# Mike Avery's outdoor program



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Received an email with the audio of Mike Avery's program yesterday with Richard P, Smith as a guest on the program. Once again Smith was using his air-time to generate propaganda aimed at jacking up kill tags on the state's black bear. I heard him make the statement that hunter success was 32% last year. Seemed high to me so I went back and checked the numbers. They are as follows:

Bergland BMU 24% success, Baraga 25%, Amasa 38%, Carney 24%, Gwinn 21%, Newberry 33%, Red oak 37%, Baldwin 61%, Gladwin 23%.

If you add up percentages from all 9 BMU's is comes to 286. Divide by 9 and you get an average % of 31.777. Rounded off to 32%. I tend to believe Smith's 32% claim is intended to mislead Mike Avery's listeners into believing all 9 BMU's have a healthy bear population.

Black bear habitat is in decline in many of the BMU's. With a declining habitat primary food sources for bear are also in decline. Studies document poor feed years cause low cub reproduction the following year. This is proof enough each BMU needs to be managed individually in order to maintain a healthy bear population. To suggest kill tags should be jacked-up statewide is irresponsible.

Wonder what motivates Smith.


----------



## hawgeye (Mar 3, 2011)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Received an email with the audio of Mike Avery's program yesterday with Richard P, Smith as a guest on the program. Once again Smith was using his air-time to generate propaganda aimed at jacking up kill tags on the state's black bear. I heard him make the statement that hunter success was 32% last year. Seemed high to me so I went back and checked the numbers. They are as follows:
> 
> Bergland BMU 24% success, Baraga 25%, Amasa 38%, Carney 24%, Gwinn 21%, Newberry 33%, Red oak 37%, Baldwin 61%, Gladwin 23%.
> 
> ...


He said the lower and upper should be separate and he stated, then said it should county by county in the UP because of their differences. I never heard him say he wanted state wide kill tags increased, he said he wanted the UP tags increased.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

hawgeye said:


> He said the lower and upper should be separate and he stated, then said it should county by county in the UP because of their differences. I never heard him say he wanted state wide kill tags increased, he said he wanted the UP tags increased.


That would seem to make sense....except the Baldwin tags should be increased. It's a crock waiting 12-13-14 years to draw a tag.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Hawgeye,

Thanks for your post. I did not listen to all 46 minutes of the program, just the part about the 32% warranting an increase in kill tags. Far as I know the NLP is separate from the U.P. and does not even have the same bear season dates so I wonder what he was getting at?

With the Baldwin BMU having a 61% success rate there is merit in increasing kill tags there. -


----------



## hawgeye (Mar 3, 2011)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Hawgeye,
> 
> Thanks for your post. I did not listen to all 46 minutes of the program, just the part about the 32% warranting an increase in kill tags. Far as I know the NLP is separate from the U.P. and does not even have the same bear season dates so I wonder what he was getting at?
> 
> With the Baldwin BMU having a 61% success rate there is merit in increasing kill tags there. -


Don't quote me on that, I was just listening to it while going to my grandson's soccer game. I wasn't paying that close of attention.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Hawgeye, I sure don't fault you for that....even some of the DNR folks have a hard time listening to Smith because it irritates them.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

I listened to Smith's portion and there was some real garbage (as usual) in there. He actually said "there are more bear than deer" which is completely ludicrous. He also said that "bear predation on fawns is keeping the deer population down" and "low bear tag numbers are making it worse." Black bears eat fawns along with every other critter out there that is a carnivore. I don't understand what his obsession is with the idea that bears are a critical factor in low deer numbers. The low deer numbers certainly can be related to the three consecutive devastating winters we had..


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Even the predator prey study notes there is only a 2-week window of opportunity for black bear predation of fawns. No mention of how many new born fawns are abandoned at birth by the mother because they are too malnourished to care for them. 

Regarding the Predator/Prey Study....the study routinely runs from May through August during a time when predation is at its lowest point of the year. Wonder why there s no study being conducted during winter months when predation is at its highest? If it was not conducted during summer months they could not include bear into the mix....to take the focus off of what wolves are doing. 

I attended a meeting at Gogebic Community College on white tail predation back in August that was conducted by our Bear & Wold Specialist, Kevin Swanson. The question what is the estimated number of deer killed by a single wolf in year. The answer was 50!
And that pseudo wildlife expert Smith is blatting about black bear.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Regarding the Predator/Prey Study....the study routinely runs from May through August during a time when predation is at its lowest point of the year. Wonder why there s no study being conducted during winter months when predation is at its highest? If it was not conducted during summer months they could not include bear into the mix....to take the focus off of what wolves are doing.


It's my understanding that the study focuses on predation on WT fawns so that's why most of the work is skewed towards the summer. However, I think they still investigate all mortality on their collared animals throughout the year. So, they still have a pretty sizeable data set on what causes deer mortality throughout the year. At least, that is how I understand it. I could be wrong.


----------



## Ford 800 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mr. Smith may actually be making a good point regarding the predation rate of fawns by black bears. As some report, that it's only a two week window, consider this two week period over 90 days that fawns are being born (i.e. May - July). There are many "two week periods" in that block of 90 days, thus, making the black bear a culpable consumer, befitting the name of a "fawn killer" and making a major impact on the deer population. 

Just a point to consider....


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Stag, that's a great point. My disgust over black bear being labeled as a major fawn predator has my judgement clouded. So, thanks for straightening me out. 

There's plenty of talk here in the U.P. about gut shooting bears to save the herd...and this hype about bears feeds into it. 

Ford, even the predator/prey folks acknowledge predation on fawns by bears is not a significant factor.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

I get the impression Smith's obsession lies in hating all things DNR. Every chance he gets he states that the DNR mismanages whatever resource he's talking about at the time. There are plenty of people who agree, so he builds a following. By building the number of followers, he builds the number of people who buy his poorly written books. His motive is simple marketing for financial gain. He cares about his finances, not the resource. I'm a bit disappointed to hear Mike Avery gave him air time.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Biggbear,

I believe you are right about Smith's motivation being money. 

Years ago I figured much of Smith's information on bears came from individuals in the DNR. He apparently burned those bridges over time. Now, my information has it....he has lost credibility with those folks. 

At one time he wrote the Bear Facts Publication for MBHA, but reportedly was dumped for some of the counter productive crap he wrote in the publication. 

At last year's bear symposium I was told Smith weaseled his way in and managed to get the DNR to let him set up a table to peddle his books. That created some conflict among those attending....and my source in the DNR told me it won't happen again.

Personally, I do not believe Smith will ever reach national recognition as an outdoor writer because he does not appear to ever venture out into the big woods to experience the real outdoors. Most of his writing seems to be focused on promoting a personal agenda.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Ford 800 said:


> Mr. Smith may actually be making a good point regarding the predation rate of fawns by black bears. As some report, that it's only a two week window, consider this two week period over 90 days that fawns are being born (i.e. May - July). There are many "two week periods" in that block of 90 days, thus, making the black bear a culpable consumer, befitting the name of a "fawn killer" and making a major impact on the deer population.
> 
> Just a point to consider....


I think that's a very valid point. All fawns will be vulnerable for about two weeks after they are born and fawning occurs over a fairly wide range of time. I would guess (this is an assumption) that if you were to graph amount of fawns born against the time of the year, it would show up like a bell curve. Most of the fawns would probably be born in the middle two quartiles with the outliers on the ends. That doesn't mean that it changes the vulnerability of the fawns though. There is no doubt that black bears prey on fawns but Smith is sensationalizing this issue. His implication that the deer heard is dwindling because of bear predation is really weak. Some folks really want a scapegoat for the low deer numbers.

I deer hunt in an area with low deer density and high bear density but somehow the bears don't manage to eat all the deer. They do seem to eat all of my trailcams however.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

What's next, banning cutting hay in May, June, and July because quite a few fawns are killed in hay fields during haying time. We had a healthy bear population in this state for decades and at the same time primo white tail hunting. But, that was before extended seasons, increased bag limits, new effective equipment like trail cameras, crossbows, hi tech muzzle loaders, and some significant winter kill, and let's not forget even the DNR acknowledges an individual wolf will kill up to 50 deer a year. Of the 50 a year some does will be carrying fawn fetisus during the winter months when predation is at its highest.


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> What's next, banning cutting hay in May, June, and July because quite a few fawns are killed in hay fields during haying time. We had a healthy bear population in this state for decades and at the same time primo white tail hunting. But, that was before extended seasons, increased bag limits, new effective equipment like trail cameras, crossbows, hi tech muzzle loaders, and some significant winter kill, and let's not forget even the DNR acknowledges an individual wolf will kill up to 50 deer a year. Of the 50 a year some does will be carrying fawn fetisus during the winter months when predation is at its highest.


I agree. Healthy bear and deer populations can coexist and have coexisted in the past. I think that's what's so frustrating about these kinds of declarations by Smith.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> What's next, banning cutting hay in May, June, and July because quite a few fawns are killed in hay fields during haying time. We had a healthy bear population in this state for decades and at the same time primo white tail hunting. But, that was before extended seasons, increased bag limits, new effective equipment like trail cameras, crossbows, hi tech muzzle loaders, and some significant winter kill, and let's not forget even the DNR acknowledges an individual wolf will kill up to 50 deer a year. Of the 50 a year some does will be carrying fawn fetisus during the winter months when predation is at its highest.


If you stop with the hyperbole it might help your statement. There are and have been many ongoing studies of predator-prey relationship as far as whitetail deer are concerned. Many have shown that bear can and will be major predators as far as deer especially fawn deer mortality are concerned. Right now in the UP many are seeing what in their lives as deer hunters are historic lows in deer numbers and want to blame every predator as being at fault for this circumstance. Certainly, bears didn't cause this issue any more than hunters or extended seasons or cameras,crossbows or fancy muzzleloaders did. Management (or lack thereof) of the available wintering habitat as well as some very harsh winters have and always will be the limiting factors in whitetail deer numbers in the UP.

Now with having said that, when deer numbers are low to very low as they now are in many parts of the UP. Predators especially, especially underregulated ones (wolves,coyotes, and even bear can and will keep those numbers well below what they could be for quite some time. Smaller herds=less fawns=less food base for predators can be a recipe for slow to very slow recovery of deer numbers. Perhaps that the deer numbers are low should mean lower predator numbers so as to regulate recovery of deer as a prey species. (Including bears as significant predators of deer)


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Definition of hyperbole simply stated means "to exaggerate" I did not exaggerate on any of the facts in my post. 

According to MDNR an individual wolf is estimated to take as many as 50 deer a year. The low end estimated number of wolves in the U.P. is said to be 700. 700 X 50 = 35,000. Up until doe shooting was banned in the U.P last year....how many deer did Michigan sportsmen harvest in the U.P.? Just a wild guess on my part, but maybe twice as many. Maybe 70,00? Toss in a couple bad winters with heavy winter kill three and four years back. Maybe we could look at how many deer were killed on the highways , too. Add up all of these factors and it appears deer mortality is high. Seems we as hunters play a huge role in wildlife management and could consider reducing the deer harvest where needed. That's what the bear hunting community did to address the serious decline in bear numbers in certain parts of the state.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

So the statement about cutting hay was a fact? really I am sure I have cut a lot more hay than you and I can count the number of fawns I have run through the haybine on 1 hand and have fingers left, not to mention that I live in an area with extremely high deer numbers so the potential in that happening is far more likely than in most parts of the UP. I will guarantee that bears kill far more fawns than you are willing to talk about.. You just seem to care only about the bears and your own agendas with them. Good luck with that.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

You're hollering because you're losing....rather than trying to have a conversation where we can debate the points. And, you do make some good points, but the sarcastic stuff adds nothing to the debate.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2016)

We did pretty good the dog work was excellent. The young man with cancer passed on two small ones. He came back up with use and got a nice one. That's what was a really imported thing for our group this year. He passed as sick as he was showed how much of a sportsmen he is. He might never had another chance but he did thank goodness.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Welldriller,

That's a wonderful thing you did helping the young guy. But, very sad to learn of his passing. Very sad for his family, too. 

My sincere thanks for you and your hunting buddies for what you did.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2016)

Rooster miss understanding Riley didn't pass away he's still fighting on. He is a tough 15 year old hopefully he can beat it. First time I hunted with him and his dad sure was a pleasure nice kid wish him all the best.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Wow, thanks for clearing that up! Lots of advances in cancer treatment in the last few years. Hope it works for him.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2016)

Hoped your treatments worked out well cancer bad news. Wish the forum would email my password for welldriller . Butch my walker pup did make 9 trees before he was11months old though. I wanted to up date you on his progress I think he's gonna make a real dog.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Welldriller, I am not being treated for cancer. Just have some first hand experience with it. Sorry if I misled you.

I understand how rewarding it is to have a young dog doing such good work as your dog Butch. Means a lot more than killing bears don't it!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2016)

Rooster is killings not what's its all about for us its the dog work. Dogs like Butch don't come along often first bear in training season made the hole race. Real fast dog little girl at camp calls him butchy the bullet. I will see how he does on coyotes if we get any snow down here.


----------



## welldriller_old (Jan 23, 2005)

Finely got it figured out. Thanks for your help Steve.


----------

