# CWAC March 5th Meeting



## LoBrass

just ducky said:


> Sorry Russ, but I'm just sayin...I'd have rather sat on my couch with a cold one, watching U of M dismantle the green and white, like many others did, than meeting others at O'dark thirty, driving through some pretty serious sheet 2 plus hours, at $3.55 per gallon, to listen to hours of discussion, ONLY to have no decision at all. I'm talking ANY decision, not no decision. It's just frustrating as you know all too well having been on CWAC.
> 
> Really tired of people whining, but not bothering to take action. Taking your own time to actually show up in person at the meeting speaks volumes, and gets you credibility. Just sending emails or letters, or calling a DNR staffer, is not sufficient...
> 
> Next time someone biotches about why the "boys club" at SFCHA gets attention, read the above paragraph. It's about credibility, and putting your money and time where your mouth is!


Dan, 

I agree with you 100% on everything you said. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

After the next 3 years or so, I expect most individuals with an interest in Michigan waterfowling will have an idea who I am and where I stand. My plan is to guide CWAC along its intended road. We are only a small branch of the tree. I'd like to make sure we are a productive branch. We do need to listen to the trained professionals and our constituents so we will advise to the best of our ability. 

My first action at every job I've had was to surround myself with the best people available. You can count on me trying to accomplish that end. This brings knowledge, dedication and passion to the table. I'll work with those attributes any day. The next thing I want to insure is that every leaf contributes. Appointed seats on a committee should be productive. I'll help everyone to be productive. When you have contributions, I'd expect you to be able to back it up with names, phone numbers or written letters of endorsement or anything to validate your statements. Seems valid and logical. 

I will try to guide the committee properly to invite discussion and thoughtfullness to every item. Please, if you are concerned, attend. We want to do right.

Just trying to be transparent and open to anyone wondering.


----------



## Mike L

LoBrass said:


> Gary is not a CWAC member.
> The bulk of the thumb should be in Zone 3. His reasoning was that the middle of the Bay still holds birds but is inaccessible to all but the hardiest. The birds still feed in the interior of the Thumb and therefore can be hunted. Seems valid to me.
> 
> Hope this will explain.
> 
> Thanks for asking.


And there's quite a few of us hardy hunters around. Not only do those birds feed in the thumb, they feed in Unionville, Akron, Cass City, Fairgrove, Reese,
and Munger. There's also great late season hunting south of
Quanicassee. Those late season birds are not limited to just the thumb.

Waterfowl are changing, we "Never" saw green wings after the middle of Oct. Now we see them into Mid Nov and later. Shooting a Gadwall at FP was a "Very" rare occurrence. And for the past five years there has been more and more of them. Ducks are getting hardier and staying longer, giving the hardcore hunter more opportunity's. Your not going to find
numbers for that, your going to have to rely on DNRE field personnel and guys like us. The ones who are out there doing it.


----------



## KLR

LoBrass said:


> Gary is not a CWAC member.
> 
> He hunts open water with 5 pontoon blinds. He's after divers predominantly.
> 
> Points:
> 
> His business shuts down after about the 10th of Nov. due to a lack of clients. He pointed out birds are there till freeze. Must be a drop in hunter participation if a major guide shuts down.


I'd think it's more than coincidence his business drops off just before the firearm deer opener. 

The majority of people that are going to hire him do it because they don't have their own gear - regardless if the birds are 500 yds from shore or 5 miles or if it's 10/10 or 11/10 -if they want to hunt they need to find a ride...those people buy licenses too and have an expectation of being represented, but I doubt they really care about the season dates as long as they can get a day or two shooting in before they get serious about deer season. 

He certainly should be able to voice his opinion, but I think that logic is flawed - With that type of thinking everyday after the opener is wasted as there are never more hunters out on any given day during the season, when compared to the opener.


----------



## LoBrass

One righteous verdict from the input period prior to the meeting was that we (Michigan) are one voice as far as our framework (3 Zones with one split each). This followed through with agreement from the committee that we are on target.

Now, I'd like to see us use EVERY TOOL in the tool belt. Why would we have anything other than 3 _distinct opening days _and subsequently 3 _distinct splits _relative to the zone. You can be certain that I will be pushing to use each option. Again, I invite constituents to contribute constructively so each zone has their split preference realized. 

Last year we ultimately took a 2 Zone proposal to the NRC with 2 splits. Does not seem to optimize our opportunities. 

The framework is sound and popular-use it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another comment on the Saginaw Bay belonging to Zone 2.

If you take a look at Michigan we can pretty clearly see that the Zone 2/3 line is effectively following the separation of the Northern forest areas of the NLP from the more agricultural regions south of M-20. That geographical line of fauna is no different than any other geographical feature-it is a distinct line of separation. No different than the Straights of Mackinac. My belief is that we should simply continue this line as near as we can to that line of demarkation.

One insight I gained when I hunted near my home in Midland was how I felt jipped when they opened the late goose south of, I believe, M-57. I saw all these geese south of M-20 but north of M-57. When they changed it to follow the Zone 2/3 line in the late season I thought "it's about time!!" Those fellas around Mudville know what I'm talking about.

Utilize every opening to increase the opportunity of all users. I'd like to point out that I'll push for that too.


----------



## Grayphase

Mike L we have killed GWT in numbers during nov since the 60's. Gadwall are hit & miss. Some years they are here in numbers some years they are not. Been that way forever. The birds arent hardier today the hunters are. Changes in clothing/waders have played a big part. Anyone that hunted before 1980 knows what I'm talking about. Remember early 70's through late 90's the season was over around Thanksgiving. The marshes cleared out for gun deer. Trappers had the marshes to themselves after nov 15. Point is there were birds around back then late season however very few hunted them. The few that field hunted late mallard did well. That said the hard core late waterfowlers were for all purposes layout & sneak diver hunters. All we had for late season (dec) hunting was spec bill season dec 1-15 on Erie and a handfull of large inland lakes. Only real difference in birds I see since the 60's is the small numbers of widgeon and the ridiculous numbers of geese.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Thanks Bud.

I don't know Gary, but is his premise that people quit hunting the Bay after Nov 10? I hope that is not what he contends. 

I'm sure he is knowledgable, but the premise that people quit hunting after Nov 10 and the Bay ices up to where you can't get at the birds, is off base.


----------



## Branta

I'm not going to take this thread off course talking about the purported failings of the DNR (be it true or untrue).

I don't doubt anyone's passion for waterfowl/waterfowling in this forum. it shows in taking the time to even visit/read/post what's here. I don't doubt that some people (guides) might have some really good suggestions to share with the DNR.

but to respond directly to the guide comment;actually, it'd be ludicrous to replace CWAC with a committee made up solely of waterfowl guides. 

Perception IS reality when dealing with joe public. So if you don't see how wrong your suggestion would be (that the dnr consulted with a "handful of guides" to determine waterfowl management for the state)... nothing I say will help here.

~~~~~
actually, I have an excellent suggestion for you;
get your group together and then lobby the DNR for your org to be on CWAC as well. or, flood the mason bldg with your suggestions and insight.

seriously, I don't doubt for a second that you have alot of experience so let's tap that and put it to some good use.

Give LoBrass some specific suggestions so that we can assess for ourselves what we think of your optimization plan.


----------



## LoBrass

TSS Caddis said:


> Thanks Bud.
> 
> I don't know Gary, but is his premise that people quit hunting the Bay after Nov 10? I hope that is not what he contends.
> 
> I'm sure he is knowledgable, but the premise that people quit hunting after Nov 10 and the Bay ices up to where you can't get at the birds, is off base.


He does not and did not imply people quit hunting the Bay after the 10th. He simply said _his_ business shuts down due to lack of interest.

He would almost certainly tell you that the birds are there, in fact, he did say they were there but just more difficult to access when ice sets in. He was even concerned enough to point out the field hunting opportunity and was sure to hit their interests with the inclusion of the Thumb in Zone 3. No lack of reasons to view his input as anything but well thought through, insightful and based in fact. Glad he attended.


----------



## Mike L

Grayphase said:


> Mike L we have killed GWT in numbers during nov since the 60's. Gadwall are hit & miss. Some years they are here in numbers some years they are not. Been that way forever. The birds arent hardier today the hunters are. Changes in clothing/waders have played a big part. Anyone that hunted before 1980 knows what I'm talking about. Remember early 70's through late 90's the season was over around Thanksgiving. The marshes cleared out for gun deer. Trappers had the marshes to themselves after nov 15. Point is there were birds around back then late season however very few hunted them. The few that field hunted late mallard did well. That said the hard core late waterfowlers were for all purposes layout & sneak diver hunters. All we had for late season (dec) hunting was spec bill season dec 1-15 on Erie and a handfull of large inland lakes. Only real difference in birds I see since the 60's is the small numbers of widgeon and the ridiculous numbers of geese.


I'm not going to jump this thread, but just say our opinions are very different and let it go at that.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Line of sight, I'd imagine Mackinaw City is as far from Bay City as Dowagiac is?


----------



## LoBrass

TSS Caddis said:


> Line of sight, I'd imagine Mackinaw City is as far from Bay City as Dowagiac is?


Big state we live in, glad we have 3 Zones.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

...put bay in z2, open a week early, give them a usable split and let it end on same date as usual. big deal, move on.


edit: also note, we would get 3 seperate openers, 3 seperate splits that are usable. win win


----------



## ducknut

I would think that if the bay ends up closing a week earlier than Shiawassee there may a strong possibility that Shiawassee hunters may be sharing their last week (some years their best week) of hunting with a lot more people at the draws. Back in the days of split seasons when the bay and Nayanquing were closed there were 150-175 parties at Shia on Thanksgiving weekend re-opener.


----------



## Water_Hazard

ducknut said:


> I would think that if the bay ends up closing a week earlier than Shiawassee there may a strong possibility that Shiawassee hunters may be sharing their last week (some years their best week) of hunting with a lot more people at the draws. Back in the days of split seasons when the bay and Nayanquing were closed there were 150-175 parties at Shia on Thanksgiving weekend re-opener.


That would be a good thing. Hunter participation is what areas like this need.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

ducknut said:


> I would think that if the bay ends up closing a week earlier than Shiawassee there may a strong possibility that Shiawassee hunters may be sharing their last week (some years their best week) of hunting with a lot more people at the draws. Back in the days of split seasons when the bay and Nayanquing were closed there were 150-175 parties at Shia on Thanksgiving weekend re-opener.


yeah well it was also a 30 day season. we ever get a 30 day season back and every day at every managed unit will be 100 parties at all draws til people start dropping from the sport like flies again.


----------



## ducknut

As I recall they were 45 days or longer seasons. Yes, the areas need more hunter participation, but not over-saturation due to the season being closed for a good share of the late-season waterfowlers in the state.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

ducknut said:


> As I recall they were 45 days or longer seasons. Yes, the areas need more hunter participation, but not over-saturation due to the season being closed for a good share of the late-season waterfowlers in the state.


thanksgiving splits were 30 days seasons. opened mid october, shut down mid november, reopened on thanksgiving for split. There could be some 45's in there with Turkey day splits but i don't recall them. Also remember hunting the bay west side on openers (wigwam/nq point) a week earlier so them returning the pressure late in the season was no biggie in my book.


----------



## PhilBernardi

I once talked with Gary (Defoe Island Duck Charters is what he calls his company) about coming out to a blind in November period and he said that firearm deer opener pulls alot of business away from him. When you add ice to the equation, his guide business drops around that time of the year.


----------



## ducknut

Yes, that would be the trade-off, being able to hunt a week earlier with an additional opener. For some that would be worth the extra pressure at the end, for me it just wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## Swamp Boss

I fully support the Bay being moved to Z2 as it was years before for most of the reasons which have already been stated-mostly tho because a majority of the time it is locked up by Thanksgiving. The move to Z#3 has done nothing to reduce the overcrowding of the Bay on openers. The two day late season split for the Bay is ridiculous-it is not southern MI!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> Once the Bay is out of Zone 3, what are you hoping to get implemented? It sounds like some SE Michigan groups want earlier, some want later, most don't want to give up the 2 day? Yet, it seems you are hoping to get the Bay out of Zone 3 on the off chance you can get the 2 day split moved when all reports state that it is very popular and people do not want it moved? Are you clearing a tree off the road only to find the bridge is washed out?


zone 3 would open a week later than zone 2. easy to figure. the split could maintain its current form as is and probably make both groups happy (longer into december hunting and even a late split to boot)


...damn did i just come up with that all by myself? amazing.


----------



## Mike L

Bellyup said:


> Is all of this really worth it ? Might as well just move to ND, or SC. Actually SD might be the right place to become a resident of. If it takes 20 years to just get something back for discussion (season dates for zone 3) something is terribly broke in this state.


Not really, this is what happens when you open the floor for
opinions. Very spirited individuals who are passionate about there sport "All" have an opinion........99% of the dedicated water fowlers out there will take what they get, and make it work to the best of there ability. But offer
an avenue for opinions ?..........you see what happens.....


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

*z1* : late sept, split anwhere they want
*z2 *: early oct, spit anywhere they want (turkey day reopen would be sweet) or front loaded week for teal/woodies
*z3 option 1*: mid oct, split on thanksgiving and extendion into mid december
*z3 option 2*: mid oct, split jan 1 and 2.

to me option 1 for z3 is ideal.....as goose pointed out...100% of the people can usually take advantage of a thanksgiving split....vs. january split mainly being focused around SE and SW.

a compromise could be had by allowing jan 1/2 split still. just have to push back the opener to accomplish a full compromise.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> ...I also found out that Dan Dykstra is an impassioned person as it relates to waterfowl. ;-)[/SIZE][/FONT]


:lol: funny guy that Phil. Next time YOU'RE driving


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Thanks Dan. I find it interesting the diverse opinions that came back from the same meeting. Thanks for sharing your input.


There were various opinions, but I was relaying what I noted as what I heard a "majority" of the people saying, whatever that means. There were SE Michigan guys differing on the value of the split, and it largely went along the lines of how they hunt (which you mentioned before). For obvious reasons, the Harsens Island marsh/flooded crop hunters definitely didn't have the same opinion as the LSC open water layout boys, or the downriver layout boys. So their differences were similar to those of bay area regulars who hunt in different styles.



TSS Caddis said:


> All I know is this:
> 
> In Michigan we are blessed with very diverse waterfowl opportunities. You can blast away at wood ducks, teal, mallards, redheads along with many other species on the opener and close out with goldeneyes, sea ducks, full plumed can's, bills etc...


You're right Gene, when you step back and take the overall picture into account, we are pretty blessed here. Nevermind on all of the things I've said over the last 9 pages :evilsmile


----------



## just ducky

Mike L said:


> Well ? I "Really" debated with myself if I should do this or not. I *Still*
> believe how the zones are now and this past years dates were right on. I'll
> throw this out there to get totally beat up ! This is going to be pretty close to the kids idea.
> 
> For the sake of "Discussion" Hypothetically put the Bay in zone 2 with an
> opening date, the first weekend in Oct. With a mid season split, the second week of Nov. Rather than say it's typically slow based on my experience I won't go there. I'll simply use the waterfowl data from Shi town and FP....both have decreased waterfowl populations at that time.
> 
> And hunting during that time period has been slow for number of reasons, less birds, and they are tired of getting pounded wherever they go. So when the split is where I suggested, that puts zone 2 close into the first week of Dec just like it was this past year......happy....
> 
> The dividing line between zone two and three would be M-46 ...........
> It's a major highway recognized by everyone. It runs fairly straight all
> across the state. And Law Enforcement would have no problems with that line IMO. How the jog would be made on the west side of the state would be open for discussion.
> Open the new zone three the second week of Oct with a split of
> what the kid suggested, the third week of Nov then re-open and run into the second week of Dec. So then the new zone three would get an extra week into Dec and should make quite a few guys happy.
> 
> That's all I have so beat it to death if you wish, but ya ! I'm way tired of the discussion. It's going to take from some and give to others.....but ?
> 
> Sorry I forgot these.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2010-11_Weekly_waterfowl_counts_Fish_Point_SWA_333904_7.pdf
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2010-11_Weekly_waterfowl_counts_Shiawassee_River_SGA_333911_7.pdf



Mike,

You and I have disagreed an awful lot lately, but I'll admit that I agree with most everything you said here. I'm not sure M-46 is the proper location though, because there are some goose hunting groups in the Sandusky area that were heard from on Saturday, and they really opposed that being the line. I think someone mentioned that line would basically cut his farm into two zones...someone else said "that could happen with any zone line".

I still say the simple (can't believe I'm using the word "simple") answer is to do something different with the zone 3 split, such as the Zone 3 option #1 that Shi Kid proposed. would it solve all issues? heck no. But I just think that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## wavie

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> z3 option 1[/B]: mid oct, split on thanksgiving and extendion into mid december
> 
> This to me makes the most sense.
> Regardless of where the split lies, any opening after a split is like opening day again. And wouldnt there likely be more "opportunity" for hunters finding open water at a thanksgiving split? Logically (does this apply to this thread) you would expect more hunter participation at this time than Jan 1 and 2. And dont bring deer hunter into this equation as they have an opportunity to harvest a deer on Jan 1 if they would like. Its all about priority of choices.
> 
> By the way, are you allowed to bring a case of beer or two into one of these meetings, i am sure i could make alot of friends in short order.


----------



## Branta

just ducky said:


> I'm not sure M-46 is the proper location though, because there are some goose hunting groups in the Sandusky area that were heard from on Saturday, and they really opposed that being the line. I think someone mentioned that line would basically cut his farm into two zones...someone else said "that could happen with any zone line".


Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand their argument.

wouldn't that be the IDEAL situation for a guide in San-ducky?

let's see; window of opportunity "this big" by being only in one zone, or let me straddle the line and be able to start earlier AND end later by simply crossing a road?

(my gawd, I love to have my field split into two zones!!) 



just like a M-25 line would be awesome for the boys up there!


----------



## PhilBernardi

*Are you clearing a tree off the road only to find the bridge is washed out? *


----------



## PhilBernardi

ATTENTION! 

Hand grenade about to be thrown! [From me of all people ]


Heres a nutty idea that I could go along with for at least 5 years  to accumulate some data. This is for South Zone. 

This proposal assumes the following:

1) Sag Bay is in Zone 2 (wherever the zone boundary ends up)
2) Middle Zone opens on Oct 1st or a week sooner or a week later
3) Any split allows ducks in the zone a pause from hunting for at least 13-14 days (I believe the current split time helps us because of the sustained lack of hunting pressure on the ducks) 
4) Goose split reopener reverts back to T-Day

Open Saturday, October 15th

Run through Sunday, November 27: allows hunting during T-Day (total days so far are 44)

Reopen Saturday, December 10 and run through Sunday, December 25th (16+44=60)


----------



## waterfowlhunter83

PhilBernardi said:


> Reopen Saturday, December 10 and run through Sunday, December 25th (16+44=60)


I am all for it, but I have a feeling the DNR with hit that with a big


----------



## just ducky

Branta said:


> Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand their argument.
> 
> wouldn't that be the IDEAL situation for a guide in San-ducky?
> 
> let's see; window of opportunity "this big" by being only in one zone, or let me straddle the line and be able to start earlier AND end later by simply crossing a road?
> 
> (my gawd, I love to have my field split into two zones!!)
> 
> 
> 
> just like a M-25 line would be awesome for the boys up there!


Honestly Russ, when they started talking about goose seasons (and knowing my love of the critters) I got in a sidebar with someone else and kind of tuned out :lol: the thought centered around the goose seasons, and the impact moving that zone2/3 dividing line to M-46 would do to thumb goose hunters. But as I said, I tuned out maybe someone else who was there can elighten us on their argument?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

PhilBernardi said:


> ATTENTION!
> 
> Hand grenade about to be thrown! [From me of all people ]
> 
> 
> Here&#8217;s a nutty idea that I could go along with for at least 5 years &#8211; to accumulate some data. This is for South Zone.
> 
> This proposal assumes the following:
> 
> 1) Sag Bay is in Zone 2 (wherever the zone boundary ends up)
> 2) Middle Zone opens on Oct 1st or a week sooner or a week later
> 3) Any split allows ducks in the zone a pause from hunting for at least 13-14 days (I believe the current split time helps us because of the sustained lack of hunting pressure on the ducks)
> 4) Goose split reopener reverts back to T-Day
> 
> Open Saturday, October 15th
> 
> Run through Sunday, November 27: allows hunting during T-Day (total days so far are 44)
> 
> Reopen Saturday, December 10 and run through Sunday, December 25th (16+44=60)


your bottom option there just gave me a 44 day season. i'll give a week into december...or few days more...but not til the 25. you just made the 2 day split a 16 day split for me.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> ATTENTION!
> 
> Hand grenade about to be thrown! [From me of all people ]
> 
> 
> Heres a nutty idea that I could go along with for at least 5 years  to accumulate some data. This is for South Zone.
> 
> This proposal assumes the following:
> 
> 1) Sag Bay is in Zone 2 (wherever the zone boundary ends up)
> 2) Middle Zone opens on Oct 1st or a week sooner or a week later
> 3) Any split allows ducks in the zone a pause from hunting for at least 13-14 days (I believe the current split time helps us because of the sustained lack of hunting pressure on the ducks)
> 4) Goose split reopener reverts back to T-Day
> 
> Open Saturday, October 15th
> 
> Run through Sunday, November 27: allows hunting during T-Day (total days so far are 44)
> 
> Reopen Saturday, December 10 and run through Sunday, December 25th (16+44=60)


It could work (IMO) if the entire bay moved to zone 2 as you suggested because too many bay hunters (especially west side) want the earliest possible opening date, and October 15th would make them scream loudly. So they'd have to be considered zone 2.

So let's continue on with your thought...if zone 2 opened a week earlier, say October 8th, or (god help me for saying this) October 1st, then the bay contingent could still shoot their early ducks, and Phil's proposal provides a better (IMO) use of the split, making quite a few zone 3 hunters happy (while pissing some off too). 

I kind of like it :SHOCKED:


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> your bottom option there just gave me a 44 day season. i'll give a week into december...or few days more...but not til the 25. you just made the 2 day split a 16 day split for me.


Yeah but Dan, it's not all about you :lol:

I tend to agree that it may be a bit extreme to go to the 25th, but something on that path.

And think about it...this may :yikes: make some of the SW or West Michigan contingent happy for a change because we're giving them later hunting opportunity. Plus, some of the big water layout guys still get to play in the ice.

Yeah, I kind of think this is on the right track. But again, if the entire bay isn't in zone 2, it's DOA (although it may be anyway?)

Seems like someone said in this thread that it's all about modifying the split?


----------



## TSS Caddis

Mike L said:


> Not really, this is what happens when you open the floor for
> opinions. Very spirited individuals who are passionate about there sport "All" have an opinion........99% of the dedicated water fowlers out there will take what they get, and make it work to the best of there ability. But offer
> an avenue for opinions ?..........you see what happens.....


I view this like tax increases. If you are going to take something from me and give it to someone else, you better be able to explain to where my money is going in great detail.

Also, messing with the Bay in hopes the SE guys can be swayed into a different split is a big chance. Sort of like taking out a loan for a car that isn't even for sale.


----------



## just ducky

Branta said:


> ....CWAC reps didn't suddenly fall off a chair, hit their craniums and then think that they'd like to do away with the jan hunt. it's been discussed (at nauseum) for a decade....


Branta,

I'm curious...since you were part of the CWAC for a while, do you know who the strong proponents of the 2 day January hunt are/were? I'm wondering because I've never really heard anyone really beating the drum hard for that split, yet we continually end up with it.

I attended a meeting this morning on behalf of MDHA with various conservation organizations and individuals, several who were long-time CWAC members, and were at the meeting last Saturday. I asked them this question...how did the 2 day January split begin in the first place? They tell me it started as an option back when we first got the "liberal" season option, and someone suggested trying a late 2 day hunt in January. They said it seemed like a simple and innocent enough thing back then. But from that somewhat innocent beginning to having that late split, we've now evolved into being stuck on that particular split and nothing else.


----------



## LoBrass

Caddis will LOVE this.

I've just PM'ed Gene and then read the rest of the posts. When he reads it (and hopefully calls me-by 4:45pm I'm off the clock) he will see my light (at least I hope a glimmer of it).

My boys 7th birthday is today. I'm going home to celebrate Huffman style.

When I get home from a fine evening, I'll throw some ideas out there that we should all consider. Sorry to put you all "on ice" so to speak.

And Gene, I just touched the tip of the iceberg in my PM(couldn't resist).

Keep the creative juices flowing, I like the ideas.


----------



## Branta

just ducky said:


> Branta,
> 
> I'm curious...since you were part of the CWAC for a while, do you know who the strong proponents of the 2 day January hunt are/were? I'm wondering because I've never really heard anyone really beating the drum hard for that split, yet we continually end up with it.


The drum beat comes from the hunter survey data (I believe). I don't remember the exact data, but the split was important to those polled.

Honestly, I've always said that split costs us too much. CWAC (and probably rightly so) were doing their job; voting as reps of their areas.
And grandfathering it through.
As much as I would personally want to change that split, if the majority of hunters I rep want to keep it....

How do I best do my job? I should vote as they would like, right? For their best interest.

It might also have some strength because as you're seeing, we can't agree on the best spot to put it anyways! So 2 days out in january causes the least harm(?) Everyone has their 58, and if you're lucky you get a great 2 day bonus in jan. The cost is only 2 days vs. a longer split sometime during the season.

Lastly, it might have had support when there was an edict to maximize duck/goose overlap. (Remember when a lot of the goose season was before duck even started? Then closed during much of Oct/nov, goose then opened after duck closed in Dec.

Not positive, just trying to recall.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Branta

I think the jan split preference quest. On thr survey should be reworked. Instead of asking "rate how important"

Ask the question; "if giving up the 2 day split afforded you more opp in december (or earlier start in Oct., you pick), would you want to change?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## just ducky

TSS Caddis said:


> Arg, sucked back in by JD's pic:lol:
> 
> Make your line top of Iosco and I'm in


I really just threw that out there because it jogged my memory of what I proposed in '07. I don't have any real interest in seeing that happen, but Dahmer threw out the Wisconsin proposal, so as long as we're talking crazy, what the heck?

Now if one or more of the CWAC reps latches on to it, so be it. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see some creativity in our regs. But as I said, I'm not pushing or sponsoring it.


----------



## casscityalum

So i cant remember and dont want to try and look through all the past pages, but when is the next meeting and if it works out with my schedule would anyone be willing to let me tag along and car pool? Im at MSU and would like to go to one of these meetings. Thanks

-Dan


----------



## PhilBernardi

Caddis,

Where do you primarily hunt in the 1/2 half of November?


----------



## just ducky

casscityalum said:


> So i cant remember and dont want to try and look through all the past pages, but when is the next meeting and if it works out with my schedule would anyone be willing to let me tag along and car pool? Im at MSU and would like to go to one of these meetings. Thanks
> 
> -Dan


It's not until first week of August I believe, because that's when they make a final recommendation on seasons to go to the NRC. And I think it's back up at Higgins Lake. If you're staying down in the Lansing area for the summer, shoot me a note. Several of us from this area attend the meetings, and I'm sure you could hitch a ride with one of us.


----------



## PhilBernardi

Dan,

Did you submit your big lake proposal when Avers asked for zone change proposals?


----------



## LoBrass

TSS Caddis said:


> I really don't care what zone the Bay is in-*THANK YOU!!*
> 
> As I've said before, a well thought out change that is right does not need much selling to gain support.-*TOTALLY AGREE*
> 
> I'm still pondering how I feel about what sounds like a CWAC member calling other CWAC members to lobby for what they want?-*UNDERSTANDABLE. PLEASE NOTE THAT WHEN I AM CALLING OTHER MEMBERS I AM EXPLAINING RRofO, OUR NEED FOR A VICE-CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY AND OTHER ISSUES OF COMMITTEE BUSINESS SO WE CAN HAVE A PRODUCTIVE MEETING. OF COURSE, I ALSO EXPLAIN OUR NEED TO ADDRESS A FEW ISSUES TO INVOKE THOUGHT AND PREPARATION TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE TOPICS DIRECTLY AND BE ABLE TO HAVE A MEETING WITHIN A SINGLE DAY. ACTING LIKE A CHAIRMAN IMO.*
> 
> To be honest, I think Waive and Branta should have permanent seats on CWAC.-*BOTH MEN WOULD BE AN ASSET. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME GREAT CITIZENS ON THE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW, JUST SAYIN'.*
> 
> I am now 99% sure I'm done with this thread.:lol: I'll be joining FPWA since they seem to represent how I feel and have been above the board in this.-:lol::lol::lol:*-HARDLY WILL THE GREAT TSS CADDIS WALK AWAY FROM THIS DISCUSSION!!!!!*
> 
> *I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT A SEAT ON THE COMMITTEE, IF THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY. MY TENURE MAY HAVE INSPIRED SOME SERIOUS CHANGES ALREADY:SHOCKED:.*


And (Roll Kid Rock's "Lonely Road of Faith"................) 


Now, I have to go to my _real _job.


----------



## just ducky

PhilBernardi said:


> Dan,
> 
> Did you submit your big lake proposal when Avers asked for zone change proposals?


Nope. Hadn't even really thought about it until the post about the Wisconsin proposal jogged my memory regarding what I dreamed up in '07. 
I don't plan on pursuing it either, but if a CWAC member or anyone else would like a copy, or just the map, let me know and I'll forward it.


----------



## Bellyup

Seems the same discussions went on last year about season dates, etc. Nothing changed then, so I don't anticipate any change this year. If history repeats itself (which seems to be true) nothing is going to happen that is real change. Michigan is about revenue and how much they can get from you. If they really cared about opportunity things would have changed many, many years ago. In the last ten years I have introduced a new hunter to waterfowling each year, sometimes more. I could go poll each one of them and I am willing to bet money I don't have that each of them would say the ducks arrive much later than the season runs. 

So since nothing is predicted to change for my area, I want to define opportunity. Michigan provides me and all SW waterfowlers opportunity to hunt. In fact they offer this to the whole state. So by definition we should be happy this opportunity exists. It has existed for forever. Now with human encroachment on native wetlands and watersheds, and downright greedy land owners these opportunities are still there, but not easy to take advantage of. There are dam few lakes in this state that are not being developed with housing around them. 

In the next 20 years I believe you will see a shift in waterfowling to nearly all big water or fields. 

The state of Michigan in regards to waterfowling is a reactive state, not a proactive state. And the mindset of those in charge seems to never change a lot. For some reason the hunter has had little voice in what happens to seasons, dates, or zones. Now I am saying this, if a shift does not occur to better support hunter success and maximize the value of the investment it takes to be an avid waterfowler, the sport will simply drop off on participation. 

It seems there is something fundamentally WRONG with how any change can happen with zones and season dates. It should not be so difficult. This is why the state is reactive and not proactive. It take years to discuss and provide hard facts and data and by then conditions have changed again.... it is an endless loop.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Bellyup said:


> Seems the same discussions went on last year about season dates, etc. Nothing changed then, so I don't anticipate any change this year. If history repeats itself (which seems to be true) nothing is going to happen that is real change. Michigan is about revenue and how much they can get from you. If they really cared about opportunity things would have changed many, many years ago. In the last ten years I have introduced a new hunter to waterfowling each year, sometimes more. I could go poll each one of them and I am willing to bet money I don't have that each of them would say the ducks arrive much later than the season runs.
> 
> So since nothing is predicted to change for my area, I want to define opportunity. Michigan provides me and all SW waterfowlers opportunity to hunt. In fact they offer this to the whole state. So by definition we should be happy this opportunity exists. It has existed for forever. Now with human encroachment on native wetlands and watersheds, and downright greedy land owners these opportunities are still there, but not easy to take advantage of. There are dam few lakes in this state that are not being developed with housing around them.
> 
> In the next 20 years I believe you will see a shift in waterfowling to nearly all big water or fields.
> 
> The state of Michigan in regards to waterfowling is a reactive state, not a proactive state. And the mindset of those in charge seems to never change a lot. For some reason the hunter has had little voice in what happens to seasons, dates, or zones. Now I am saying this, if a shift does not occur to better support hunter success and maximize the value of the investment it takes to be an avid waterfowler, the sport will simply drop off on participation.
> 
> It seems there is something fundamentally WRONG with how any change can happen with zones and season dates. It should not be so difficult. This is why the state is reactive and not proactive. It take years to discuss and provide hard facts and data and by then conditions have changed again.... it is an endless loop.


thing your not considering is this is a 5 year expire/change year. I think you will see some kind of change, whether that is a split adjustment or a line movement is left to be seen but i think you will see some tweaking. I'm pretty sure you will see 3 seperate openers (changed from last year). sept 25 (z1) oct 1st (z2) oct 7th (z3) as example. some kind of stagger.


----------



## wavie

Bellyup said:


> Seems the same discussions went on last year about season dates, etc. Nothing changed then, so I don't anticipate any change this year. If history repeats itself (which seems to be true) nothing is going to happen that is real change. Michigan is about revenue and how much they can get from you. If they really cared about opportunity things would have changed many, many years ago. In the last ten years I have introduced a new hunter to waterfowling each year, sometimes more. I could go poll each one of them and I am willing to bet money I don't have that each of them would say the ducks arrive much later than the season runs.
> 
> So since nothing is predicted to change for my area, I want to define opportunity. Michigan provides me and all SW waterfowlers opportunity to hunt. In fact they offer this to the whole state. So by definition we should be happy this opportunity exists. It has existed for forever. Now with human encroachment on native wetlands and watersheds, and downright greedy land owners these opportunities are still there, but not easy to take advantage of. There are dam few lakes in this state that are not being developed with housing around them.
> 
> In the next 20 years I believe you will see a shift in waterfowling to nearly all big water or fields.
> 
> The state of Michigan in regards to waterfowling is a reactive state, not a proactive state. And the mindset of those in charge seems to never change a lot. For some reason the hunter has had little voice in what happens to seasons, dates, or zones. Now I am saying this, if a shift does not occur to better support hunter success and maximize the value of the investment it takes to be an avid waterfowler, the sport will simply drop off on participation.
> 
> It seems there is something fundamentally WRONG with how any change can happen with zones and season dates. It should not be so difficult. This is why the state is reactive and not proactive. It take years to discuss and provide hard facts and data and by then conditions have changed again.... it is an endless loop.



This is my take on some of your points, i maybe wrong, but for what its worth. If it truely was about revenue, why havent licence fees increased across the board. When was the last time there was an increase in cost of a licence? Participation is down in all hunting related activities, esp waterfowling, and its not b/c it costs too much for a licence. Licence sales are always higher when duck production is up and the potential for a great fall flight is predicted. Just imagine if we had several restrictive years in a row, what would licence sales look like. I dont think they would raise the prices to make up for the loss in revenue.

Regarding the later migration, here is my take on ducks that migrate here after the season closes. Stats from the GMA's show that there numbers start to fall off in mid Nov, there is no influx of birds after this point (lets say its weather dependant) at least on this side of the state. If there are facts to prove this wrong i would like to see. Possibly its due to more people switching to chasing bambi instead of duck hunting. Pressure has decreased on the birds b/c more people are deer waiting, there fore they become more visable and colder temps concentrate them into specific areas. A similar complaint was argued at nauseum in AR, where they complained all the birds showed up after the season ended (i got to see this first hand). Tough hunting to the end of season then a week later there were 10s of thousands of birds using the rice fields in the area we hunted. They trapped and radio tracked birds throughout the season and found they adapted to hunting pressure and had remained in the area the entire time. There ultimate goal was to survive to breed. They hadnt migrated, they just avoided hunting pressure. People were very surprised that the birds had been there the whole time.

Unfortunately, you have to be reactive rather than proactive when your decisions on frame works in the state are dictated by the feds, and their decisions made in late summer, so you end up being reactive. I think we only have a chance every 5 yrs (correct me if i'm wrong) to make bigger changes to the system in this state.

How many avid waterfowlers do we have in this state. Those that pursue waterfowl exclusively during the season? I might guess 20% on the high side, so final decisions that influence opportunites are going to cater to the remaining 80%. We are in the minority.

Care to take a stab at how many people outside this site actually know what CWAC is and the meetings that take place regarding these final decisions that affect us as waterfowlers in this state is? My observations are that this is the underlying problem and reasons for disagreements and inconsistencies in zones, dates ect. Information is a powerful thing as long as you have access to it.

These are just my opionions, not meant to prove who is right or wrong, just something to ponder. Plus i couldnt let this fall to the 2nd pg.


----------



## just ducky

wavie said:


> ...Care to take a stab at how many people outside this site actually know what CWAC is and the meetings that take place regarding these final decisions that affect us as waterfowlers in this state is? My observations are that this is the underlying problem and reasons for disagreements and inconsistencies in zones, dates ect. Information is a powerful thing as long as you have access to it....


No argument from me. Let's just say the DNR is close when they say the number of hunters actually hunting waterfowl is around 35k. Then let's say your estimation of "active" waterfowlers is close...say 20% of the total. So we're talking about what...maybe 7k on the high side? Then, of those 7k, how many know what CWAC is, belong to any active Michigan waterfowl organizations (MDHA, SFCHA, FPWA, etc.), spend time on sites like this, or just somehow stay remotely in the loop? What...maybe 20% of that? So now we're down to around 1000? And lastly, of that 1000, how many are truly active? Maybe a few hundred if we're lucky? It's really easy to see how anyone has a hard time reaching out to this group.


----------



## Bellyup

just ducky said:


> No argument from me. Let's just say the DNR is close when they say the number of hunters actually hunting waterfowl is around 35k. Then let's say your estimation of "active" waterfowlers is close...say 20% of the total. So we're talking about what...maybe 7k on the high side? Then, of those 7k, how many know what CWAC is, belong to any active Michigan waterfowl organizations (MDHA, SFCHA, FPWA, etc.), spend time on sites like this, or just somehow stay remotely in the loop? What...maybe 20% of that? So now we're down to around 1000? And lastly, of that 1000, how many are truly active? Maybe a few hundred if we're lucky? It's really easy to see how anyone has a hard time reaching out to this group.


So last year the argument was that there are over 35K waterfowlers and they had hard scientific data that pointed to early seasons and not later seasons. That is why my opinion was diminished. To be honest, it felt like hitting a brick wall. Your rep asks what you want then proceeds to tell you how it will never happen becasue of over 35K people say no. 

While on the subject, I really don't like the idea that all these population numbers and migration dates use GMA's for their basis. There is not a major GMA on the west side. We have Todd's Farm which is a goose hunting area. So how does taking migration numbers and dates and freeze up dates from the bay and GMA's represent the west side ? How is that scientific data sited as fact when it excludes so much ? I am simply asking so I better understand. 

And I had no idea what CWAC or MUCC, or NRC was until this site. I think most waterfowlers perception is the DNR sets the rules and regs without any input from Joe Waterfowler. Perception is a hard thing to overcome once cast in the shadow. 

To be honest, this whole process is way more difficult that it shoud be.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

Bellyup said:


> To be honest, this whole process is way more difficult that it shoud be.


cwac is a good thing. for those that weren't around before cwac, imagine the DNR making dates, seasons, bag limits without no guidance or input from someone else besides what they can drum up from within themselves. Sure having broader input is great...would love it...but right now CWAC is serving as a buffer or insurance policy between the DNR and the public. Sure its a small representation but at least its a sample...vs. no sample at all.

i also don't like the idea of polling the whole waterfowl population, that population could weight heavy in one zone or one specific area and dictate the "law" for another that they have no interest in. Right now the CWAC system is in place to help that and unfortunately not everyone takes advantage of it (i.e. FPWA).

bellyup: your thoughts have been addressed at cwac and even backed and represented for you. I think if you read around the boards your rep would be Goosmanrdk and he has been pulling for the same things you have interest in. You may not agree with what he's been preaching exactly but i think its pretty close...and thats pretty solid.


----------



## just ducky

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> cwac is a good thing. for those that weren't around before cwac, imagine the DNR making dates, seasons, bag limits without no guidance or input from someone else besides what they can drum up from within themselves. Sure having broader input is great...would love it...but right now CWAC is serving as a buffer or insurance policy between the DNR and the public. Sure its a small representation but at least its a sample...vs. no sample at all...


Actually I hate to say this, but this current process of setting these regulations is really no different than any of our laws or regulations. Trust me...I deal with this stuff every day. And if ANYONE thinks the laws we pass in Michigan have input from all affected people, you are in for a rude awakening. The legislative process is very similar AND very flawed...we have subsets of interested parties, associations, organizations, AND paid lobbyists  speaking for you and I in Lansing on each and every law that is passed. And even on the chance that a certain matter goes to a ballot proposal where we get a chance to vote instead of the legislators deciding for us, how many people vote? it's another small percentage of the whole. No different than what we're talking about. The democratic process is what it is.

Shi Kid is right...having a say in things through CWAC, no matter how much you disagree with it, is better than the alternative of the DNR themselves, with input from legislators, setting every regulation for us.


----------



## Chez29

wavie said:


> Regarding the later migration, here is my take on ducks that migrate here after the season closes. Stats from the GMA's show that there numbers start to fall off in mid Nov, there is no influx of birds after this point (lets say its weather dependant) at least on this side of the state. If there are facts to prove this wrong i would like to see. Possibly its due to more people switching to chasing bambi instead of duck hunting. Pressure has decreased on the birds b/c more people are deer waiting, there fore they become more visable and colder temps concentrate them into specific areas. A similar complaint was argued at nauseum in AR, where they complained all the birds showed up after the season ended (i got to see this first hand). Tough hunting to the end of season then a week later there were 10s of thousands of birds using the rice fields in the area we hunted. They trapped and radio tracked birds throughout the season and found they adapted to hunting pressure and had remained in the area the entire time. There ultimate goal was to survive to breed. They hadnt migrated, they just avoided hunting pressure. People were very surprised that the birds had been there the whole time.
> 
> *Think you hit this dead on, this topic is raised in every state it seems. People are convinced that birds dont show up until after season, yet all the data you can find, migration # from whitefish point, along the Mississippi river, the GMA's in Michigan, satellite tracking data all shows the majority of birds migrate through much earlier than people think or are present but spread out. Once the true winter conditions hit these birds concentrate up to a few locations, have little pressure to scatter them around and give the appearence that all the ducks just showed up. My opinion but have yet to see any data that suggests otherwise.*
> 
> Care to take a stab at how many people outside this site actually know what CWAC is and the meetings that take place regarding these final decisions that affect us as waterfowlers in this state is? My observations are that this is the underlying problem and reasons for disagreements and inconsistencies in zones, dates ect. Information is a powerful thing as long as you have access to it.
> 
> *Gotta agree again, many people have no idea these discussions take place or that the CWAC even exists. I know I didnt know anything about it until about 2 years ago.*





just ducky said:


> Actually I hate to say this, but this current process of setting these regulations is really no different than any of our laws or regulations. Trust me...I deal with this stuff every day. And if ANYONE thinks the laws we pass in Michigan have input from all affected people, you are in for a rude awakening. The legislative process is very similar AND very flawed...we have subsets of interested parties, associations, organizations, AND paid lobbyists speaking for you and I in Lansing on each and every law that is passed. And even on the chance that a certain matter goes to a ballot proposal where we get a chance to vote instead of the legislators deciding for us, how many people vote? it's another small percentage of the whole. No different than what we're talking about. The democratic process is what it is.


*Look no further than the current laws about to be passed in Michigan, that gives the Government the ability to appoint emergency finance managers for cities and school districts and gives them the authority to remove elected officials and boards and to break contracts with employees. Yeah that sounds like democracy to me. They even refer to it as financial martial law. :sad:*


----------



## just ducky

Chez29 said:


> *Look no further than the current laws about to be passed in Michigan, that gives the Government the ability to appoint emergency finance managers for cities and school districts and gives them the authority to remove elected officials and boards and to break contracts with employees. Yeah that sounds like democracy to me. They even refer to it as financial martial law. :sad:*


The average person doesn't know half of what our legislators are working on, most of which will drastically affect the middle & lower income citizens. If they did, we'd be another Madison WI right now. The Nerd's daily mantra is "change hurts". Yeah, well I have some hurt for you!


----------



## Mike L

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez29 View Post
Look no further than the current laws about to be passed in Michigan, that gives the Government the ability to appoint emergency finance managers for cities and school districts and gives them the authority to remove elected officials and boards and to break contracts with employees. Yeah that sounds like democracy to me. They even refer to it as financial martial law.


The average person doesn't know half of what our legislators are working on, most of which will drastically affect the middle & lower income citizens. If they did, we'd be another Madison WI right now. The Nerd's daily mantra is "change hurts". Yeah, well I have some hurt for you!


And a "Lot" of people were complaining about Jenny, well look what you've got now. School kids and senior citizens get the purple one and his business people get a tax break......This idiot, isn't done yet either !!


----------



## Bellyup

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> cwac is a good thing. for those that weren't around before cwac, imagine the DNR making dates, seasons, bag limits without no guidance or input from someone else besides what they can drum up from within themselves. Sure having broader input is great...would love it...but right now CWAC is serving as a buffer or insurance policy between the DNR and the public. Sure its a small representation but at least its a sample...vs. no sample at all.
> 
> i also don't like the idea of polling the whole waterfowl population, that population could weight heavy in one zone or one specific area and dictate the "law" for another that they have no interest in. Right now the CWAC system is in place to help that and unfortunately not everyone takes advantage of it (i.e. FPWA).
> 
> bellyup: your thoughts have been addressed at cwac and even backed and represented for you. I think if you read around the boards your rep would be Goosmanrdk and he has been pulling for the same things you have interest in. You may not agree with what he's been preaching exactly but i think its pretty close...and thats pretty solid.


While the tune changed from last seasons debates to this years I have seen the posts. Lets just say that last year was a real tough year in the debate and it did hit a brick wall. Now I am finding some differences in data, and that concerns me a little. There is so much crap to wade through it is a wonder anyone can get anything done. Until the SW side gets as much input as the rest it will always appear lopsided. To be frank with you, i wouldn't go hunt the bay just becasue it irks me to think it is the greatest influence on my seasons than anything else. It is a thorn in the west siders side. Sad but true. 

We will see what happens this year. My prediction is still not much will change. I dare someone to prove me wrong. Check that, I triple dog dare.


----------



## anon2192012

I've come to the conclusion that change is going to happen. It may not be as quick as some of us would like, but at least the ball is rolling. That is more than can be said about the last few years.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Bellyup said:


> So last year the argument was that there are over 35K waterfowlers and they had hard scientific data that pointed to early seasons and not later seasons. That is why my opinion was diminished. To be honest, it felt like hitting a brick wall. Your rep asks what you want then proceeds to tell you how it will never happen becasue of over 35K people say no.
> 
> .


And this fact still remains TRUE. The difference this year is that we are able, cause of the FEDS changing the guidelines and us no longer being held hostage to "grandfathering" to have discussions about changing the zones. In this, it has also brought to the fore front that some tweaking to our split may be needed to better cover the hunting diversity (early and late) that this state has.
Please don't confuse that we are suddenly discussing just moving things later, cause that is not what the discussions at CWAC have been. Everything has begun to focus on better utilizing the split among other things(ie changing the zones) to accomplish both early and late hunting.


----------



## goosemanrdk

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> summary of why...(this is not directed at anyone directly)
> 
> *because if someone is gonna be critical and outspoken and heavily opinionated....best damn well educate (goto meeting) themselves on the process instead of blowing hot air up someones ass over and over about how they should be doing thier job right.*


Yeah, that!!!!!


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

wavie said:


> Obviously most cannot make the meetings, so how could one educate themselves? What are the possibilities of live streaming the meeting or is that too much effort? I'm no computer tech guy so i dont know the logistics. On another MS fourm they have streamed meetings live so it can be done.


its a great idea and i don't think something like that is too far off. right now, unless the DNR funds something like that i don't see it happening...I like the idea tho. I would be satisfied with it being audio webcasted so at least you could hear the meeting...that would be a baby step in the right direction.


----------



## casscityalum

I second the live streaming thing. Im not sure how it would be done but I know with the whole baiting debate they had the last meeting streamed live and Steve then had it on MS for us to watch  Hope to see 6" agenda go down :evilsmile


----------



## TSS Caddis

SuperBlackEagle2 said:


> Why do you guys keep harping on people to go to the meetings? To a certain extent (very small), I understand...but do you really want "everyone" to show up at these meetings? Seriously? Do you want 200 - 2000 extra voices showing up at these meetings, all obviously with differences in opinions? I mean, you actually ARE his "rep" aren't you? If there are CWAC reps all across the state, then there isn't a need for everyone to attend the meetings. I mean, he did voice his opinion to you...his rep. Why would he need to go? I guess if someone wants to see how the meetings work, then that's great. But I don't understand why it's deemed to be a bad thing, if someone didn't attend? This is not just referring to your particular post. I've seen it a bunch of times in here. Just wondering?


I see this like City, State, Federal Government, Church and now CWAC. You are best off being in the dark and under the notion that the people involved know what is for the best and are doing their best to try to serve you.

IMO, spend the $$ on a consulting company to replace CWAC and provide professional input outside of the DNR. A 3rd party that actually knows how to survey and manage wildlife and hunter utilization. Or even get the Resource Stewards involved?

The idea to take guys off the street and have them try to recommend limit, season and zone changes seems odd in the first place.

For attending meetings, that is beating a dead horse. Sort of like me meeting with my congressman on something and then bitching at the guys on Sound Off that they have no right to their opinion because they didn't do as much as me The concept of having a representative assigned to CWAC that "represents" them seems to be lost on some. Again, CWAC is supposed to represent the hunters of Michigan. Complaining that MS members are providing input via the board vs in person is absurd.


----------



## TSS Caddis

goosemanrdk said:


> Again. I don't know why the "climate" of discussions changed for this year, but I WAS AT THE MEETING and it has. Don't believe me, try coming to a meeting rather throwing up cheap shots from your arm chair!!!(ps, this is not directed at anyone in specific, just ALL of the talkers that won't walk the walk.) But, I am sure someone is going to ask me for exact numbers or tell me that I made the whole thing up.


I'm neither for nor against anything you guys are trying to do. Nor am I arm chair quarterbacking anything. I am mearly trying to make sure recommendations are well thought out and CWAC isn't so fixated on appeasing the south that they throw Sag Bay in Zone 2 with out any thought to impacts of Zone 2 or Sag Bay. I have not read all posts, but I don't recall seeing much if any thought put into that impact. I sort of agree what I think JD was getting at, people are getting side tracked with what zone the Bay is in when the bigger question might be how to better utilize the split.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid

TSS Caddis said:


> I see this like City, State, Federal Government, Church and now CWAC. You are best off being in the dark and under the notion that the people involved know what is for the best and are doing their best to try to serve you.
> 
> IMO, spend the $$ on a consulting company to replace CWAC and provide professional input outside of the DNR. A 3rd party that actually knows how to survey and manage wildlife and hunter utilization. Or even get the Resource Stewards involved?
> 
> The idea to take guys off the street and have them try to recommend limit, season and zone changes seems odd in the first place.
> 
> For attending meetings, that is beating a dead horse. Sort of like me meeting with my congressman on something and then bitching at the guys on Sound Off that they have no right to their opinion because they didn't do as much as me The concept of having a representative assigned to CWAC that "represents" them seems to be lost on some. Again, CWAC is supposed to represent the hunters of Michigan. *Complaining that MS members are providing input via the board vs in person is absurd.*


this post is full of ignorance. sorry. highlighted a false statement also. no one is complaining about MS providing input. I believe input was asked for by OP....lol who happens to be on CWAC. Complaining about someone complaining...yes thats within this thread.


----------

