# WCO #5 of 2012 Proposed Changes & Quotas



## shephard1993 (Aug 5, 2009)

Rooster,

I understand your take on the guides success, and your area has been hit hard by several guides that flat did not care about the resource. I guide in a fairly small area. I would rather be very successful for a couple hunters per season, then to be successful for a bunch of guys, and then watch the local population suffer for several years. I have been taking 2 to 3 hunters per year and have cut back to 1 or 2 the last couple, and have turned down at least twice this many for several years. I would rather my hunters had a low pressure hunt for a nice mature bear then to take a bunch of guys, and kill bears just by chance. If we could get some regulation it would allow the guys that need help to hire repitable guides, and it would weed out the guys that would kill the last bear for a buck. The bottom line is I want bears to train and hunt the hounds on, and the guiding is second priority on my list. I truely enjoy guiding, and helping guys to be successful. But my hounds, and the welfare of our bears come first.
I think the guides should be tested, and have areas and quotas. I think they should have to keep accurate, and honest records, and report regularly to the MDNR. The DNR could use the info along with the general hunting survey to better control populations. I am very glad the tetracycline test showed the truth. But we both know at least the hound hunters have been telling them the bear were in trouble for several years. I didnt, and dont beleive you heard them say at the NRC meeting (boy guys you were right, next time we will listen). If you think about the way my group, and most hound groups operate Im not sure what 30 percent will actually accomplish. We generally have 3 to 5 tags in our group, and choose to harvest 1 or 2 bears. The 1 or 2 bears could still be harvested if the group has 2 tags. We have personally decided that our group will only be harvesting 1 at most red oak bears for several years to come. We will be targeting big boar bears, and if we cant find one then we will gladly go without. In regards to the clients. I will decide if the bear meets standards. The only reason I say this is it is very hard for a new hunter to judge a bear on a bait, but with the dogs I am able to inform them. My hunters will be informed of our goal up front, and if they dont like it they can find someone else.


----------



## shephard1993 (Aug 5, 2009)

wolves said:


> I think everyone here wants a health bear population. Wildlife Division has changed their population numbers yet again late last week. How can one support a hunge 50% drop in tag numbers by relying on population numbers that are constantly changing. Until the Wildlife Division can have accurate numbers, obtained accurately is key. I don't think there is an honest bear count right now. Reduce tags 10-25% OK, sure...but 50% based on ever changing numbers is very hard to swallow for a lot of hunters who feel they have decent bear numbers in the areas they hunt.
> 
> I don't have the answers, but feel it is critical we start in 2012 and get the ball rolling on getting a bear population count we can all believe.


Wolves,

I am not trying to debate with you, and am not sure how you may take what Im going to say. It is a old saying in the hunting community that 10% of hunters harvest 90% of the game, and believe me it is true. Taking this into concideration 10 to 25 percent tag reductions right now would due nothing for our bears. Cutting tags by 30% by no means cuts the kill by 30%. Less pressure fewer baits just ups the guys with tags sucess. And as I have already stated most hound hunting groups already have many more tags than they intend to fill. Even at 30% the DNR admitts the bear will continue to decline for several years to come. Many factors go into the count. If you are waiting for a perfect bear count dont hold your breath. There are so many variables like what gets killed male verse female, mature verse immature, how many the relativly new wolves are killing, how many not being registered. To get a true count is impossible, the bottom line is the number is obviously much lower than 2007.


----------

