Post by ridge on Mar 18, 2016 14:00:21 GMT -5
2010 Michigan Deer Management Plan
Was it Followed?
I have been an avid and passionate deer hunter since 1982. For the last three years I have not hunted deer in Michigan as an expression of my dissatisfaction with the extreme antler point restrictions, APR’s, that have made their way into our deer hunting regulations in many areas of the great state of Michigan. I totally believe that many of these regulations have been adopted through manipulation and perpetrated by fraud, that these extreme regulations advantage some hunters at the expense of others, are unethical and are NOT supported by the majority of hunters nor the non-hunting population of Michigan residents, that they have contributed to the poor retention and recruitment rates of Michigan deer hunters and that part of this retention problem stems from the resource population decline as a result of overharvest of antlerless deer in many areas of Michigan.
In 2010 the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) was presented with a roadmap or management guide for white-tail deer in Michigan. This guide was a comprehensive look at management practices that were considered workable and acceptable to Michigan deer hunters, our non-hunting citizens and our resource populations. This guide took over a year of extensive meetings by the Michigan Deer Advisory Team, (MDAT), consisting of twenty-five stakeholder groups, and public sessions to gather information and opinions from the non-hunting public. The result of this extensive process was the report, “Recommendations for Deer Management in Michigan”, that was presented to the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Michigan Deer Advisory Team in November of 2009. This report was used by the Department, especially John Niewoonder, to write the above mentioned roadmap or guide, “2010 Michigan Deer Management Plan”, (MDMP).
When this MDMP was approved by the Director, Rebecca A. Humphries on May 6, 2010, I believe that Commissioners Richardson and Nichols were the only current members who were on the Commission. I encourage those who have not read this 2010 MDMP to do so, as it is the strategic plan for current deer management in the state.
Currently, there is an agenda that has crept into deer management in Michigan that is contrary to the 2010 MDMP in several areas. This divisive agenda, as noted above, is Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions or MAR’s, the promotion of extreme regulatory changes to promote hunting for big antlers instead of table fare.
The 2010 MDMP sets forth strategic guidelines to be adopted for regulating deer hunting in Michigan. They include, but are not limited to, ETHICS IN HUNTING, HUNTING FOR SUSTINENCE, and PROMOTION OF RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT AND EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO THE NON-HUNTING COMMUNITY SO THAT DEER HUNTING REMAINS SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE. Although antler point restrictions are mentioned only once, (page 20, 4.1.3) in the MDMP as an operational possibility to encourage antlerless harvest, they are viewed as divisive when used in a mandatory fashion. I believe the adoption of MAR’s in any form in Michigan goes directly against the strategic guidelines found in the 2010 MDMP, and here is why.
MAR’s vs ETHICS,
The MDAT struggled with the subject matter of ETHICS in hunting. Every group but one, I’ll let you guess who, wanted to include ETHICS in the MDMP as a responsibility of the MDNR to determine. I fought against letting the MDNR have the sole responsibility of determining “HUNTER ETHICS”. Whose ETHICS would they approve and whose would they not. Although hunting ETHICS are very important, I refuse to give any government entity the responsibility of determining ETHICS. The subject was tabled until the second day at the Ralph A. MacMillan Center, when Amy Spray Trotter offered the Boone and Crockett definition of “HUNTER ETHICS”. (Page 24 of the MDMP) The Boone and Crockett “HUNTER ETHICS” is based on the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, NAWCM, established with the help of Theodore Roosevelt and other early conservationists for the protection of wildlife resources and habitat. The NAWCM tenets are explained more fully through a set of guidelines known as the, “Seven Sisters for Conservation”. Only six are listed in the MDMP, the seventh “Sister” was left out of the MDMP, hopefully unintentionally. The seventh “Sister” titled, Non-Frivolous Use” reads, “In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for FOOD and FUR, SELF DEFENSE and PROPERTY PROTECTION. LAWS RESTRICT AGAINST the CASUAL KILLING MERELY for ANTLERS, HORNS and FEATHERS. This tells me that manipulating our deer hunting regulations to advantage antler hunters at the expense of sustenance hunting is unethical and should be revisited by the NRC.
MAR’s vs Hunting for Sustenance/Food
Although this subject is mentioned in the first guideline I believe it is important enough to be discussed separately. Sustenance hunting has been the only ethical reason to harvest animals since the day Noah stepped out of the Ark. Today, it is the main reason a vast majority of hunter’s hunt and the reason eighty percent of non-hunters moderately or strongly support hunting, for table fare. (Less than thirty percent support hunting for “sport” or for “trophies”) Native Americans living in Michigan thought “sustenance hunting” so important that they had this statement included in the MDMP, (Page6, 2.6), Tribal considerations
Was it Followed?
I have been an avid and passionate deer hunter since 1982. For the last three years I have not hunted deer in Michigan as an expression of my dissatisfaction with the extreme antler point restrictions, APR’s, that have made their way into our deer hunting regulations in many areas of the great state of Michigan. I totally believe that many of these regulations have been adopted through manipulation and perpetrated by fraud, that these extreme regulations advantage some hunters at the expense of others, are unethical and are NOT supported by the majority of hunters nor the non-hunting population of Michigan residents, that they have contributed to the poor retention and recruitment rates of Michigan deer hunters and that part of this retention problem stems from the resource population decline as a result of overharvest of antlerless deer in many areas of Michigan.
In 2010 the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) was presented with a roadmap or management guide for white-tail deer in Michigan. This guide was a comprehensive look at management practices that were considered workable and acceptable to Michigan deer hunters, our non-hunting citizens and our resource populations. This guide took over a year of extensive meetings by the Michigan Deer Advisory Team, (MDAT), consisting of twenty-five stakeholder groups, and public sessions to gather information and opinions from the non-hunting public. The result of this extensive process was the report, “Recommendations for Deer Management in Michigan”, that was presented to the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Michigan Deer Advisory Team in November of 2009. This report was used by the Department, especially John Niewoonder, to write the above mentioned roadmap or guide, “2010 Michigan Deer Management Plan”, (MDMP).
When this MDMP was approved by the Director, Rebecca A. Humphries on May 6, 2010, I believe that Commissioners Richardson and Nichols were the only current members who were on the Commission. I encourage those who have not read this 2010 MDMP to do so, as it is the strategic plan for current deer management in the state.
Currently, there is an agenda that has crept into deer management in Michigan that is contrary to the 2010 MDMP in several areas. This divisive agenda, as noted above, is Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions or MAR’s, the promotion of extreme regulatory changes to promote hunting for big antlers instead of table fare.
The 2010 MDMP sets forth strategic guidelines to be adopted for regulating deer hunting in Michigan. They include, but are not limited to, ETHICS IN HUNTING, HUNTING FOR SUSTINENCE, and PROMOTION OF RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT AND EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO THE NON-HUNTING COMMUNITY SO THAT DEER HUNTING REMAINS SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE. Although antler point restrictions are mentioned only once, (page 20, 4.1.3) in the MDMP as an operational possibility to encourage antlerless harvest, they are viewed as divisive when used in a mandatory fashion. I believe the adoption of MAR’s in any form in Michigan goes directly against the strategic guidelines found in the 2010 MDMP, and here is why.
MAR’s vs ETHICS,
The MDAT struggled with the subject matter of ETHICS in hunting. Every group but one, I’ll let you guess who, wanted to include ETHICS in the MDMP as a responsibility of the MDNR to determine. I fought against letting the MDNR have the sole responsibility of determining “HUNTER ETHICS”. Whose ETHICS would they approve and whose would they not. Although hunting ETHICS are very important, I refuse to give any government entity the responsibility of determining ETHICS. The subject was tabled until the second day at the Ralph A. MacMillan Center, when Amy Spray Trotter offered the Boone and Crockett definition of “HUNTER ETHICS”. (Page 24 of the MDMP) The Boone and Crockett “HUNTER ETHICS” is based on the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, NAWCM, established with the help of Theodore Roosevelt and other early conservationists for the protection of wildlife resources and habitat. The NAWCM tenets are explained more fully through a set of guidelines known as the, “Seven Sisters for Conservation”. Only six are listed in the MDMP, the seventh “Sister” was left out of the MDMP, hopefully unintentionally. The seventh “Sister” titled, Non-Frivolous Use” reads, “In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for FOOD and FUR, SELF DEFENSE and PROPERTY PROTECTION. LAWS RESTRICT AGAINST the CASUAL KILLING MERELY for ANTLERS, HORNS and FEATHERS. This tells me that manipulating our deer hunting regulations to advantage antler hunters at the expense of sustenance hunting is unethical and should be revisited by the NRC.
MAR’s vs Hunting for Sustenance/Food
Although this subject is mentioned in the first guideline I believe it is important enough to be discussed separately. Sustenance hunting has been the only ethical reason to harvest animals since the day Noah stepped out of the Ark. Today, it is the main reason a vast majority of hunter’s hunt and the reason eighty percent of non-hunters moderately or strongly support hunting, for table fare. (Less than thirty percent support hunting for “sport” or for “trophies”) Native Americans living in Michigan thought “sustenance hunting” so important that they had this statement included in the MDMP, (Page6, 2.6), Tribal considerations
“Tribal Representatives stressed…..deer should be respected and deer management focused on subsistence hunting rather than trophy hunting.” This overwhelming sentiment is echoed by hunters and non-hunters alike.
The MDNR have failed in their public trust management responsibilities. But, YOU on the NRC have the legal authority to regulate and manage our wildlife resources. It is time to exercise this authority and represent the will of the people. The MDMP is a plan as stated on page 3, “Produce a plan that is based on careful and respectful consideration of the diverse perspectives held by Michigan residents.” Not just “special interest” hunting groups but, ALL Michigan residents.
MAR’s vs Retention and Recruitment
A healthy and vibrant white-tail deer population hinges on robust hunter numbers and participation. Deer hunters are responsible for an annual economic benefit of over one billion dollars a year, (Page 21, 4.2) in Michigan. To preserve this economic boon and advance the health of the resource, hunter retention and recruitment are paramount. The 2010 MDMP recognized this fact and mentions it often.
On pages 24 and 25 of the 2010 MDMP, hunter retention and recruitment are discussed in depth, with several (12) ACTION items listed. Just a few of these ACTION items are, “investigate the impacts of declining hunter numbers”, “determine the primary factors involved with the decline in recruitment and retention of deer hunters” and “develop programs targeted toward hunter retention and recruitment”. So how did the MDNR with the aid of the NRC respond to these ACTION items? They instituted the worst possible course of action possible for hunter retention and recruitment, MANDATORY ANTLER POINT RESTRICTIONS. Then as hunter numbers continued to hemorrhage, they manipulated the age requirements, virtually no age limits for children to purchase a hunting license, to give the illusion that hunter numbers had stabilized. They did not. In 2014, according to the “2014 Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report”, there were only 540,000 firearms hunters afield. When you remove the manipulated youth licenses, (33,000) that number drops to 507,000 firearms hunters. Compare that to 790,000 in 1998 and 640,000 in 2008, the year before “hunter’s choice” was implemented in the Upper Peninsula.
MAR’s have absolutely accelerated the decline of hunter retention and recruitment. Most recruitment occurs when active hunters bring others into the hunting community. As hunters leave, recruitment declines. Hunters leave as they perceive that the anticipation of deer hunting no longer exist and they also have a diminished satisfaction from hunting created by MAR’s.
Many hunters supporting MAR’s do not really care about hunter retention, and their comments on social media are an indication of their disdain for hunters not supportive of their agenda. Many are ecstatic at the hemorrhage of dissatisfied hunters like myself. They believe that with fewer hunters sharing the woods their quality of hunting is improved. Like it or not, it is the truth.
MAR’s vs Education and Outreach
The only discussion on the subject of MAR’s in the MDAT, was right before lunch on the last day of meetings in St Ignace. When the subject was brought up for discussion, it was almost immediately tabled as the subject matter was divisive. You think they would have learned from that experience.
The 2010 MDMP discusses “education and outreach” in depth. I believe that instead of creating a divided community of hunters, the MDNR and the NRC should have recognized the passion on both sides of this divisive issue. Instead of taking one side over the other by mandating MAR’s, they should have followed the 2010 MDMP and achieved the same goal with “education and outreach”. I totally support and practice “voluntary antler restrictions” and have since 1990. I have successfully influenced other hunters to follow this “voluntary” agenda.
On a positive note concerning “education and outreach” from the 2010 MDMP, is the creation of the Michigan Wildlife Council, MWC, created in accordance with Act 246 of Public Acts of 2013. Their mission is an outreach to educate the general public about hunting, fishing and the taking of game in Michigan. Their budget is derived of one dollar from every base license sold in Michigan. They are working with Gud Marketing in Lansing to achieve their goals. I attended the January 11, 2016 in Lansing. I am impressed with the professionalism and commitment of the Council and especially with Chairwoman Carol Rose. I am also impressed with the competence of Gud Marketing and the campaign they have developed.
If all the money that has been spent on the manipulation of the Quality Deer Management, QDM, and MAR’s survey processes had been used in “outreach and education”, this problem would not have been around today. We need to dismantle ALL MAR’s regulations in Michigan at this time and develop programs that educate hunters on the advantages of practicing voluntary APR’s. By doing this we will heal the divide in the hunting community today and coalesce our hunting brothers and sisters around “voluntary” antler point restrictions, and to be perfectly honest, we are almost there.
Concerned Wildlife Resource Advocate,
Curtis Stone
Cmstone51@comcast .net
The MDNR have failed in their public trust management responsibilities. But, YOU on the NRC have the legal authority to regulate and manage our wildlife resources. It is time to exercise this authority and represent the will of the people. The MDMP is a plan as stated on page 3, “Produce a plan that is based on careful and respectful consideration of the diverse perspectives held by Michigan residents.” Not just “special interest” hunting groups but, ALL Michigan residents.
MAR’s vs Retention and Recruitment
A healthy and vibrant white-tail deer population hinges on robust hunter numbers and participation. Deer hunters are responsible for an annual economic benefit of over one billion dollars a year, (Page 21, 4.2) in Michigan. To preserve this economic boon and advance the health of the resource, hunter retention and recruitment are paramount. The 2010 MDMP recognized this fact and mentions it often.
On pages 24 and 25 of the 2010 MDMP, hunter retention and recruitment are discussed in depth, with several (12) ACTION items listed. Just a few of these ACTION items are, “investigate the impacts of declining hunter numbers”, “determine the primary factors involved with the decline in recruitment and retention of deer hunters” and “develop programs targeted toward hunter retention and recruitment”. So how did the MDNR with the aid of the NRC respond to these ACTION items? They instituted the worst possible course of action possible for hunter retention and recruitment, MANDATORY ANTLER POINT RESTRICTIONS. Then as hunter numbers continued to hemorrhage, they manipulated the age requirements, virtually no age limits for children to purchase a hunting license, to give the illusion that hunter numbers had stabilized. They did not. In 2014, according to the “2014 Michigan Deer Harvest Survey Report”, there were only 540,000 firearms hunters afield. When you remove the manipulated youth licenses, (33,000) that number drops to 507,000 firearms hunters. Compare that to 790,000 in 1998 and 640,000 in 2008, the year before “hunter’s choice” was implemented in the Upper Peninsula.
MAR’s have absolutely accelerated the decline of hunter retention and recruitment. Most recruitment occurs when active hunters bring others into the hunting community. As hunters leave, recruitment declines. Hunters leave as they perceive that the anticipation of deer hunting no longer exist and they also have a diminished satisfaction from hunting created by MAR’s.
Many hunters supporting MAR’s do not really care about hunter retention, and their comments on social media are an indication of their disdain for hunters not supportive of their agenda. Many are ecstatic at the hemorrhage of dissatisfied hunters like myself. They believe that with fewer hunters sharing the woods their quality of hunting is improved. Like it or not, it is the truth.
MAR’s vs Education and Outreach
The only discussion on the subject of MAR’s in the MDAT, was right before lunch on the last day of meetings in St Ignace. When the subject was brought up for discussion, it was almost immediately tabled as the subject matter was divisive. You think they would have learned from that experience.
The 2010 MDMP discusses “education and outreach” in depth. I believe that instead of creating a divided community of hunters, the MDNR and the NRC should have recognized the passion on both sides of this divisive issue. Instead of taking one side over the other by mandating MAR’s, they should have followed the 2010 MDMP and achieved the same goal with “education and outreach”. I totally support and practice “voluntary antler restrictions” and have since 1990. I have successfully influenced other hunters to follow this “voluntary” agenda.
On a positive note concerning “education and outreach” from the 2010 MDMP, is the creation of the Michigan Wildlife Council, MWC, created in accordance with Act 246 of Public Acts of 2013. Their mission is an outreach to educate the general public about hunting, fishing and the taking of game in Michigan. Their budget is derived of one dollar from every base license sold in Michigan. They are working with Gud Marketing in Lansing to achieve their goals. I attended the January 11, 2016 in Lansing. I am impressed with the professionalism and commitment of the Council and especially with Chairwoman Carol Rose. I am also impressed with the competence of Gud Marketing and the campaign they have developed.
If all the money that has been spent on the manipulation of the Quality Deer Management, QDM, and MAR’s survey processes had been used in “outreach and education”, this problem would not have been around today. We need to dismantle ALL MAR’s regulations in Michigan at this time and develop programs that educate hunters on the advantages of practicing voluntary APR’s. By doing this we will heal the divide in the hunting community today and coalesce our hunting brothers and sisters around “voluntary” antler point restrictions, and to be perfectly honest, we are almost there.
Concerned Wildlife Resource Advocate,
Curtis Stone
Cmstone51@comcast .net
