# Is this rumor true?



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I had a gentleman that works at a local sports shop tell me that the DNR's plan is to phase out the drawing for turkey licenses.

He said that they are lowering the quotas for the early seasons every year and increasing the quotas in the late hunt so we can eventually just have 1 turkey season for everybody.

You guys know if this is true??

Hunt


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I havent heard that one yet, but I did hear that they are thinking of having an over the counter tag for next year because the turkey is doing so good in Michigan.


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

It's all just speculation and rumor at this point, as far as license agaents and the general public know. It's getting more liberal, just be patient and wait for some facts.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

I could only hope so. It's time to get them under control a bit here in my area.......marty


----------



## Michigan Hunter (Sep 24, 2001)

You mean to tell me I might be able to get a permit in my OWN STATE (instead of going to another to get a turkey)? So far two for two with no permit during prime hunting time.


----------



## docholliday (Feb 16, 2002)

Turkey hunters, keep your hopes up! This is a recent reply I got from the DNR when I inqired about them going to a point system for Turkey licenses.

"The entire application system may not be required next year, in fact it may not be required by fall. Currently legislation requires that the DNR hold a drawing for all turkey licenses. A bill is being worked on now that would give the DNR flexibility to either hold a drawing or not. If this passes private land licenses may go on sale over the counter and general permits will require a drawing."

Anyone interested in seeing this happen should contact the DNR and voice their support for this legislation!


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

fyi............tm 


WILD TURKEY HUNTING LICENSES

House Bill 4860 as introduced
First Analysis (10-16-01)
Sponsor: Rep. Mickey Mortimer
Committee: Conservation and Outdoor Recreation

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

In 1996, a successful ballot proposal-Proposal G-approved legislation transferring the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game from the
director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). As amended by this legislation, the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act imposes on the NRC three basic responsibilities concerning its regulation of the taking of game. First,
the NRC must utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding the taking of game, to the greatest extent possible.
Second, the NRC may issue orders regarding the taking of game only after holding a public meeting and providing an opportunity for public input.
Third, the NRC must provide a copy of any order that it issues to certain legislators-as specified in the act-no less than 30 days before issuing an
order.

Despite this transfer of power, the DNR is still charged with certain responsibilities concerning the taking of game, including the hunting of wild
turkeys. If a person wishes to hunt wild turkeys in the state, he or she must first apply for a license. The application is then entered into a lottery
designed and run by the department, which issues a certain number of licenses for each "hunt unit." A "hunt unit" can range in size from a portion of
a single county to several counties. The exact number of licenses issued per hunt unit depends upon results of research on the conditions of the wild
turkey population and judgments concerning how to most effectively manage the population in a given area. Representatives of the DNR testified
that the percentage of wild turkey hunting license applications approved has ranged from 45 percent to 100 percent in recent years; there are often
leftover licenses, which the DNR issues on a first-come, first-served basis. 

In its guide to the fall 2001 wild turkey hunting season, the DNR affirms that "hunting plays an important role in the management of turkeys by
regulating their numbers." Moreover, it distinguishes between the goals of the spring and fall hunting seasons. The goal of the spring season is "to
maximize hunter opportunity while maintaining a satisfactory hunting experience." Maintaining a satisfactory hunting experience demands a
"conservative harvest approach," which is limited to "toms" or "gobblers"-i.e., male turkeys-and thus allows the "continued growth and expansion
of the wild turkey population." The DNR considers the three hunts during the spring to be "sport hunting," and the last of the spring hunts is, more
or less, a "guaranteed hunt," in which all qualified applicants receive a license. The goal of the fall season is "to stabilize or reduce wild turkey
numbers in certain areas of the state to meet local goals based on habitat conditions and public attitudes." The DNR establishes license quotas to
harvest the desired number of turkeys, and encourages hunters to hunt female turkeys, or hens, in the fall. During the fall season, the DNR is
primarily concerned with reducing the population of wild turkeys in anticipation of harsh winter conditions, when many turkeys might otherwise die
from starvation. 

Due to the success of bringing back the wild turkey population in many areas of the state (the wild turkey population has risen from 6,000 in 1979 to
140,000 today), the DNR maintains that it is no longer necessary to have a lottery in some areas. In fact, the state currently has some hunt periods
where everyone who applies is guaranteed to receive a license. The problem now appears to be that there are not enough turkey hunters in
Michigan! Consequently, legislation has been proposed that would allow the NRC, using scientific data, to determine where and when a lottery was
not needed in the state. 

THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:

Currently, Part 435 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), concerning hunting and fishing licenses, requires that
applications for wild turkey hunting licenses be entered into a lottery designed and operated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A
person selected in the lottery is authorized to purchase a license. [The resident fee is $15 while the nonresident fee is $69.] House Bill 4860 would
amend the act to authorize the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to issue an order requiring that all applications for wild turkey hunting
licenses be entered into a lottery, or to issue an order requiring that all applications for wild turkey hunting licenses for certain geographic areas had
to be entered into a lottery. If the NRC issued an order, the lottery would still be designed and run by the DNR. 

Moreover, the bill would specify that, in issuing such an order, the NRC was subject to a provision of the act (324.40113a) that grants it exclusive
authority to regulate the taking of game. 

In addition, the bill would eliminate the current requirement that requires the DNR to charge each applicant a nonrefundable application fee of up to
$4. The bill would replace this requirement to specify, instead, that the department could charge a nonrefundable application fee not to exceed $4 for
each wild turkey hunting license application that was entered into the lottery.

Finally, the law currently requires that $3 of each nonrefundable $4 application fee be used for scientific research, biological survey work on wild
turkeys, and wild turkey management. The bill would specify, instead, that the portion of each application fee set aside for this purpose would be the
"amount of the application fee, if any, but not more than $3." 



Ballot Proposal G. 1996 witnessed the introduction of Ballot Proposal G, which was adopted by the voters in the November, 1996, election. Prior to
1992, the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) -- a seven-member commission appointed by the governor -- was responsible for managing and
protecting the state's natural resources, wildlife, and environmental quality. The NRC also appointed the director of the DNR, who, in turn, was
responsible for carrying out department policy and program development under the overall direction of the commission. However, in 1991, under
Executive Order 1991-31, the governor created a "new" Department of Natural Resources, which transferred most of the statutory authority,
powers, and duties, of the commission to the director of the new DNR. Consequently, the director of the DNR became responsible for managing and
protecting the state's natural resources, wildlife, and environmental protection, and the NRC retained its authority to appoint the director of the
department and provide policy guidance. The power to appoint the chair and all other members of the commission remained with the governor. The
ballot proposal transferred exclusive decision-making authority over hunting back to the NRC. The proposal stated that the commission would have
to utilize principles of sound scientific management to the greatest extent practicable in making decisions regarding the taking of game; and that any
issuance of orders made by the commission regarding the taking of game could be made only after holding a public meeting in which the public had an
opportunity for input. 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The House Fiscal Agency (HFA) estimates that the bill would have an indeterminate impact on state funds. At present, licenses are granted through
a lottery system. The bill would allow, rather than require, the Natural Resources Commission to provide turkey licenses through a lottery. The
Department of Natural Resources would not collect the current $4.00 application fee if a lottery drawing were not held. (10-02-01)

ARGUMENTS:

For:

In 1996, Ballot Proposal G allowed voters in the state to decide who they wished to have in the decision-making seat in regards to regulating the
taking of game - the director of the DNR, as was current policy; the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), which historically had been accessible to
the public; or a citizen group that had collected signatures on a petition, that subsequently appeared on the 1996 ballot as Proposal D, calling for a
ban on certain bear hunting practices. The voters approved Ballot Proposal G, granting exclusive authority over hunting in the Natural Resources
Commission (NRC). Prior to 1992, the NRC had been responsible for managing and protecting the state's natural resources, wildlife, and
environmental quality. However, in 1991, under Executive Order 1991-31, the governor created a "new" Department of Natural Resources, which
transferred most of the statutory authority, powers, and duties, of the commission to the director of the new DNR. Ballot Proposal G transferred
decision-making authority over all hunting back to the NRC. (See Background Information, for detailed information.)

Although Ballot Proposal G stemmed from a heated controversy over opposing methods of bear hunting, it was generally agreed at the time that the
goal in all hunting regulations should be to have healthy wildlife populations, accomplished through consultation with experts in the field. Hunting
methods and kill quotas, it was said, should be established based on scientific principles and sound biological facts, and not on emotions. As such, the
proposal specifically stated that the commission would have to utilize principles of sound scientific management to the greatest extent practicable in
making decisions regarding the taking of game; and that any issuance of orders made by the commission regarding the taking of game could be made
only after holding a public meeting in which the public had an opportunity for input. At the time, representatives from the DNR expressed the belief
that the stabilization of the bear population, the return of the Kirkland Warbler, and increased number of wild turkey were evidence that current
methodology and allowed hunting practices were indeed based on scientific principles. 

Proposal G simply allowed current practices to continue yet provided the public with greater input, since, under the proposal, the NRC was required
to receive input from citizens before issuing orders. Now, however, conditions have changed. There is an abundance of turkeys around the state,
everyone who applies for a license receives one, and many say the lottery is no longer needed. Supporters of the bill suggest that there is
unnecessary tension between the law's requirement that the NRC adhere to "principles of sound scientific management" of wild turkeys and the
requirement that the DNR hold a lottery for license applications. Some people believe that the NRC should be able to decide whether to hold a
lottery for licenses or to issue licenses to all qualified applicants, depending on its wild turkey management goals. The bill would affirm this change in
policy and let the NRC decide whether to have an open season or to require permits: if there was an abundance of turkeys in part of the state in any
season, the NRC could allow everyone to obtain a license; but if there was a dearth of turkeys in that portion of the state, then the NRC could still
require that a lottery be held.

Response:

Management of game and hunting seasons has always been a duty of the DNR. Over the years, the department has sought to increase populations
of certain game species or maintain game levels through various means, including habitat restoration and maintenance, and rearing and hatchery
programs. Managing habitat and hunting seasons requires funding, part of which the department receives through fees charged for hunting and
fishing licenses. Fee increases to cover the demand for departmental services have been a part of DNR history since the 1930s, although
controversy concerning these increases, as well as the administration of the licensing program, has continued to be an issue. The bill, however, does
not require that the Natural Resources Commission hold the wild turkey lottery drawings currently conducted by the department. Instead, it specifies
that the NRC may hold a lottery. Moreover, if the NRC did hold a lottery, it could conduct one within a smaller geographic area, rather than
statewide. Consequently, the department would lose the current revenues it receives from $4.00 application fees. This loss of funds is especially
important because it has been predicted that the department will be in a deficit in two years, due to rising costs and lower than expected revenues.
Should this happen, the department expects to have to lay off field personnel to balance its budget.

Against:

In the September, 2001, issue of its magazine, "Michigan Turkey Tracks," the Michigan Wild Turkey Hunters Association (MWTHA) commented
on the history of wild turkey management in Michigan. According to one article, wild turkeys were not found throughout the state during the early
1980s, and the DNR no longer funded winter surveys on this resource. Huge flocks covering large areas disappeared, and the association speculated
that an avian disease might have been responsible. In 1988, at the association's urging, the DNR established a wild turkey management cooperator
patch program. The program is designed to encourage successful hunters to bring their turkeys into field offices for random testing of blood samples,
body parts, or any other biological information, and serves as an annual biological, physical checkup of wild turkeys. 

The association credits this program, and other practices initiated by the association, with the success of bringing back the wild turkey from its 1979
population of 6,000 to its current population of 140,000. However, in testimony before the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee,
representatives of the association voiced opposition to the bill, and pointed out that, according to the DNR's own surveys, 87 percent of the hunters
in Michigan are happy with the current system. They also pointed out that wild turkey hunters need "elbow room." The current system, which held
lotteries held in various parts of the state, was designed to accommodate this need by spreading out hunters across the state. Under the bill, however,
the association believes that hunters would lose this opportunity should the NRC elect not to hold a lottery in a particular season.

The association's opposition is based upon the conviction that turkey hunters need more space to hunt, and that turkey hunting is different from other
types of hunting. In deer hunting, for example, the best hunting can often be found on the first day of the hunting season, since deer usually stay in
the area where they find food. However, the flight of turkeys takes them over wide areas, so the best hunting might well be found later in the season.
Turkey hunters like the current system because it requires that hunters select one of three seasons, thus spreading out the pressure to hunt over a
longer period of time. In addition, a system which does not heavily favor most hunting on opening day also is important with regard to hunter safety.
The association also points out that, currently, 75 percent of wild turkey hunting is conducted in Zone 2 of the state (the DNR has divided the state
into three zones, with Zone 1 being in the Upper Peninsula, Zone 2 in the northern lower peninsula, and Zone 3 in the southern lower peninsula). While
maintaining that this percentage can be absorbed under the current lottery system, with wild turkey hunting split into three seasons, the MWTHA
asserts that such would not be the case should the NRC decide not to hold a lottery during a season. Then, Zone 2 would be overcrowded. Finally, the
association also opposes the bill because, it maintains, its provisions would remove legislative control over the lottery process. The WTHA strongly
believes that decisions regarding turkey hunting should be made locally by DNR biologists, and that decisions over the turkey lottery and the ability
to set quotas should be set with local knowledge and input from local hunters. 

POSITIONS:

The Department of Natural Resources supports the bill. (10-15-01)

The Michigan Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation submitted testimony to the House committee supporting the bill. (10-11-01)

The Michigan Farm Bureau supports the bill. (10-15-01)

The Mid-Michigan Long Spurs Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation supports the bill. (10-15-01)

The Michigan United Conservation Clubs has no position on the bill. (10-15-01) 

The Michigan Wild Turkey Hunters Association opposes the bill. (10-15-01)

Analyst: J. Caver/R. Young
________________________________________________


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

The MWTHA opposes the bill, but some of their logic seems flawed. What is that about turkey hunting being different than deer hunting because their flight can take them over wide areas? Like deer, they stay near their food source, and they seldom fly more than a 1/4 mile and usually only when spooked, not as their standard mode of transportation.

Because of that weak reasoning, and because Michigan chapters of the NWTF support the bill, I think I do too.

Thanks for the post, Tom.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

I can see the positives within this bill. Having said that, is anyone concerned about loosing the quality of our turkey hunt? 

I can just hear the trespasser exclaim when i pinch them------- 

"Well, if the DNR doesn't want the turkeys killed why did they sell me a license?" 

I'm just trying to look at things from the other side.

On the other hand sometimes I get more of a kick busting interlopers than I do hunting wildlife. Right Ray?

tm


----------



## docholliday (Feb 16, 2002)

The reply that I received from the DNR was in response to a suggestion that I made to them regarding the current lottery system. I have gone both ways on the logic or lack thereof concerning opening a general season for Turkeys. I've been at this game for 15 years now, and my success in drawing an early season permit for the past 7 years has been exactly zero. Very frustrating. I'm not fortunate enough to own property, so I have to look to state land for my opportunities. My dad lives in Lake City, which is in area K. He feeds them all year around and would like a chance to hunt them on the state land bordering his property. The only problem is, that by not drawing an early permit, we get hosed. The birds get pounded before we can get a crack at them. Our hearts sink every time we hear a shot in late April, I even had bird shot right in front of me last year during the second season while I was out scouting for our late season hunt. Another gobbler that wouldn't be there for us in May. Pardon my rant. My proposal was to have the DNR utilize the point system for Turkey drawings like they do for Bear. This would provide a more even playing field for hunters to be drawn on a more regular basis especially in the larger areas of public property in zone 2. The number of permits awarded would not have to increase, therefore maintaining the current management quotas. The cost to the DNR would be very low, as the technology is already in place (I know, I asked). The other part of the response from the DNR that I didn't post previously was this: 
"Thank you for your suggestion. A point system for turkey licenses has not been started nor will it be for a couple of reasons. First all applicants are already guaranteed a license if they apply for a permit. Hunt period 234 is automatically provided for anyone who applies and is unsuccessful, it is up to the individual to take advantage of this opportunity." While this is true, it still doesn't address my issue, which is that we have to sit by for 2 weeks while the birds on the state land next door get hammered!

Gobble, gobble,


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

After reading the House synopsis over again I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing to worry about. This is a good bill. It will not put one more or one less turkey permit out there but it will eliminate unnecessary application fees, paper work and hassles that we put up with. This is a good deal for turkey hunters and I think we should call our State Senators and support it.


tm


----------

