant add on as its been stated 
rules will be broke and we cant stop the rule breakers all we can do is try 


mike


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

Ferris_StateHunter said:


> Just curious, how does the current rules significantly hurt the single hunter??
> 
> I understand when there is a ton of parties you may not get the most ideal field if you draw well enough... ok point taken... But not just one field is going to be good... Many other options that can produce.
> 
> ...


C'mon, lets be real here. Yes you can shoot birds in just about any field at Shia on any given day, but it's no secret that many many times during the year, a particular area is where all the action is and the action is drastically different from the other fields.

Your usually talking a difference between shooting limits and maybe 1 or 2 birds. I just feel that a single hunter should at least have a chance at getting into the hot fields and have a chance to have a good shoot.

And since we're specifically talking about S Prior. When S Prior is hot, it's as good as anywhere. There's also only 4 zones there that typically do well and they usually get picked off in the top 4 picks when it's on.

I also disagree with the woods and rookery comment. Granted I've had some of my most incredible hunts in the woods. But you're talking about a very limited window of opportunity out there to do well, 75%-80% of the season you're lucky to shoot 1 or 2 birds in the woods.

So just for clarification I'm not talking about just being able to get "A" spot for single hunters, I'm talking about QUALITY hunting opportunity and at least having the chance to get into whatever area is doing well on at any given point in the season.

I also have to disagree with the comments about single hunters and "safety". I think that has to be thrown out right off. If that was truly a concern then singles shouldn't be allowed to hunt the woods or rookery either. You have to/can go just as far away from the ramp in both of these locations as you do to hunt the 30's/40's and if you're hunting the woods mid season, odd's are you'll be the only one out there with nobody else around to offer assistance, not to mention the woods is a much more hazardous area to traverse or be rescued than any of the channels going to/from the fields.

Also, regarding hunter participation. I can only speak for myself, but I know that I would put in more hunter days at Shia, NP, and FP if I knew that I had a chance to get in on the hot fields if I'm hunting alone. I'm usually at least somewhat in the loop as to what's going on at the managed areas, so as it is now, if I know that Wahl Rd, N Prior, or 30's/40's is the only thing happening and the woods, Miller Rd, or S. Prior are dead (or not flooded, or have poor cover, or it's a weekend) and I don't have a partner, I head elsewhere and hunt. So considering I hunt 30-40 days a year I'm guessing that my days at managed areas would double. I'm also guessing that there's not many that simply wouldn't hunt because a single took a zone, those groups are still going to go somewhere in the managed area, so I'd almost venture to bet that you would see no impact in the overall hunter days and subsequent revenues, might even tick up a bit due to an increase in single hunters participating more.


----------



## Mike L (Sep 8, 2003)

1fish
Also said:


> I agree 100%......again, they don't have to be the "Hottest" area in the zone ? And I don't want to use the "D" word but that's exactly what it is.
> One of the first things mentioned in the morning refuge conditions talk is
> Quote: Singles are allowed to take the outside area's.... etc. etc.
> I pay my yearly fee's right along with everyone else, and it just blows when
> ...


----------



## Water_Hazard (Aug 16, 2006)

1fish said:


> C'mon, lets be real here. Yes you can shoot birds in just about any field at Shia on any given day, but it's no secret that many many times during the year, a particular area is where all the action is and the action is drastically different from the other fields.
> 
> 
> So just for clarification I'm not talking about just being able to get "A" spot for single hunters, I'm talking about QUALITY hunting opportunity and at least having the chance to get into whatever area is doing well on at any given point in the season.
> .


The easiest fix is to find a hunting partner when needed.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

Water_Hazard said:


> The easiest fix is to find a hunting partner when needed.


Why?

Why should that even factor into the equation? My circumstances are that myself and my partners have full time jobs during the week, families on the weekends, live in different parts of the State, don't hunt as much as I do, ect. so coordinating time off and family schedules 30-40 times a year is simply not possible and I certainly will not just stay home because I can't find someone else to go with me. I very much doubt that I'm the only one with these circumstances.

It's not like we're asking for preferential treatment, or even equal treatment. And again, what would be the harm to spread the same number of single zones out across the entire area instead of having them bunched up? Or allowing single hunters to pick any zone if turnout is low and all parties in the draw are guaranteed a field regardless?

I'm not being combative, just asking for real reasons rather than comments that have no bearing on the overall discussion. To me, my proposals make sense in that it would likely lead to increased use of the areas by more people while at the same time having minimal to no impact on other parties.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

1fish said:


> Why?
> 
> Why should that even factor into the equation? My circumstances are that myself and my partners have full time jobs during the week, families on the weekends, live in different parts of the State, don't hunt as much as I do, ect. so coordinating time off and family schedules 30-40 times a year is simply not possible and I certainly will not just stay home because I can't find someone else to go with me. I very much doubt that I'm the only one with these circumstances.
> 
> ...


fine line with the increased use thoughts. how many 4 man parties are gonna get pissed when all the zones are covered by singles and stop coming to the draw....i feel your wrong with participation going up from singles opportunity.


----------



## Mike L (Sep 8, 2003)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> fine line with the increased use thoughts. how many 4 man parties are gonna get pissed when all the zones are covered by singles and stop coming to the draw....i feel your wrong with participation going up from singles opportunity.


*All* the zones covered by singles ?? Give me a break !!! All we're asking for is a little
fairness.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Water_Hazard said:


> The easiest fix is to find a hunting partner when needed.


 
eHarmony for duck hunters!


----------



## SuperBlackEagle2 (Nov 4, 2005)

You know what....It is what it is. I hunt as a single, a lot of the time. If and when I go to St. Charles, I know the deal. I deal with it. Not everything needs to be changed, just because somebody doesn't like something. The rules don't necessarily need to be adjusted to everyone's liking. Change, change, change. Me, me, me. I don't like all the crazy "change" ideas with zones, and I also think this idea is kind of ridiculous. This is just my opinion. Proceed with your debate.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

SuperBlackEagle2 said:


> You know what....It is what it is. I hunt as a single, a lot of the time. If and when I go to St. Charles, I know the deal. I deal with it. Not everything needs to be changed, just because somebody doesn't like something. The rules don't necessarily need to be adjusted to everyone's liking. Change, change, change. Me, me, me. I don't like all the crazy "change" ideas with zones, and I also think this idea is kind of ridiculous. This is just my opinion. Proceed with your debate.


 
Again, all I'm asking for is pro's/con's. Where's the harm? What's the benefit? I've stated my opinions for public discussion and provided reasoning why. 

You don't like the crazy "change" ideas with the zones and think the debate is ridiculous. So what specifically don't you like about it? What about it do you feel is ridiculous? 

All I'm asking for is specific reasons as that's why I brought this up. I don't claim be be anywhere near intelligent enough to know all of the different scenarios and situations, but with the knowledge base and experience on here, it should provide us with a fairly good process of vetting the ideas and compiling a fairly good list of good/bad.

Just saying "I don't like it" doesn't help.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> fine line with the increased use thoughts. how many 4 man parties are gonna get pissed when all the zones are covered by singles and stop coming to the draw....i feel your wrong with participation going up from singles opportunity.


Could be right, I'm not sure. Like I said, all I can speak for is myself in saying my participation would go up.

As far as 4 man parties stopping coming, I guess I don't see how it would impact it? If they get drawn higher in the draw, they still have first dibs on any zones and the total number of zones available would be unchanged from what it is now and the total number of zones that could be covered by single hunters would be unchanged from what it is now.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Mike L said:


> ...If, a CWAC member would address this issue ? It would be much appreciated. We don't have there ear like you guys do.......


Mike L - you know I respect your opinions. And although I'm not convinced this needs to be changed, limits on party size vary from area to area based on their units. Some have a 2 hunter minimum, 3 hunter maximum, and some have a 4 hunter maximum. It would start with the individual DNRE managed area office. Better yet, if there is an active association, such as Shiawassee Flats, or Fish Point, petition that group to agree, and they bring it forward to the DNRE. The DNRE listens to numbers, and these associations are the squeaky wheels for these kinds of ideas. That is unless you're asking for *ALL* managed areas to eliminate their requirements for party size? Then you may get the CWAC to support it first. But honestly, I don't think the CWAC would mess with a managed area specific rule like this. I'd go right to the area office, or the DNRE in Lansing. JMO.


----------



## SuperBlackEagle2 (Nov 4, 2005)

1fish said:


> Just saying "I don't like it" doesn't help.


Doesn't help what? You're cause? You're assuming the party number system at the managed areas needs help to begin with, which I don't believe it does. 
As for the whole zone thing...I'm not getting into that again. Those guys can go roll their dice on that, at their meetings. I gave my opinions in their thread.
I don't get your help comment, for either point? Opinions were asked for, and I gave mine. I disagreed. Why do I need to explain? I gave my opinion. I helped.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

SuperBlackEagle2 said:


> Doesn't help what? You're cause? QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Doesn't help the rest of us understand WHY you don't like it. I fully respect your dislike of it, no problems there, would just help me understand your side of it if u explained why.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

1fish said:


> Could be right, I'm not sure. Like I said, all I can speak for is myself in saying my participation would go up.
> 
> As far as 4 man parties stopping coming, I guess I don't see how it would impact it? If they get drawn higher in the draw, they still have first dibs on any zones and the total number of zones available would be unchanged from what it is now and the total number of zones that could be covered by single hunters would be unchanged from what it is now.


i'm not disagreeing with you as a whole, but what i am doing is pointing out the opposite view. if you make 59 a singles zone...and its hot 50% of the year. A single nails that zone 5 days in row, group B (4 hunters) will be pissed. We are also losing 4 user trips instead of 1 user trip. (how dnr views this after season). Just laying it down in reality terms of how public would view it. when proposing a change you really have to look at all sides and the benefit and drawbacks. 

I like your discussion, something to think about over the offseason. Me or JD will probably bring it up at next meeting and see if it has any wheels. I'm all for getting better quality access for everyone. There might be something that can be done. Always ways to compromise as JD would say.


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

I guess i kinda look at it like a business; if i had 4 front row hockey seats to 'sell"... why would I sell just one and eat the other three?

if I'm in the business of hunter satisfaction/opportunity, I'd want to maximaize my return by getting the larger parties into the "better" (relative term) fields where they stand the best chance to harvest MORE THAN 6 ducks than if I gave it to a single. it doesn't hurt to offer those fields to singles AFTER the bigger parties have selected. (it's like selling a hotwire hotel room; better to sell it at a discounted rate than to have it go empty, right?!  )

I know FP like the back of my hand and there's no one alive that can convince me that the single party zones there are "_handicapped_" vs. party zones.

now having said that, I think there are zones at FP (and other GMA's) IN party zones that would be better served as singles. A guy could scratch some birds out of it, but most parties avoid taking them because they don't produce numbers so they go unfilled.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Branta said:


> I guess i kinda look at it like a business; if i had 4 front row hockey seats to 'sell"... why would I sell just one and eat the other three?
> 
> if I'm in the business of hunter satisfaction/opportunity, I'd want to maximaize my return by getting the larger parties into the "better" (relative term) fields where they stand the best chance to harvest MORE THAN 6 ducks than if I gave it to a single. it doesn't hurt to offer those fields to singles AFTER the bigger parties have selected. (it's like selling a hotwire hotel room; better to sell it at a discounted rate than to have it go empty, right?!  )
> 
> ...


couldn't have said it better. I do take 1fishes idea as fuel to maybe tweak it better for singles but i'm not sure how receptive the dnr or our area guys will be to it.


----------



## 1fish (Oct 2, 2006)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i'm not disagreeing with you as a whole, but what i am doing is pointing out the opposite view. if you make 59 a singles zone...and its hot 50% of the year. A single nails that zone 5 days in row, group B (4 hunters) will be pissed. We are also losing 4 user trips instead of 1 user trip. (how dnr views this after season). Just laying it down in reality terms of how public would view it. when proposing a change you really have to look at all sides and the benefit and drawbacks.
> 
> I like your discussion, something to think about over the offseason. Me or JD will probably bring it up at next meeting and see if it has any wheels. I'm all for getting better quality access for everyone. There might be something that can be done. Always ways to compromise as JD would say.


Good point, now I'm with ya on that one, and I would fully agree that it would be a bad move to make the year in year out top zones in the area "single" zones just because of the reasons you stated above.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

1fish said:


> Good point, now I'm with ya on that one, and I would fully agree that it would be a bad move to make the year in year out top zones in the area "single" zones just because of the reasons you stated above.


I do like the idea of having a single zone in every field block...that idea kinda intrigues me. like in prior, middle row, 1 side. south prior middle row, 1 side. same thing up in miller and etc...


----------



## Branta (Feb 6, 2002)

ditto.

I always thought the same thing and the only reason that I could think of (weak as it might be) is from an organizational/administrative standpoint.

It's pretty simple (or should be) to conduct your draws when "_party zones surround the refuge.... singles on the outside_". 

vs. a swiss cheeze/ scatter gun approach of single zones intermixed with party fields.

Very weak, I know! 

I can think of a number of zones at FP that would be better served as single zones that are currently party areas.

(then again, I can think of single zones that ALOT of party hunters take first because they're "that good" too!)


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> I do like the idea of having a single zone in every field block...that idea kinda intrigues me. like in prior, middle row, 1 side. south prior middle row, 1 side. same thing up in miller and etc...


Are you saying that a single zone can be taken only by a single? In other words, if there are 10 parties at the draw, and no one registers as a single, that zone can't be chosen? Or are you saying those zones are available to singles OR parties? That makes more sense to me. Yeah that means a party could take one of those zones before a single got chosen, but that's the luck of the draw again. So when you have the big numbers at the draw, and there are a lot of singles registered, they have a fair shake just like the rest. If you have a mid-season, mid-week draw when there are 12 parties registered, and I'm there as a single, I have a lot more choices that I could take as a single. That's what I was thinking.


----------

