# DNR to host an informational meeting on 3/31/12



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

*DNR hosts informational meeting on bear license quotas March 31 in Marquette*
Contact: Adam Bump, 517-373-1263 or Debbie Munson Badini, 906-226-1352 
Agency: Natural Resources	


March 23, 2012

The Department of Natural Resources will host an informational meeting to discuss proposed changes to bear hunting license quotas on Saturday, March 31 from 10 a.m. to noon in Marquette. The meeting will take place in the Brule Room at Northern Michigan University, located at 2101 University Center, Marquette.

Three proposals are currently before the Natural Resources Commission that would determine how many bear licenses will be available to hunters in 2012.

DNR Wildlife Division staff will provide a presentation on black bear population monitoring techniques and population trends in the Upper Peninsula, and will explain proposed changes to the bear license quotas in detail, in addition to answering questions from the public.

NRC commissioners J.R. Richardson, of Ontonagon, and John Madigan, of Munising, will be present to discuss the proposals with meeting attendees. The proposals will be eligible for NRC action at the Commission's April 5 meeting in Lansing.

For more information about the bear license quota proposals and informational meeting, contact DNR bear specialist Adam Bump at 517-373-1263. The March presentation to the Natural Resources Commission on DNR black bear populations and proposed license quota changes can be found online at www.michigan.gov/nrc.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. For more information, go to www.michigan.gov/dnr.


----------



## irishmanusa (Mar 10, 2009)

Thanks for the information! Hope someone who attends can give us a summary.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Here is a link to a power point presentation (minus the audio) from the 3/8/12 meeting. It may be what will be presented???? http://www.michigan.gov/documents/d..._Models_8_March_2012_Winterstein_379112_7.pdf


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

Yes, whoever is able to attend please lets us know if anything new is brought at this meeting. With Marquette being an 8 to 9 drive from here, I doubt I will be going.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

We hunt bear in the NLP also.....A meeting here would be nice, They could have it at their own Conference center here at Higgins lake.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

It only makes sense to have the meeting some where in the UP; that is where a majority of the bear hunting takes place. Nearly 90% of the available bear tags are for UP BMUs.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Regardless of which highway the MDNR staff take's heading back downstate they will pass within a couple miles of the MDNR R.A.M. Center, which is dead center of the NLP. It wouldnt take much effort to have a second meeting there, Not only for NLP hunters but for LP hunters who hunt the UP.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Michigan has a lot more stakeholders who live in the UP and have to deal with bears than there are LP bear hunters. There is not a year that goes by that I don't have some kind of damage caused by bears. Nuisance bear reports always comes into play with the determination of quotas along with tribal member needs. I know bear hunting is a what's in it for me sport but the DNR/NRC also has to be concerned with social issues.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Michigan has a lot more stakeholders who live in the UP and have to deal with bears than there are LP bear hunters. *There is not a year that goes by that I don't have some kind of damage caused by bears*. Nuisance bear reports always comes into play with the determination of quotas along with tribal member needs. I know bear hunting is a what's in it for me sport but the DNR/NRC also has to be concerned with social issues.


The same can be said about the private land areas in Red Oak...The unit is too big. Not enough bear on public lands and too many on private.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Michigan has a lot more stakeholders who live in the UP and have to deal with bears than there are LP bear hunters. There is not a year that goes by that I don't have some kind of damage caused by bears. Nuisance bear reports always comes into play with the determination of quotas along with tribal member needs. I know bear hunting is a what's in it for me sport but the DNR/NRC also has to be concerned with social issues.


I am not suggesting moving the meeting, I am suggesting a second meeting in the NLP to adress Red Oak, Baldwin, and Gladwin BMU's. And also Lower penninsula residents who have an interest in the UP units. It's a long drive to Marquette and these days the price of gas is going to exclude most of the LP residents. The MDNR has their own facility right here with lodging, dining etc. It's not like its going to break their bank or something.


----------



## PINKSTEEL (Jan 12, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> I am not suggesting moving the meeting, I am suggesting a second meeting in the NLP to adress Red Oak, Baldwin, and Gladwin BMU's. And also Lower penninsula residents who have an interest in the UP units. It's a long drive to Marquette and these days the price of gas is going to exclude most of the LP residents. The MDNR has their own facility right here with lodging, dining etc. It's not like its going to break their bank or something.


100% agree NLP should have a meeting for BMU's as well, not because there is a problem now but because the best way to learn how to manage bear populations is to learn from history whether the out come of the choices are good or bad and the UP has more history to teach the LP what to expect and how to deal with future concerns. There's no doubt that the bear population is rising very fast in the LP and every problem the U.P. has will be amplified do to the higher human population in the LP and smaller wooded lots. Better to prepare now than be overwhelmed later.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> I am not suggesting moving the meeting, I am suggesting a second meeting in the NLP to adress Red Oak, Baldwin, and Gladwin BMU's. And also Lower penninsula residents who have an interest in the UP units. It's a long drive to Marquette and these days the price of gas is going to exclude most of the LP residents. The MDNR has their own facility right here with lodging, dining etc. It's not like its going to break their bank or something.


Lansing hosted the 1st meeting they will also host the 3rd meeting and now you say you want a 4th meeting to be held elsewhere in the LP. I don't get it.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Lansing hosted the 1st meeting they will also host the 3rd meeting and now you say you want a 4th meeting to be held elsewhere in the LP. I don't get it.


Lansing is 3 hours south of Red Oak. Many of us that hunt the unit live in the unit not in the south.


----------



## PINKSTEEL (Jan 12, 2008)

Gaylord or Kalkaska would be good spots


----------



## jeffbearhunter (Mar 9, 2012)

you guess complaining about it being to far, i know alot of guys from the U.P. that drove alot longer than 3 hours to go to lansing. you need to quite making excuses why you don't go to meetings and just go. quite whining and go to the meetings and help our bear population rather than sit on the computer and blab about what your opinion of what should be done, go and let your voice be heard.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Just got back from the meeting. Although the DNR did give an estimate of total up bear they did approximate eup and wup ..about 7,000 bear left(up). A 30% tag reduction will result in about 1200 bear harvested statewide this year. Even utilizing option one (30% reduction) will result in further lowering the statewide bear population. I personally encouraged sound science and suggested a deeper cut based on current population. The three options were based on outdated information. The wildlife division( from my observations and opinion in the last users group meeting) was to attempt to "increase" the bear population statewide. Now all of the proposed tag allocations will further decrease an already jeopardized black bear population in the state that once boasted "healthy" bear numbers! On a positive note I feel that the DNR is moving in the direction of fixing our resource that we all enjoy. I am encouraged that we are on the way to proper bear management.


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------

