# Another planted excuse for kiling off more bears



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Now its the bee keepers wanting more bears harvested claiming hive damage. States like Virginia have developed electric fence designs that repel bears. So, my advice to bee keepers...if you want to be in the bee business learn how to set-up your hives like they do in other states.

I need to add, all this hog wash about bears being a major predator of fawns....here in the deep snow country of the NW U.P. stopping the doe shooting has produced a significant increase in fawns. I am seeing multiple fawns every time I go to the woods.
More bucks, too.


----------



## hear fishie fishie (Feb 26, 2015)

Bee keeper between Mio and Fairview has his hives enclosed in an e fence this year. His hives are located near M-33 across the road from a swamp.


----------



## buckman66 (Nov 3, 2004)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Now its the bee keepers wanting more bears harvested claiming hive damage. States like Virginia have developed electric fence designs that repel bears. So, my advice to bee keepers...if you want to be in the bee business learn how to set-up your hives like they do in other states.
> 
> I need to add, all this hog wash about bears being a major predator of fawns....here in the deep snow country of the NW U.P. stopping the doe shooting has produced a significant increase in fawns. I am seeing multiple fawns every time I go to the woods.
> More bucks, too.


You are spot on Rooster. Stop the Doe killing and the herd can rebound. A older doe with a few years experience knows where to give birth and hide those fawns. Sure bears get a few but this Spring / Summer is a great indicator what a mild winter and NO antlerless harvest can do! I'm seeing many fawns in Iron County. Positive signs for the future.


----------



## Ford 800 (Jan 5, 2010)

More fawn sightings could be due to lower bear numbers as some have complained about. It could be an example of the prey/predator model. Classic example is the wolf/moose population on Isle Royale.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

I agree completely with rooster and buckman. That is why I always draw a doe tag and never use it, actually never buy it. You can not increase the herd if you keep shooting off the breeding stock.

Even with my not shooting does the deer numbers are not increasing that much as the neighbors are those that think, if it is brown it is down. Add into that the farmers that think one deer is two to many.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Yea bears are real killers of deer. I think it's the other way around. You can clearly see this buck trying to sneak up on a bear.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> Yea bears are real killers of deer. I think it's the other way around. You can clearly see this buck trying to sneak up on a bear.
> View attachment 269885


you better get the fly bait out..lol


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

One of the biologist's who's name is not going to be exposed stated the bureaucrats in the DNR do not listen to his harvest recommendations on bear. His input is ignored, and he is told what to recommend. That's a serious violation of PA 281 requiring sound science management.

We cannot allow the DNR and NRC to ignore the law and continue trying to morph in the deceptive term "social science." No where in PA 281 is the term "sound science" even noted.

Could be The Senate Natural Resources Committee needs to begin monitoring the NRC's rulings and require documentation showing the sound science their decisions are based on. To my recollection the NRC has never been held accountable. Maybe it is time as Michigan has its own swamp to drain...and our legislature needs to make sure both the NRC and the DNR follow the law as it is written in PA 281.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> One of the biologist's who's name is not going to be exposed stated the bureaucrats in the DNR do not listen to his harvest recommendations on bear. His input is ignored, and he is told what to recommend. That's a serious violation of PA 281 requiring sound science management.
> 
> We cannot allow the DNR and NRC to ignore the law and continue trying to morph in the deceptive term "social science." No where in PA 281 is the term "sound science" even noted.
> 
> Could be The Senate Natural Resources Committee needs to begin monitoring the NRC's rulings and require documentation showing the sound science their decisions are based on. To my recollection the NRC has never been held accountable. Maybe it is time as Michigan has its own swamp to drain...and our legislature needs to make sure both the NRC and the DNR follow the law as it is written in PA 281.


I am not following your statements here. When I look up pa 281 it is a marijuana law. Are you referring to pa 377 referendum proposal G?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Steve thanks for correcting me on my mistake with the Public Act number. Although, I need to mention, I was not referring to Proposal G. The bill I noted was passed about two years ago granting the NRC full authority of Michigan's fish & wildlife. Part of the intent in the bill was to allow the NRC to establish a wolf season if/when wolves are delisted. The bill also clearly states Michigan's fish & wildlife will be managed using the best sound science. 

In my opinion both the DNR and NRC are desperate to kill the sound science mandate like they did with Proposal G. This is a big deal....and violating this provision should not be tolerated. 

Anybody know the correct PA number?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Steve thanks for correcting me on my mistake with the Public Act number. Although, I need to mention, I was not referring to Proposal G. The bill I noted was passed about two years ago granting the NRC full authority of Michigan's fish & wildlife. Part of the intent in the bill was to allow the NRC to establish a wolf season if/when wolves are delisted. The bill also clearly states Michigan's fish & wildlife will be managed using the best sound science.
> 
> In my opinion both the DNR and NRC are desperate to kill the sound science mandate like they did with Proposal G. This is a big deal....and violating this provision should not be tolerated.
> 
> Anybody know the correct PA number?


The issue with "best sound science" is that is a very subjective term. Science itself is never definitive and studies can be interpreted with different results depending on what question you are trying to answer.....especially if those questions are coming from different points of view.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Steve, I agree with you 100%. That's why I used the word blatant when bringing up the point of an incident where the NRC hypothetically would purposely disregard sound science.

An example would be when one of the NRC commissioner's requested an increase in kill tags for the Bergland BMU based on trail camera photos from around his camp. If that's all it takes to determine bear numbers there would be no need for tetracycline studies. Making it 
even more blatant, my information has it the NRC chairman backed this guy in supporting an increase in kill tags for the Bergland BMU. I sent an email the the chairman expressing my concern over his support for this kind of political bear management. He never responded.

After we circulated all those petitions to get our legislature to pass legislation granting the NRC total authority over our fish & wildlife....this kind of crap is a real dishonorable act by certain individuals in the NRC. This swamp needs draining, too.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> One of the biologist's who's name is not going to be exposed stated the bureaucrats in the DNR do not listen to his harvest recommendations on bear. His input is ignored, and he is told what to recommend. That's a serious violation of PA 281 requiring sound science management.
> 
> We cannot allow the DNR and NRC to ignore the law and continue trying to morph in the deceptive term "social science." No where in PA 281 is the term "sound science" even noted.
> 
> Could be The Senate Natural Resources Committee needs to begin monitoring the NRC's rulings and require documentation showing the sound science their decisions are based on. To my recollection the NRC has never been held accountable. Maybe it is time as Michigan has its own swamp to drain...and our legislature needs to make sure both the NRC and the DNR follow the law as it is written in PA 281.


yes Yes YES ! And it needs to be applied to all things the NRC has their hands on.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Now its the bee keepers wanting more bears harvested claiming hive damage. States like Virginia have developed electric fence designs that repel bears. So, my advice to bee keepers...if you want to be in the bee business learn how to set-up your hives like they do in other states.
> 
> I need to add, all this hog wash about bears being a major predator of fawns....here in the deep snow country of the NW U.P. stopping the doe shooting has produced a significant increase in fawns. I am seeing multiple fawns every time I go to the woods.
> More bucks, too.


Rooster you've got more conspiracy theories than the X-files.. Yes, bear do damage hives and yes it is an expensive loss when they do and no those electric fences don't always deter the ones that are determined to get at the hives.. I have a couple of good friend who are major producers of MI honey and pollinators for many fruit farmers, my wife even works as an accountant for one apiary.. Also hard to believe but there are parts of this state that have too many bear for what the social carrying capacity is and yes this does matter. When there are as many problem bears as there are in parts of the Baldwin unit.. Problem is that a lot of the problem bears are off limits to hunters as they are sows with cubs.. I would concede though that there are areas where there could/should be more bears, it's just not everywhere..


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

FullQuiver said:


> Rooster you've got more conspiracy theories than the X-files.. Yes, bear do damage hives and yes it is an expensive loss when they do and no those electric fences don't always deter the ones that are determined to get at the hives.. I have a couple of good friend who are major producers of MI honey and pollinators for many fruit farmers, my wife even works as an accountant for one apiary.. Also hard to believe but there are parts of this state that have too many bear for what the social carrying capacity is and yes this does matter. When there are as many problem bears as there are in parts of the Baldwin unit.. Problem is that a lot of the problem bears are off limits to hunters as they are sows with cubs.. I would concede though that there are areas where there could/should be more bears, it's just not everywhere..


But they aren't everywhere. Seems they're a problem at a local level, not even county. So when we have huge BMU's, we are targeting bear over the whole region, not just where the social side is a problem.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree. The BMU's need to be broken up, especially in the LP


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Must be something unique about folks in Michigan being more intolerant with black bears than states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Both states have more than twice the bears we have and their wildlife departments are not pumping out excuses why they need to kill off bears.
.
Fullquiver....Its fine with me for you to post an opposing view point. It makes for a healthy debate of the issues. But, sure wish you would do it with the sarcasm.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Rooster Cogburn said:


> Must be something unique about folks in Michigan being more intolerant with black bears than states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Both states have more than twice the bears we have and their wildlife departments are not pumping out excuses why they need to kill off bears.
> .
> Fullquiver....Its fine with me for you to post an opposing view point. It makes for a healthy debate of the issues. But, sure wish you would do it with the sarcasm.


I don't know what the solution is Rooster. The white oak plan might have been good without the tags for landowners that we're being demanded.

We had a bunch of nuisance complaints from right close around Higgins lake this year. The lake fronters were pretty freaked out. There's public land close enough to hunt them, but a lack of hunters.

That's kinda the root of why I think the NLP zones need to be broke up. To add more pressure to areas with low tolerance, by people who are less excepting of bears. It would be to our long range benefit.

Maybe the DNR could come up with a way to advertise areas like this, to those who draw a tag for the unit. To encourage added pressure where needed. That may be an easier solution.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

I am wanting to hunt and its getting frustrating waiting on a tag. I have 11 points going into next year. But by the time rolls around I will be lucky to pull one before 15 points.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I agree. The BMU's need to be broken up, especially in the LP


I agree we need the white oak BMU because it's mostly private land.


----------

