Dirty Politics Behind Push for MARs by Richard P. Smith
Nov 20, 2019 12:57:56 GMT -5
daappleknocker likes this
Post by ridge on Nov 20, 2019 12:57:56 GMT -5
[FROM: DEER AND DEER HUNTING]
If you are one of the 800,000 hunters who chase whitetails in this state, you should be aware of some current shenanigans (including a rigged survey) involving the Department of Natural Resources and other wildlife policy makers. And, if hunters don’t respond now, these actions might forever change deer hunting both here and elsewhere.
The current situation involves the state’s DNR, its Natural Resources Committee and what they apparently don’t want the public to know about their concerted efforts to ram mandatory antler-point restrictions down the throats of every hunter who pursues whitetails on both public and private lands. Recent events within the two groups and a workshop on MAPRs is raising eyebrows with not only hunters, but members of the committees who are apparently drafting these rules behind closed doors.
GUEST EDITORIAL by Richard P. Smith
Every deer hunter in Michigan should be concerned about the lack of transparency involved in an effort to modify the Michigan DNR’s policy for establishing mandatory antler point restrictions (MAPR) in the state. Makeup of the group of people selected by the DNR to form a workgroup to discuss possible changes to that policy is one concern, but, most disturbing is the fact that a 2-day gathering of that workgroup held at the RAM Center near Roscommon on September 6 and 7 was closed to the public and the media. And after the workgroup sessions were over, attendees were asked not to discuss what took place.
I don’t think the workgroup closed to the public violated the Opening Meetings Act, but it did violate an executive order from the Governor requiring transparency among all departments of state government.
The DNR obviously does not want the public or the media to know what was discussed and what members of the panel said. This lack of transparency is unprecedented. The secrecy surrounding this workgroup is suspicious because a similar closed meeting led to the establishment of MAPR in the Lower Peninsula CWD Management Zone, formation of the above mentioned workgroup and the use of DNR revenue paid by all sportsmen and women in the state to partially fund a DNR survey of five counties of the Thumb to determine the level of support for establishing MAPR in those counties.
Background on Michigan Antler Restrictions
As background information, it’s important to understand that the current policy for establishing MAPR in Michigan were established through extensive discussions among two previous workgroups over a period of years and representatives of organizations pushing MAPR were involved in those workgroups and so was MUCC. The policy that was established is that any organization could nominate a county, management unit or region for MAPR as long as they reimbursed the DNR for the cost of surveying the hunters in those areas to determine the level of support for MAPR. Such a survey would require a minimum of 66% support before the DNR would recommend MAPR regulations be implemented in a given area.
The fact that the DNR was directed by the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to pay half the cost of the 5-county Thumb survey is a major deviation from that policy. That survey resulted in less than 66% support even though wording of the survey was written to generate a positive response. Now the proponents of MAPR want to change the rules, so that it only takes 51% support to establish MAPR regulations and that the DNR cover the cost of MAPR surveys.
The first private or closed meeting that was held to promote MAPR in Michigan that was referred to above took place prior to the NRC’s August 2018 meeting. That closed meeting was attended by representatives of the Michigan chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and at least one member of the NRC wildlife committee (Rex Schlaybaugh) and DNR wildlife division staff members. One of four resolutions that came out of that meeting that were eventually adopted by the NRC, asked the DNR to form a group to review the process for establishing MAPR in the state.
Commissioner Chris Tracy drew attention to this closed meeting at the April 2019 NRC meeting and his comments are in the minutes of that meeting.
As soon as I learned about the formation of a group to discuss changes to the policy for establishing mandatory antler-point restrictions in Michigan, I contacted DNR deer specialist Chad Stewart and volunteered to be part of that group. I told him that even if I wasn’t chosen to be a member of that group that I wanted to attend meetings of the group to follow its progress. I strongly support voluntary APR, but oppose mandatory APR and the DNR has made no attempt to assess hunter support of one over the other. There’s a pervasive assumption that if you’re opposed to MAPR that you are opposed to any type of APR, which is totally false. Not surprisingly, I wasn’t contacted about being a part of this important deer hunting group or observing proceedings of the group.
Hand-Picked Antler Restriction Voters
Representatives of certain organizations carefully selected by the DNR were the only people invited to be part of the workgroup. Some organizations that are heavily involved in deer hunting and management such as the Upper Peninsula Sportsman Alliance (UPSA) were excluded. So were The Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan, a group led by Jim Sweeney, who are largely opposed to MAPR. Members of the public at large were also excluded. The majority of Michigan deer hunters don’t belong to any organization, and, therefore, were not represented on the workgroup nor allowed to hear what took place.
At the September NRC meeting in Marquette, I asked DNR director Dan Eichinger about why the MAPR workgroup proceedings on September 6 and 7 was closed to the public and the media.
“It’s a workgroup, not a meeting,” he said. “Not all workgroups are open to the public. Previous workgroups about mandatory antler point restrictions were not open to the public. They are not making policy decisions. Any recommendations from the workgroup will come before the Commission where there’s always members of the public and the media.”
I’ve been involved with many DNR workgroups in the past and they’ve always been open to the public. In fact, a recent news release I received from the DNR included this statement, “The Department of Natural Resources is committed to providing Michigan citizens the opportunity to share input and ideas on policy decisions, programs and other aspects of natural resource management and outdoor recreation opportunities.”
Apparently, this sentence does not apply when it comes to discussing policy for mandatory antler point restrictions. Even though the MAPR workgroup may not be setting policy, they are discussing possible changes in policy and it is extremely important that the public and media be able to hear those discussions about possible changes in policy and what is behind those possible changes.
When I asked Eichinger who made the decision to make the MAPR workgroup closed to the public. His first response was “The Department.” When I asked who within the department made the decision, he acknowledged that it was him.
Incidentally, Eichinger was wrong about previous MAPR workgroups being closed to the public. I talked to people who were involved in those workgroups and they were open to the public, and the one that took place on September 6 and 7 should have been, too. There are obviously reasons for the secrecy that the DNR doesn’t want the public to know.
It’s becoming clearer that the workgroup assembled by the DNR at the request of the NRC to discuss possible modifications to the policy for adopting mandatory antler point restrictions (MAPR) may have been rigged to generate a predetermined outcome, and that’s one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, the workgroup was closed to the public and the media. Attendance was by invitation only and those who were invited were carefully selected by the DNR. Workgroup members were asked not to talk to the media about what was said at the workgroup after the sessions concluded.
Gag Order Placed on Antler Restriction Meeting Attendees
Michigan Bowhunters Association President Gary Summers was part of the workgroup and I talked to him soon afterward. After telling me he was not “allowed” to talk about what was said during the workgroup, he made some revealing comments:
“Anything behind closed doors is not good,” he said. “After the workgroup was done, I spoke to my wife on the phone and she asked how it went. I told her I’m going to come home and take a shower because I feel like I’ve been violated.”
Summers said there were mostly DNR staff at the workgroup. The selection process used to determine who were invited to be a part of the workgroup remains a mystery, except they were all approved by top DNR staff. It’s no secret that current DNR director Dan Eichinger is the former executive director of Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and, in that role, he along with then assistant Amy Trotter, supported an experiment to test MAPR in southern Michigan’s CWD Management Zone and he continues that support in his new position.
It’s also no coincidence that two MUCC representatives, who also support MAPR, even though MUCC does not have an official position or policy about MAPR, were invited to be a part of the workgroup. Amy Trotter is the current executive director of MUCC and George Lindquist is the president. Trotter was obviously invited to represent MUCC. Lindquist is also a member of the western UP Citizen Advisory Council and he was invited to represent that group.
The current buck harvest regulations in the UP, which were established in 2008, are the brainchild of Lindquist. Both buck tags on UP combination deer licenses are restricted and hunters who buy single tags can shoot spikes or better, but are limited to shooting one buck per year. The purpose of these regulations was to increase the number of adult bucks and they have failed miserably in that regard. The UP buck harvest has plummeted along with hunter numbers, under those regulations, resulting in the harvest of far fewer older bucks than before 2008.
Representatives from at least two organizations who support statewide MAPR were also invited to be part of the workgroup. Eric Schnelle is the state president of the Quality Deer Management Association, which are strong supporters of MAPR even though the national organization has a policy supporting voluntary antler point restrictions. Elliot Hubbard also attended representing Thumb Area Hunters, the organization that tried and failed to get MAPR established in five counties of the Thumb even though more than 50% of the yearling bucks are already passed up on a voluntary basis in those counties.
Only 1 Non-Supporter Was Invited
Bob Walker with the United Sportsmen Alliance is the only person invited to the workgroup representing sportsmen and women who is known to oppose MAPR. Jim Sweeney with The Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan, who falls in the same category, was not invited. Nor was a representative of the UP Sportsmen Alliance, which has more than 50,000 members. Dave Johnson is president of UPSA and he emailed DNR deer specialist Chad Stewart to try to find out why the organization was not asked to participate.
“We developed the invite list by using a stakeholder engagement matrix that our Outreach and Education supervisor developed,” Stewart responded via email to Johnson. “The purpose of the matrix was to have a select group of individuals/organizations present in the meeting, yet would represent all sides of the issue. It was my understanding that the individual invited from the Eastern UP Citizen Advisory Council (Gary Gorniak) is actively involved with UPSA and would represent them well.”
Stewart added that all invitees had to be approved by DNR director Dan Eichinger and former wildlife division chief Russ Mason. As it turned out, Gorniak was not able to attend the workgroup sessions. Even though Gary lives in the eastern UP, he owns property in the northern Lower Peninsula where MAPR are in effect and he told me he supports MAPR.
Johnson was not pleased about the DNR selecting who would represent UPSA’s views.
“The DNR is not the group to make the decision of who represents our positions,” he responded to Stewart. “We have the right to decide who represents our group and we have the right to agree or not.
Public Input Was Not Welcome
As mentioned previously, there was also no attempt to invite any members of the public at large to participate in this important workgroup like other DNR workgroups. Most deer hunters don’t belong to any organization and what was discussed at the MAPR workgroup will potentially affect every deer hunter in this state. The workgroup the DNR assembled clearly did not represent “all sides of the issue.”
If you are one of the 800,000 hunters who chase whitetails in this state, you should be aware of some current shenanigans (including a rigged survey) involving the Department of Natural Resources and other wildlife policy makers. And, if hunters don’t respond now, these actions might forever change deer hunting both here and elsewhere.
The current situation involves the state’s DNR, its Natural Resources Committee and what they apparently don’t want the public to know about their concerted efforts to ram mandatory antler-point restrictions down the throats of every hunter who pursues whitetails on both public and private lands. Recent events within the two groups and a workshop on MAPRs is raising eyebrows with not only hunters, but members of the committees who are apparently drafting these rules behind closed doors.
GUEST EDITORIAL by Richard P. Smith
Every deer hunter in Michigan should be concerned about the lack of transparency involved in an effort to modify the Michigan DNR’s policy for establishing mandatory antler point restrictions (MAPR) in the state. Makeup of the group of people selected by the DNR to form a workgroup to discuss possible changes to that policy is one concern, but, most disturbing is the fact that a 2-day gathering of that workgroup held at the RAM Center near Roscommon on September 6 and 7 was closed to the public and the media. And after the workgroup sessions were over, attendees were asked not to discuss what took place.
I don’t think the workgroup closed to the public violated the Opening Meetings Act, but it did violate an executive order from the Governor requiring transparency among all departments of state government.
The DNR obviously does not want the public or the media to know what was discussed and what members of the panel said. This lack of transparency is unprecedented. The secrecy surrounding this workgroup is suspicious because a similar closed meeting led to the establishment of MAPR in the Lower Peninsula CWD Management Zone, formation of the above mentioned workgroup and the use of DNR revenue paid by all sportsmen and women in the state to partially fund a DNR survey of five counties of the Thumb to determine the level of support for establishing MAPR in those counties.
Background on Michigan Antler Restrictions
As background information, it’s important to understand that the current policy for establishing MAPR in Michigan were established through extensive discussions among two previous workgroups over a period of years and representatives of organizations pushing MAPR were involved in those workgroups and so was MUCC. The policy that was established is that any organization could nominate a county, management unit or region for MAPR as long as they reimbursed the DNR for the cost of surveying the hunters in those areas to determine the level of support for MAPR. Such a survey would require a minimum of 66% support before the DNR would recommend MAPR regulations be implemented in a given area.
The fact that the DNR was directed by the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to pay half the cost of the 5-county Thumb survey is a major deviation from that policy. That survey resulted in less than 66% support even though wording of the survey was written to generate a positive response. Now the proponents of MAPR want to change the rules, so that it only takes 51% support to establish MAPR regulations and that the DNR cover the cost of MAPR surveys.
The first private or closed meeting that was held to promote MAPR in Michigan that was referred to above took place prior to the NRC’s August 2018 meeting. That closed meeting was attended by representatives of the Michigan chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and at least one member of the NRC wildlife committee (Rex Schlaybaugh) and DNR wildlife division staff members. One of four resolutions that came out of that meeting that were eventually adopted by the NRC, asked the DNR to form a group to review the process for establishing MAPR in the state.
Commissioner Chris Tracy drew attention to this closed meeting at the April 2019 NRC meeting and his comments are in the minutes of that meeting.
As soon as I learned about the formation of a group to discuss changes to the policy for establishing mandatory antler-point restrictions in Michigan, I contacted DNR deer specialist Chad Stewart and volunteered to be part of that group. I told him that even if I wasn’t chosen to be a member of that group that I wanted to attend meetings of the group to follow its progress. I strongly support voluntary APR, but oppose mandatory APR and the DNR has made no attempt to assess hunter support of one over the other. There’s a pervasive assumption that if you’re opposed to MAPR that you are opposed to any type of APR, which is totally false. Not surprisingly, I wasn’t contacted about being a part of this important deer hunting group or observing proceedings of the group.
Hand-Picked Antler Restriction Voters
Representatives of certain organizations carefully selected by the DNR were the only people invited to be part of the workgroup. Some organizations that are heavily involved in deer hunting and management such as the Upper Peninsula Sportsman Alliance (UPSA) were excluded. So were The Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan, a group led by Jim Sweeney, who are largely opposed to MAPR. Members of the public at large were also excluded. The majority of Michigan deer hunters don’t belong to any organization, and, therefore, were not represented on the workgroup nor allowed to hear what took place.
At the September NRC meeting in Marquette, I asked DNR director Dan Eichinger about why the MAPR workgroup proceedings on September 6 and 7 was closed to the public and the media.
“It’s a workgroup, not a meeting,” he said. “Not all workgroups are open to the public. Previous workgroups about mandatory antler point restrictions were not open to the public. They are not making policy decisions. Any recommendations from the workgroup will come before the Commission where there’s always members of the public and the media.”
I’ve been involved with many DNR workgroups in the past and they’ve always been open to the public. In fact, a recent news release I received from the DNR included this statement, “The Department of Natural Resources is committed to providing Michigan citizens the opportunity to share input and ideas on policy decisions, programs and other aspects of natural resource management and outdoor recreation opportunities.”
Apparently, this sentence does not apply when it comes to discussing policy for mandatory antler point restrictions. Even though the MAPR workgroup may not be setting policy, they are discussing possible changes in policy and it is extremely important that the public and media be able to hear those discussions about possible changes in policy and what is behind those possible changes.
When I asked Eichinger who made the decision to make the MAPR workgroup closed to the public. His first response was “The Department.” When I asked who within the department made the decision, he acknowledged that it was him.
Incidentally, Eichinger was wrong about previous MAPR workgroups being closed to the public. I talked to people who were involved in those workgroups and they were open to the public, and the one that took place on September 6 and 7 should have been, too. There are obviously reasons for the secrecy that the DNR doesn’t want the public to know.
It’s becoming clearer that the workgroup assembled by the DNR at the request of the NRC to discuss possible modifications to the policy for adopting mandatory antler point restrictions (MAPR) may have been rigged to generate a predetermined outcome, and that’s one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, the workgroup was closed to the public and the media. Attendance was by invitation only and those who were invited were carefully selected by the DNR. Workgroup members were asked not to talk to the media about what was said at the workgroup after the sessions concluded.
Gag Order Placed on Antler Restriction Meeting Attendees
Michigan Bowhunters Association President Gary Summers was part of the workgroup and I talked to him soon afterward. After telling me he was not “allowed” to talk about what was said during the workgroup, he made some revealing comments:
“Anything behind closed doors is not good,” he said. “After the workgroup was done, I spoke to my wife on the phone and she asked how it went. I told her I’m going to come home and take a shower because I feel like I’ve been violated.”
Summers said there were mostly DNR staff at the workgroup. The selection process used to determine who were invited to be a part of the workgroup remains a mystery, except they were all approved by top DNR staff. It’s no secret that current DNR director Dan Eichinger is the former executive director of Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) and, in that role, he along with then assistant Amy Trotter, supported an experiment to test MAPR in southern Michigan’s CWD Management Zone and he continues that support in his new position.
It’s also no coincidence that two MUCC representatives, who also support MAPR, even though MUCC does not have an official position or policy about MAPR, were invited to be a part of the workgroup. Amy Trotter is the current executive director of MUCC and George Lindquist is the president. Trotter was obviously invited to represent MUCC. Lindquist is also a member of the western UP Citizen Advisory Council and he was invited to represent that group.
The current buck harvest regulations in the UP, which were established in 2008, are the brainchild of Lindquist. Both buck tags on UP combination deer licenses are restricted and hunters who buy single tags can shoot spikes or better, but are limited to shooting one buck per year. The purpose of these regulations was to increase the number of adult bucks and they have failed miserably in that regard. The UP buck harvest has plummeted along with hunter numbers, under those regulations, resulting in the harvest of far fewer older bucks than before 2008.
Representatives from at least two organizations who support statewide MAPR were also invited to be part of the workgroup. Eric Schnelle is the state president of the Quality Deer Management Association, which are strong supporters of MAPR even though the national organization has a policy supporting voluntary antler point restrictions. Elliot Hubbard also attended representing Thumb Area Hunters, the organization that tried and failed to get MAPR established in five counties of the Thumb even though more than 50% of the yearling bucks are already passed up on a voluntary basis in those counties.
Only 1 Non-Supporter Was Invited
Bob Walker with the United Sportsmen Alliance is the only person invited to the workgroup representing sportsmen and women who is known to oppose MAPR. Jim Sweeney with The Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan, who falls in the same category, was not invited. Nor was a representative of the UP Sportsmen Alliance, which has more than 50,000 members. Dave Johnson is president of UPSA and he emailed DNR deer specialist Chad Stewart to try to find out why the organization was not asked to participate.
“We developed the invite list by using a stakeholder engagement matrix that our Outreach and Education supervisor developed,” Stewart responded via email to Johnson. “The purpose of the matrix was to have a select group of individuals/organizations present in the meeting, yet would represent all sides of the issue. It was my understanding that the individual invited from the Eastern UP Citizen Advisory Council (Gary Gorniak) is actively involved with UPSA and would represent them well.”
Stewart added that all invitees had to be approved by DNR director Dan Eichinger and former wildlife division chief Russ Mason. As it turned out, Gorniak was not able to attend the workgroup sessions. Even though Gary lives in the eastern UP, he owns property in the northern Lower Peninsula where MAPR are in effect and he told me he supports MAPR.
Johnson was not pleased about the DNR selecting who would represent UPSA’s views.
“The DNR is not the group to make the decision of who represents our positions,” he responded to Stewart. “We have the right to decide who represents our group and we have the right to agree or not.
Public Input Was Not Welcome
As mentioned previously, there was also no attempt to invite any members of the public at large to participate in this important workgroup like other DNR workgroups. Most deer hunters don’t belong to any organization and what was discussed at the MAPR workgroup will potentially affect every deer hunter in this state. The workgroup the DNR assembled clearly did not represent “all sides of the issue.”