|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 20, 2016 12:20:40 GMT -5
Michigan S.M.A.R.T. Hunters have been called DNR haters and bashers from the beginning. We have also been accused of wearing “tinfoil hats”. I can’t speak for the motives of all MSH’s but I will speak for, I believe, most of us. I have been called a DNR basher and hater several times since I have become involved in Michigan wildlife resource management in 2008. These accusations are totally false and only spoken by those who back “social” agendas for personal gain.
The “tinfoil hat” label they try to pin on us is an attempt to discredit and define us as “crazies”. This course of action has, in my opinion, backfired on them. With proven conspiracies throughout government, the “tinfoil hat” has become a badge of honor and courage.
I was raised to question authority if it supported an action or agenda that was flawed or went against what I believed to be ethical. There is a lot of that in government today and especially in Michigan’s wildlife resource management. I respect and often defend the Agency that protects and promotes our wildlife resources. I also respect those in positions in the Department mandated to achieve these goals. Although I respect and defend the MDNR wherever applicable, there are several areas, especially in the Wildlife Division, where I believe agendas are suspect and changes must be made. When I see actions that I believe are contrary to their mandate to promote and protect our wildlife resources, and hear statements that are false, I feel that I have an ethical responsibility to speak out. When I exercise my responsibility to expose what I believe to be wrong, it is not hating or bashing and those who claim this are only trying to discredit me and deflect attention away from my concerns.
We are always told that if “we see something, say something”. But, when we say something it requires those in oversight positions to “DO SOMETHING”. This is not happening today in Michigan’s wildlife resource management.
I have been told that when it comes to the MDNR and especially the NRC, “Compliment in public and criticize in private”. I define this as I am an idiot for using that word kissing and I am NOT and have never been that guy.
The current Wildlife Division seems to operate under the strategy of “smoke and mirrors”. They are NOT a transparent or totally honest department. When the data does not fit their preconceived agenda it is often manipulated by “computer modeling” and “data blending”, and their process for MAR’s surveys is far from professional. When we ask questions, they do not have answers, and when they give us answers we cannot ask questions.
I have not been silent on my opinion of who is the problem in the Wildlife Division. The buck stops on the desk of Dr. Russ Mason. The systemic problems, especially with white-tail deer hunting, started in 2008 when he became our Wildlife Chief. Every metric measured has consistently fallen since that year. He has tried to singlehandedly redefine “Proposal G”, passed in 1996. This was never more evident that a recent article in Michigan Outdoor News, where he promoted “open discussion” or “social science” over “principles of sound science” as found in “Prop. G”. He showed his disdain for the “principles of sound science” language written in “Prop. G” when he stated, “More often than not, the term (sound science) is a code for “mine not yours.” If you include “social science” or “politics” into the “principles of sound science” language of “Prop. G” as he does, this makes sense. But, as every hunter that voted for Proposal “G” in 1996 knows, the INTENT of the proposal was to defeat the “social science” of proposal “D” on the same ballot. It is evident that our current wildlife Chief clearly intends to defy the voters of 1996 by encouraging open discussion or politics of personal agendas over the sound biological science that was intended.
Curtis Stone
Michigan S.M.A.R.T. Hunters
July 20, 2016
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 22, 2016 9:58:29 GMT -5
Wildlife Chief Touts “OPEN DISCUSSIONS” Over “SOUND SCIENCE!”
Dr. Russ Mason, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Chief, again flaunts his personal agenda over the will of Michigan’s voters. In a Michigan Outdoor News article, Vol. 17, No. 15, July 15, 2016, titled, “Is OPEN DISCUSSION better than sound science?”, Chief Mason states, “It’s time to DROP partisan “sound science” and place a little more emphasis on an open discussion…”. To anybody that has been following his tenure as Chief, this has been his stance since his arrival in 2008. What has been the results? To anybody that has been paying attention to our white-tailed deer resource and the metrics related to the harvest, it has been disastrous. Since 2008, antlered harvest numbers are down drastically, hunter numbers are down drastically and hunter satisfaction is down drastically.
Hunter satisfaction;
Deer Seen Statewide……2008-40% 2014-27%
Antlered Bucks…………….2008-25% 2014-19%
Overall Experience……….2008-49% 2014-39%
Deer Harvested…………….2008-33% 2014-26%
Harvest Numbers;
Antlerless Harvest………….2008- 232,105 2014- 144,139 (down 87,966)
Bucks Harvested…………….2008- 248,533 2014- 178,228 (down 70,305)
Hunter Participation;
All Seasons…………………….2008- 777,153 2014- 664,395 (down 112,758)
Under the “sound science” of Proposal “G”, passed by Michigan voters in 1996, white-tailed deer populations reached record levels. These record levels became a detriment to the resource, especially in the Upper Peninsula from 1995 thru 1998, not because of “sound science”, but because the DNR did NOT listen to their biologist but to the “open discussions” with prominent hunting groups. They listened to these “sportsman’s” groups with devastating results. With two horrific winters back to back, we lost over 50% of our deer population through starvation and disease. But, worse that that our deer wintering complexes suffered from over-browse that will take generations to regenerate.
Another problem with pushing “open discussions” is the fact that at most public meetings that I have ever been to, there is no “open discussion” period. In fact, they discourage “open discussions” as to control the time and content of the meetings. Most meetings have a comment period, open to the public. But, these public comment periods are limited in most cases to three minutes with no questions or discussions allowed.
Open discussions are found at Deer Advisory Team meetings, but only by those put on the panels by the DNR. Most of these delegates are chosen because of their memberships in special interest deer hunting groups. I have attended many of these DAT meetings and can attest to the fact that these participants are chosen because of their acceptance of “social” issues and this makes it easier for the Wildlife Division to control the agendas.
Curtis Stone, Wildlife Resource Advocate
Michigan S.M.A.R.T. Hunters
7-21-16
|
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 22, 2016 10:17:10 GMT -5
Sounds like the deer hunters of Michigan are tired of the status quo that is Traditional Deer Management. An ever-growing majority of hunters are working to change that.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 22, 2016 11:10:23 GMT -5
No, it sounds like they are sick and tired of the failed promises of a trophy behind every tree. A recent report in the Upper Peninsula claims that a DNR rep has admitted that there are less than 100,000 deer in the U.P. before the 2014 hunting season started. Hunter numbers in the U.P. have fallen from 107,412, all seasons in 2008, to 84,099 in 2014. That's a drop of 23,313 hunters since the inception of Hunters Choice regulations. I have talked to every one of them and HC or MAR's is the single, number one answer I get for the lack of hunter retention and recruitment. You need to quit  . |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 22, 2016 11:29:07 GMT -5
So, you're blaming lower deer numbers due to winter kill on HC. Ha, ha. Page right out of RP Smith's book. You guys must be great friends to share these same theories. LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Jul 22, 2016 12:22:16 GMT -5
"lower deer numbers due to winter kill", boy you really have been drinking the Kool-aid. Calm down, just kidding. Yes, we have had some bad winters. But, there are also other reasons for record low numbers of deer. Predation, as if you haven't heard. But, the biggest part of the low resource problem is hunters choice, a form of QDM or MAR's. By promoting the harvest of antlerless deer as a form of "putting meat in your freezer", they have inadvertently over-harvested the very deer that maintain a healthy resource population. With Mother Nature, coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats, automobiles and hunters all vying for this resource, there needs to be some common sense in our regulations regarding antlerless harvest especially with archery equipment. I have been begging the Wildlife Division for three years to look at a regulation change that they finally implemented last year, no archery harvest of antlerless deer. At a Meeting in Munising in mid-winter of 2014 , Terry Minzy said that the situation was not critical enough for that regulation change, it was. They were afraid of the Michigan Bow-hunters.
Richard P. Smith is a friend of mine. Do I agree with everything he proposes? Hell NO! But when it comes to bears he is the go-to guy in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 22, 2016 14:41:53 GMT -5
The archery ban on taking antlerless deer did not include the scenario where the hunter was able to get an antlerless permit. Those were only available in very select areas. If used during archery season, then none could be used during firearm season.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 22, 2016 14:47:38 GMT -5
Sounds like the deer hunters of Michigan are tired of the status quo that is Traditional Deer Management. An ever-growing majority of hunters are working to change that. Just the reverse is true. There may be a growing number of hunters pushing MAPRS but they are a long way from a majority. That would be clear if a magnifying glass was used instead of a mirrow which reverses the image. Instead of playing with the numbers, let's honestly look at the real numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmer on Jul 22, 2016 15:51:39 GMT -5
"lower deer numbers due to winter kill", boy you really have been drinking the Kool-aid. Calm down, just kidding. Yes, we have had some bad winters. But, there are also other reasons for record low numbers of deer. Predation, as if you haven't heard. But, the biggest part of the low resource problem is hunters choice, a form of QDM or MAR's. By promoting the harvest of antlerless deer as a form of "putting meat in your freezer", they have inadvertently over-harvested the very deer that maintain a healthy resource population. With Mother Nature, coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats, automobiles and hunters all vying for this resource, there needs to be some common sense in our regulations regarding antlerless harvest especially with archery equipment. I have been begging the Wildlife Division for three years to look at a regulation change that they finally implemented last year, no archery harvest of antlerless deer. At a Meeting in Munising in mid-winter of 2014 , Terry Minzy said that the situation was not critical enough for that regulation change, it was. They were afraid of the Michigan Bow-hunters.
Richard P. Smith is a friend of mine. Do I agree with everything he proposes? Hell NO! But when it comes to bears he is the go-to guy in my book. I have to agree that these low deer numbers in the can't be just a result of bad winters. If one was to believe that they would also have to believe that there has never been bad winters in the UP until recently. The argument has been made that the number of does killed doesn't have that big of an impact by showing the number killed hasn't gone up under MARs regulations. What they fail to explain is how the number of does killed remained steady at the same time the overall population was crashing. Just one of the ways the pro MARs group spin the data to their side. To those that are not drunk on the cool aid it is obvious that if it was not for the MARs in place the number of does killed would have followed the population downward and allowed the population crash to show up much sooner! |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 22, 2016 18:51:03 GMT -5
"lower deer numbers due to winter kill", boy you really have been drinking the Kool-aid. Calm down, just kidding. Yes, we have had some bad winters. But, there are also other reasons for record low numbers of deer. Yet, you previously placed the blame solely on HC. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 22, 2016 18:52:11 GMT -5
Sounds like the deer hunters of Michigan are tired of the status quo that is Traditional Deer Management. An ever-growing majority of hunters are working to change that. Just the reverse is true. There may be a growing number of hunters pushing MAPRS but they are a long way from a majority. That would be clear if a magnifying glass was used instead of a mirrow which reverses the image. Instead of playing with the numbers, let's honestly look at the real numbers. What real numbers do you want to see? |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jul 23, 2016 0:29:24 GMT -5
Just the reverse is true. There may be a growing number of hunters pushing MAPRS but they are a long way from a majority. That would be clear if a magnifying glass was used instead of a mirrow which reverses the image. Instead of playing with the numbers, let's honestly look at the real numbers. What real numbers do you want to see? That is an excellent question. I would like to see the NW study results without any data that was collected at Buck Nights or Shows or other non-DNR check stations. I would like to see actually study results rather than a personal feeling survey. However we both know that can not be done because no one established any actual study metrics or parameters. No measureable outcomes were ever presented. This was not a trial or test period. It was and has been an opinion poll based on a very limited pre-studied collection of hunters. That may not mean manipulation (or it may, only the few insiders are privy to that type of knowledge) but it certainly does not speak to objective results. The size of the poll may fit into their parameters but if it does not include all of the strata or involved groups of hunters then the survey is not valid. The DNR has admitted that they did not have the money nor the time to provide for that type of validity. It only becomes valid for the group that is chosen to be polled. Along with the estimates made by the DNR, I would like to see the original raw data that comes from the annual survey. Those are the real numbers. Despite their confidence limits, their estimates are just that estimates. If there have been no meaningful changes during the year surveyed those estimates could be close to a usuable accuracy but IF. . . That if is why I would like to see the raw data each year. |
|
|
|
Post by fullthrottlehunter on Jul 23, 2016 2:07:24 GMT -5
You've already seen the NW 12 results minus supplemental data. Yes, it decreased the results, but it still showed a profound and obvious decrease in yearling buck harvest and a corresponding increase in 2.5 and older harvest. You cannot take 60-70% of yearling bucks off the table and not expect any other outcome.
You should request the raw data, if it's even possible, for the yearly harvest report. Without seeing it first, those complaining about data manipulation are jumping to conclusions without the evidence to back it up.
If you receive the data and it shows no manipulation, where does that then leave your argument? Seems to me it would make nearly 4 years of angry posts irrelevant.(Not saying you personally. Just in general.)
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jul 23, 2016 2:53:39 GMT -5
No I don't think I have and when the big data dump for the NWLP MARs zone was put out last year it showed those big buck night deer were checked in as regular deer at Gaylord . (yes I knew certain bucks taken to and checked at the big buck night and they showed up as checked at Gaylord with no way to know or separate them anymore) !
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Jul 23, 2016 3:04:03 GMT -5
No I don't think I have and when the big data dump for the NWLP MARs zone was put out last year it showed those big buck night deer were checked in as regular deer at Gaylord . (yes I knew certain bucks taken to and checked at the big buck night and they showed up as checked at Gaylord with no way to know or separate them anymore) ! And this was all done after the DNR closed all the check stations in Charlevoix , Emmet amd Antrim counties and gave that task over to the QDMA to do. So to get a deer checked in my area you had to take it to the QDMA. And who the heck knows who was collecting that data and how much bias went into it. I can tell you that many hunter would not go to the QDMA to get their deer checked for fear of being ridiculed or preached at. I also know the QDMA did not want the youth having their spikes and forkies checked and so my guess is they never got the chance to check them ! This is how far in bed the DNR is with the QDMA and how far they will go to restrict the smaller deer from getting checked!  |
|
.
