...Population meetings...what was accomplished?..

[fairfax1]

For several weeks now we've been getting reports about the meetings held in various locations throughout the state. Reports not only from fellow posters on these forums but also from the public print media..newspapers.


So, what do you think got accomplished?

Was it good? or bad?

What do you think may come out of the meetings in terms of changes?

Any commonalities across the meetings?

Did any of the DNR personnel give you feedback on their take on the meetings?

[yooperkenny]

I attended the Marquette meeting only so that's all I can base my opinions on

So, what do you think got accomplished? Based on the turnout and comments, the DNR knows (if they already didn't) that deer numbers are way down and hunters are concerned. They know that hunters want population goals that are higher than what we have now. Some hunters hopefully learned something they didn't know before, such as issues with DRIP funds, bear predation on fawns, habitat loss, scientific sampling, or any number of things
Was it good? or bad? Good for no other reason than there was a meeting. Good because the DNR had to face the public and for a little while anyway be held accountable for the situation. Bad if you weren't there to voice your opinion or learn.
What do you think may come out of the meetings in terms of changes? Who knows? We can speculate that we might see some form of license revamping. Maybe fewer doe tags in vulnerable areas. More bear tags? Some movement on DRIP funds if enough folks voice concerns to state reps/senators.
Any commonalities across the meetings? Sounds like the UP meetings took on the same tone, but I wasn't at the other meetings.
Did any of the DNR personnel give you feedback on their take on the meetings? No except they were obviously surprised by the large turnout.

[Nick Adams]

Did any of the DNR personnel give you feedback on their take on the meetings?
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124360

"...one of the biggest problems with the meetings is the misconception that the DNR manages deer for hunters only. We manage deer for all of Michigan.”

David Dominic, wildlife supervisor, South Central Management Unit

[Ed Spin04]

Nick, You and I know that historically the MDNR has had only the hunter in mind when making deer management decisions. It is only recently within the last three decades that we have been hearing the phrase, "We manage deer for all of Michigan's residents".

This gets them off the hook when hunters are concerned about what they are seeing.

[Nick Adams]

Nick, You and I know that historically the MDNR has had only the hunter in mind when making deer management decisions.
Sorry Ed, I'm not old enough to know what was on the minds of DNR staff over 30 years ago.

Their mission statement makes no reference to deer or hunters. As far as I know, this has always been the case.

-na

[boehr]

Nick, You and I know that historically the MDNR has had only the hunter in mind when making deer management decisions. It is only recently within the last three decades that we have been hearing the phrase, "We manage deer for all of Michigan's residents".

This gets them off the hook when hunters are concerned about what they are seeing.Three decades ago the deer numbers where not what they are today. So historically we should take the deer herd back down to less than a million then the management would be for all anyway.:)

[EdB]

I'm waiting to see the final proposal for Jackson county. The intent of the meetings were to take public comment on the DNR's draft population proposal. At the meeting, the overwhelming majority felt that the DNR goals were too low. If the DNR were truly holding these meetings to listen and act on what the public wants, I would expect the population goal in the final proposal they recommend will be increased at least to the level of the current goal. If they don't revise the population goal for Jackson county upward, then we will know the meetings were a sham. I hope they follow through and let hunters have real input on the population goals. We'll know soon when the proposals are finalized.

[Nimrod1]

I'm waiting to see the final proposal for Jackson county. The intent of the meetings were to take public comment on the DNR's draft population proposal. At the meeting, the overwhelming majority felt that the DNR goals were too low. If the DNR were truly holding these meetings to listen and act on what the public wants, I would expect the population goal in the final proposal they recommend will be increased at least to the level of the current goal. If they don't revise the population goal for Jackson county upward, then we will know the meetings were a sham. I hope they follow through and let hunters have real input on the population goals. We'll know soon when the proposals are finalized.

I tend to agree with this, except that part about "act on what the public wants". I believe it was to "take into consideration". The DNR needs to set goals by science not emotion. They did listen, so the meetings were not a sham.

[Ed Spin04]

The meetings were not a sham and I don't believe there will be changes made in the deer density goal. In general most complainers did not stay on subject, (they very seldom do) but they were heard and that is GOOD.

Our MDNR has a poor image with the hunting public, and it is their fault for they do little in the area of education. You need to be in contact with them for an extended period of time to experience this. They feel that the role of education belongs with MSU not the MDNR. They seriously think that their role is wildlife and habitat management along with creating rules and inforcing them, with no education and as little contact with the public as possible.

Your not sure of what I said? Try to get in touch with any DNR personnel, go to their field office and try to find it open. Yeah, I know they temporarally closed their field ofices due to budget constraints. BS, they're tickled to death that they now have an excuse not to be in contact with you.

What's more important, being open for at least part time contact with the public and accomplishing this by being more efficient in their operation or make excuses and do what they did.

What would you do if you owned a store, with times being slow and the money flow was down. Would you close the store and leave a sign for customers to call you for service or knowing that times will impoove, keep it open for times most convenient for your customers even if it meant some days you were closed.

I believe the above is common, concerning the DNR 's relationship with the public. Go to Pennsylvania and check the CO's attitude with the hunters. They have little training in PR and of course every hunter is guilty of some game rule violation. They just havn't been caught.

I think and hope these district deer goal density meetings are a start for a better relationship with our DNR and the public. Perhaps it's wishful thinking but I feel they want the hunters and landowners to be a larger part of wildlife and habitat management and educaion is the key.

[Lenaweebowhunter]

I only attended the SCLP MDNR meeting held west of Chelsea. I have to agree with a number of Ed spin's points of view. I do think; be it bad or good at lease there was an attemp to put hunters and land owners in contact with the DNR personal about a very passonate subject. Often times it's the complianers and over exagerating speakers that are heard in group meeting like these.

As for myself; I found the meeting to be somewhat productive, I learned that many hunters do not belive there are the deer numbers that I belive there are, yet others did. Of all the things that did get "offtrack" I enjoyed hearing that more and more hunters want a better deer hunt and they are willing to tell others in public that they belive there's too much pressure on our young bucks!!!!! (let them grow so they can grow) was mentioned a number of times.....amen.

I did write to the deergoals e-mail adress concerning my DM unit and how I felt about the proposed reduction numbers.....I received an automated responce.

Out of all of this I did get a better perspective of how the deer hunters in my part of michigan perseave deer numbers, the DNR plan and what needs to be done to improve our overall hunting and enjoyment of this resource we all love and respect called the whitetailed deer.

[Tom Morang]

Ed Spin said: "I think and hope these district deer goal density meetings are a start for a better relationship with our DNR and the public. Perhaps it's wishful thinking but I feel they want the hunters and landowners to be a larger part of wildlife and habitat management and educaion is the key."

Ed you hit the nail on the head. Education is the key. Biologists have not been known to be communication experts in the past but they are trying now (because of our present Directors open door policy) and I also think both sides can learn from this experience.

tm

[NorthJeff]

What do hunters think the meetings accomplished?..or what did the meetings actually accomplish? The two answers may be very different, but if nothing else people had a chance to vent.

[Swamper]

My sources from the DNR and two attending the meeting were consistent in terms of accomplishment...do the meetings make strategy? No. Do they impact strategy? Yes. Much impact? Depends on the issue and data presented to support it. These types of mass meetings are like most other publich meetings - usually the loudest or most vocal paint a picture that may not always represent the view of the masses in attendance at the meeting.

Definitely worthwhile to attend and speak...but won't change the world by themselves.

Swamper

[FREEPOP]

I must agree that education and free exchange of information is very important. If they want to "manage" the herd they had best inform the sportman, as they are the ones that pull the trigger (in reference to Jackson County, ie. private property). Otherwise they can just issue unlimited doe permits with the usual results. Until the "browse lines" appear in my area, the farmers indicate an increase in crop damage and/or my food plots are devasted from over browse, I can only conclude that the herd is within carrying capacity of the land. I will harvest accordingly. I am concerned with the over population of yearling bucks I saw last season though :p