The oscoda press

[marty]

I don't know if anyone reads our local fishwrapper??:o :rolleyes:

Blackpowder Season Closes

Sunday marked the end of muzzleloader season. It, like rifle season, was very quiet this year. Deer numbers are down substantially and that, in combination with the poor weather conditions, notably gusty winds and lack of snow has rendered hunting spotty at best.

Not Much Sign

Last week, during muzzleloading season, I took a little survey of an area that I have hunted for over thirty years. On Monday evening, a fresh inch or so of snow had fallen (got me a little excited but only lasted for a day). I was determined to take advantage of the bit of white stuff, so rising well before daylight, I made for the woods. I started driving a route that is located just south of DMU 452 (bovine TB area) located between Glennie and Mikado in Alcona County. I marked my odometer and started counting deer tracks in the fresh snow that had fallen about 14 hours earlier. In a stretch of 20 ½ miles while traveling along two track and improved roads, primarily on state and federal lands (18 miles public land vs. 2 ½ miles surrounding private land), I counted 42 sets of tracks. About 2 deer per mile of road traveled.

There are certainly sensible reasons to maintain balance in our deer population, but maybe we don't have as many deer as we have been led to believe. Perhaps the DNR needs to come up with a model for estimating deer numbers that is more accurate.

Holiday Choices

Still, `tis the season to be jolly. Why? Because the Christmas Holidays are here and there are all kinds of fishing and hunting opportunities available for the outdoorsman. Does hunting tickle your fancy? Well, there's a week of hunting to be had yet for whitetails, squirrel and ruffed grouse with the seasons' final curtain coming down at day's end on January 1st. Perhaps running bunnies is your passion, listening to beagle song while chasing cottontail rabbits or snowshoe hares is exciting and challenging. And there are those that prefer to call to coyotes or bobcat in the hopes of drawing the predator into range. Or how about fishing? With ice forming early this year ice-fishermen have the option of spudding holes for perch, bluegill, walleye and crappies or trying to entice a foraging pike on a tipup.

Whatever you choose to do, get outdoors and enjoy your Christmas and Holiday Season!

Hope everyone had a good and safe holiday. Had family all day house looks like beruit. Can't tell if it's been nuked or a conventional bomb........marty:D

[foersterhunter]

Marty i agree with you.I hunt in crawford county and understand what your saying.I have also seen that there has been little car deer accidents.Just seems like the numbers are way down up there.

[One Eye]

They forgot to count the pellets! We all know that this is the only way to survey the herd;) Sounds like this is close to the same results we are seeing in the Nortwest side of the state. Thanks for the information, and good luck in all of your winter pursuits.

Dan

[Bob S]

If anyone wants to read the entire article:

http://www.oscodapress.com/archives//December.20.2002/outdoors/oz.shtml

by Rick Asmus

Scientific Management?

Rifle season 2002 has come and gone. For me and many other hunters it came in like a lamb and went out like a lamb, very quietly. Deer numbers are down, deer sightings are down, less shots were taken and the number of hunters in the woods is also decreasing. Hunters are complaining greatly of the sad season we just experienced in Northeast Michigan.

In truth, the DNR has a stated goal of reducing deer numbers throughout the state. The reasons they give for this decision seem reasonable; they include the control of diseases such as bovine TB, the reduction of car/deer accidents, to reduce crop loss to farmers and to provide a habitat that is in harmony with deer numbers. These stated goals make sense, however, a recent action brought to my attention by several hunters and local businessmen puts the DNR directly in the sights of hunters once again. It forces a thoughtful person to wonder whether scientific management and sensible administration is being employed in making our wildlife management decisions.

The fact is that the bulk of the deer herd resides on private land. So this year the DNR, in its efforts to reduce deer numbers, decided that private land owners were to have access to the bulk of the antlerless deer licenses. Well and good until the "scientifically" derived number of alloted permits were sold out. What then? Well, on November 22nd, the DNR issued another 11,500 private land antlerless permits statewide, with 1,000 of the additional permits targeting Iosco County and 500 going on sale for DMU 452, the bovine TB area.

The DNR responded to the added permits with these words, taken directly from their website:

"Many Deer Management Units (DMUs) in high prevalence bovine TB counties, and adjacent counties sold all available private land antlerless deer licenses early in the firearm season. The DNR has a stated goal of eliminating bovine TB in the deer population. The DNR regrets any inconveniences that this has caused hunters assisting the DNR in this effort, who may have been unable to purchase a private land antlerless permit"

The areas referred to in the above statement were DMUs 005 (Antrim), O35 (Iosco), 057(Missaukee) and 065 (Ogemaw), each received an additional 1,000 permits. Other Northeastern Michigan DMUs that received 500 licenses were Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Crawford, Emmet, Kalkaska, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, Ottawa, Roscommon, and area 452 which includes the four county corners of Alcona, Alpena, Oscoda and Montmorency Counties.

Areas which included Clinton, Ingham, Livingston, Gratiot and Shiawassee Counties located in south central Michigan were also given more antlerless private land permits because they too had sold out early. The reason these additional permits were made available, according to the website, was so the hunters in that area would have more recreational opportunities.

Jerry Weinrich, the wildlife biologist for Iosco, Roscommon and Ogemaw Counties, was surprised that the permits were made available so expeditiously. In fact, he wasn't even aware that the additional permits were being made available until after the fact.

Jerry said, "I don't support the extra licenses because we are sending the wrong message when we do something like this. We are losing a lot of credibility in public relations in order to take a few more deer."

He added," We (in the field) didn't even know about the decision; it was made in Lansing."

Well, if the wildlife biologists in the field, the men and women who are intimately familiar with their areas of responsibility are not involved in the decision making process, how should we view these recent actions?

Steve Porter, owner of Bunyantown Marina and Lock, Stock and Barrel in Oscoda, said,"It doesn't make any sense to throw more permits at our area (Iosco). Most hunters are already complaining that they aren't seeing any deer."

Rod Clute, the DNR Big Game Specialist said the department was just trying to be consistent.

"Running out of antlerless permits isn't consistent with our goals. So, we added additional permits to be consistent with those goals," he said.

Whitetails Forever is an organization of men and women united to furthering the needs of the deer herd as well as those of Michigan hunters. They periodically meet with DNR officials to address ideas concerning our deer herd. The organizations vice-president Mike Losee said, "We met with Becky Humphries (Chief of the Wildlife Division) last year (2001) and she told us that once the quotas were set for each year's deer harvest, there would be no more licenses sold."

The addition of more permits may have been in line with the goals of the DNR, but it certainly gives the wrong impression to hunters. Trust between hunters and the DNR has been at issue for several years and this action does nothing to improve that relationship.









The Oscoda Press is a publication of Community Media Group
© 2000 The Oscoda Press
Send all inquiries to The Oscoda Press

[huntingfool43]

was so the hunters in that area would have more recreational opportunities.

Someone what to explain this? What dose "recreational opportunities" have to due with managing our deer heard? If they want more recreational opportunities than hunt bunnies or other small game or pick up a fishing pole.Who are they tring to BS. It all adds up to $$$$ for the State. And people wonder why there is so much distrust towards the DNR.

[Jimbos]

Jerry Weinrich should be promoted, the guy has his finger on the pulse of Michigan hunters.

Rod Clute sounds like another state political lackey.

There you go Rod, maybe a few more doe were shot, but the department lost a ton of credibility in my eyes. Which did you need more?

A very good article!

[Pinefarm]

Huntingfool, I think the state is worried about losing a bunch of deer hunters if deer numbers get too low. If the trend continues, we may have 400,000-500,000 deer hunters in another decade. I'm not saying that's either right or wrong. Maybe we've had too many deer hunters for too long. If guys don't see but only one or two deer all year, many may take up other hobbies. Again, I'm not saying that that's either good or bad. Especially if herd numbers level off at around 1,000,000. But if there's 800,000 hunters chasing 1,000,000 deer, then those opportunities will be low. It's a very fine line between having low deer numbers and enough for the majority of license buyers to keep the license sales rolling. Some biologists may think 5-10 deer per sq mile is good. But 40 hunters hunting 5 deer in one section won't last very long. I think this is the DNR's Catch 22.

[huntingfool43]

I think the state is worried about losing a bunch of deer hunters if deer numbers get too low

Bob if they keep handing out permits that is what will happen unless the sports people say enough is enough. When I started deer hunting doe permits were by lottery and if you used your doe tag it took your buck tag to and I never heard the complaining then like there is now. IMO the DNR should have never went to unlimited doe tags and 4 bucks a year. They did all they could to get people into the sport and now its pay back time.Like you said if there is 1000000 deer and 800000 hunters something is going to have to give. I just hope they do not totally destroy the heard before things change.

[foersterhunter]

Right heres is my problem and most peoples problem.
Trust between hunters and the DNR has been at issue for several years and this action does nothing to improve that relationship.

[One Eye]

Trust and credibility are the actual issues here. As a side note, I heard on an old hunting video by by Jerry Chiappetta (sp?) that most biologists believe that hunters would have a hard time seeing deer if the density dropped below 15 per square mile. Now, the DNR says that this is the target??

I think I am going to dig this video up and watch it again.

Dan

[jimmyboy]

A new replacement for Pete Squibb,recently retired MDNR wildlife div species chief,is Mike Bailey who has been w/MDNR since 1977. He can be reached at (517)373-1263 . This is Clute's new boss.

[Randy Kidd]

""More recreational opportunities"""???????. For whom?? Private landowners, More opportunity to recreate on their own land??? Private landowners who in my county got 99% of the doe tags, I don't know what the actual percentage is all I know is that only 1000 public tags were given in the lottery. And on the state land that I hunt I saw near 100 does, And I didn't have the tag to take one. I was out Squirrle hunting yesterday on the same SGA and saw three different groups of does one group had 10 does in it. And in the three day old snow were so many tracks it was unreal, Most were small tracks, but there were plenty of large tracks and some really huge one's. My point in all of this is if they wanted to reduce the doe population why didn't they have more public tags? The answer is as obvious as the moles on Jenny's face. It had nothing to do with sound management of the deer herd, it had to do with the kow-towing of who ever regulates this mess to the lobbies, Who ever they are or what ever their agenda may be I don't know, All I know is that there are more deer now on the SGA that I hunt than there has been in the last 10 years, And the state won't let anyone reduce their numbers. And before anyone jumps. I do bow hunt, But is seems very few bow hunters hunt here, I bet I only saw three cars during the whole month of Oct, and first weeks on November. The Hunter numbers were way down during the regular firearm season also. Seeing orange during years of liberal doe permits is common, This year it was practicaly deserted out there, Oh well, it just means there will be more legal bucks next year. Lots of nice forks and spikes running around. Because if they arn't going to let me do my part in managing the herd by taking a doe then screw em and their management practices and I will take whatever is legal.

[Linda G.]

Hey guys, if any of you had subscriptions to Michigan Outdoor News, you would have read most of what's in the Oscoda Press article two weeks ago...most of what's in that article was first printed by MON...I know, I wrote that article.

The quote from Rod Clute is what he told me, and was taken directly from my article, which if you look it up and read it will also include quotes from Glen Matthews, DNR Northern District Biologist, Weinrich's boss, about why the permits were issued. In my original draft of that article I stated that Matthews also said he didn't know anything about the additional permits until they were issued, and he's the top dog in scientific wildlife management in northern Michigan. That particular statement from Matthews was cut from the MON edition, I'm not sure why.

But it is in the edition that I printed in the TC Record Eagle, which is no longer available online, and it was in our local Antrim County News, also not available online.


Anyhow, get subscriptions to MON-and you'll know about issues like this first, unstead of finding out about it second or third hand two or three weeks later from another paper that borrowed most of the information in it.

Marty just started his subscription, did you get a copy of that issue, Marty? I hope so...

Have a good day!!

[boehr]

Linda...is MON a sponsor on this site? Don't know if it is or is not, if not maybe it should be as it seems to be getting advertised to me.

[Linda G.]

No, we aren't, Ray, but I'm just trying to offer folks some information, just like you do. Please note, in deference to Steve's wishes, I didn't offer a phone number or a website, I could have, easily.

If Steve wants to pull this post, I would think it would be up to him, wouldn't it?

Get up on the wrong side of the bed today?;)

BTW-I did get Mr. Clute on the phone, as you probably know if you read the article, but it took more than 10 days and Brad Wurfel's intervention to do it. Brad's a good guy, and a true asset to the DNR. He works hard to improve relationships between the press and the DNR. Something not everyone else in the DNR is interested in.

Take the day off, Ray, enjoy yourself a little, sounds like you could use it.

[Jimbos]

The quote from Rod Clute is what he told me, and was taken directly from my article, which if you look it up and read it will also include quotes from Glen Matthews, DNR Northern District Biologist, Weinrich's boss, about why the permits were issued. In my original draft of that article I stated that Matthews also said he didn't know anything about the additional permits until they were issued, and he's the top dog in scientific wildlife management in northern Michigan.


I'm going to start to see those black helicopters at any time again....lol;) Let's see here, we have the states big deer kahuna, and he doesn't know **** about the extra tags. We have others involved in Michigan deer management disagreeing with the decision. Now where did this decision to issue the tags come from? It wouldn't be that politically infested NRC would it?

It's just what I figured. The DNR has very qualified people in decision making positions, but not quite at the top to make final decisions. So their just ignored or not consulted. We really got some scientific management going on in the state boy. Now where did someone put those deer pellets to count?


Great article Linda, keep up the good work.:) :)

[Linda G.]

Is Rod Clute, Jimmy, and he made the decision to add the tags after presumably (I don't know this for sure, but I would hope) conferring with Becky Humphries, Wildlife Division Chief, as well as Pete Squibbs, who was in the office in December, and George Burgoyne.

I would also think that they took it to the Director, but they didn't take it to the NRC. I don't believe that's necessary, they only have to consult with the NRC over season dates and lengths. In any event, I know of at least one NRC commissioner who didn't know anything about it, either, until at least a week after the tags were issued.

Glen Matthews is Northern District Wildlife Biologist, not Clute's boss, nor is Clute Glen's boss...they're sort of on a par, with different job obligations. But you would think that Mr. Clute would have conferred with the biologists in each area before making the decision to add tags in that biologist's area. Or that K would have insisted on that before okaying the addition.

Who knows how the DNR works sometimes...this was all done very quickly, I'm told, after the majority of DMU's had sold out, which was the 20th of November. The additional tags were added on the 22, then again the first week of December.

[Jimbos]

It's an amazing thing...They lost a ton of credibility over this one.:(

That's the whole thing, if the initial number was issued upon sound wildlife management principles and DNR stated goals, what was this last helter skelter issusance based on? There was an article posted by someone quoting a DNR chieftain as to why more were issued do to the poor farmers not having a chance to get down to the ole tackle store and getting their permits. There has to be more to it then that.

[jimmyboy]

Great advice Linda G , think I'll take it myself. Sun is shining - 50 deg- what could be more relaxing than a long walk in the woods?

[marty]

Just got it Sat Linda after I'd already posted this. Yep seems like the DNR stepped into some do-do on this one. I guess scientific mangement is when the farm lobby screams. As Jimbos said they lost a bunch of trust with hunters over this......marty:mad:

[boehr]

Sorry Linda, not just like me, I don't make a profit at what I post nor do I advertise that I wrote an article you can read if you buy the paper that paid me for the article.

Of course, if the article is that important/good and you are the author then you could post it, unless you were paid at a rate that you no longer own the rights to the article.:eek:

[Linda G.]

I'll be happy to post the article anytime anyone wants to read it. I have no qualms with that. As long as that's ok with Steve. But it's old news now. Let me know if anyone wants to see it. You'll get the first draft, not all of which was printed.

FYI, very few writers get paid for all rights anymore, in fact, I don't know of any at all.

As for making a profit, Boehr, I don't make a dime for posting over here. Which I do fairly often. And I'll bet my total income from all of my work is a third what yours is...

Sorry you have decided you don't like me, Ray...or perhaps that's how you behave towards all media people? What a shame, especially when's there's writers out there who don't know any better and would assume that's the attitude everyone in the DNR has and would convey that to their readers. Which would cause a lot of people out there to be even more distrustful of the DNR, something that seems to be happening a lot lately.


It's sad when a few people make a whole organization look bad. There's a lot of good people working for the DNR, you're one of them, or so I've assumed from reading your posts.

I was simply trying to offer a little information, something you don't seem to want me to do here. I don't have to advertise MON, and I'm not being paid to do so. The paper speaks for itself, so does the incredibly rising circulation.

No one seems to object when an article from the Oscoda Press is mentioned, or Wood N Water News, or MOOD, much less one of the never ending threads about the various TV shows, so what's the difference here? Are any of them sponsors? I often see posts from Steve Hutchins, Whit, and Mike Veine about articles they wrote for one of those publications, and there's never any problem with that.

Could it be that MON has a message board that MS obviously views as competition (although I don't know why, as I said in my email to you, there's plenty of room for both of us out there).

hmmmm....

[Jimbos]

I for one would like to read every word, now i'm starting to wonder if I have been wrong regarding pressure being applied on the DNR by the Farm Bureau and Insurance Lobbyists, for which i've been accused of being nuts in an indirect way. Even though NO proof has been shown to prove i'm wrong.

Maybe there has been no pressure, just plain old bureaucratic incompetence. With the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

Linda, please e-mail me anything you can. thanks.

[boehr]

Linda, you are missing my point. We have brought the same thing up with others about advertising. Your post was trying to get people to buy the paper that you write for. Many of us on this site have paid money to help this site. The people that advertise on this site have paid to do that. I have purchased stickers, hat, shirt and have just plainly donated money to this site.

I'm confident that you can post any article you want here that you wrote and Steve will have no problem as that's what we all do, isn't it?

Don't play the word game you are trying to play, with who's income is greater or anything else. I believe you are better that that. I haven't decided that I don't like you, because of you being the media or anything else. Just understand the point.

[jimmyboy]

JIMBOS - during my walk in the woods today I found those deer pellets to count, trouble is - they're in Kentucky.

[Linda G.]

I don't think so, Ray...I understood you perfectly. You misunderstood me.

All I said was that if they'd had that paper, they would have read the article two weeks ago, which is true. Getting the paper NOW wouldn't do them any good, that issue was more than TWO WEEKS AGO.

You just have a very suspicious mind, and are very skeptical of most people, typical of most CO's...

Again, no one else seems to get asked, at least publicly, if the publication they happened to write an article for is helping to sponsor...if that was held to everything on this site, nothing in the way of any publication could EVER be mentioned, could it?

I've already sent the article to Jimbos at his request. If anyone else wants to see it, I'll be happy to post it. But please check with Steve first, and remember, it's now old news.

[Steve]

Go ahead and post it Linda. If you have breaking news again don't make us wait 2 or 3 weeks for it :)

[Linda G.]

again, this is the original draft version, not all of which was originally published in MON in the 12/14 issue, in the interest of room for the usual ads, etc., that editors have to deal with. I'll do a search on the MON site and see if they still have the published 12/14 version, which is somewhat shorter, but in the meantime, here's the original draft, and what (slightly edited, too) appeared in both my local paper and the Traverse City Record Eagle...

ADDITIONAL ANTLERLESS DEER TAGS OFFERED TO HUNTERS
By Linda Gallagher

LANSING-On November 22, midway through Michigan’s firearms deer season, the DNR issued 11,450 additional private land antlerless deer tags for sale in areas that had been sold out of available antlerless deer tags, a move that surprised many hunters and sporting goods dealers.

The short statement from the DNR issued statewide to hunting license vendors said that the licenses were being issued due to “unexpected demand”.

1000 additional private land antlerless tags were made available to hunters in DMU 005 in Antrim County, DMU 057 in Missaukee County, DMU 065 in Ogemaw County, and DMU 035 in Iosco County. 500 additional private land tags for each area were made
available to hunters in Roscommon, Kalkaska, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Otsego, Oscoda and Montmorency Counties, as well as 9 other deer management units across the Lower
Peninsula, including several in southern Michigan as well as in DMU 452 in northeastern lower Michigan. No additional permits were issued for any DMU’s in the Upper Peninsula.

The increase in the amount of available doe licenses came as a surprise to many deer hunters and sporting goods dealers, during a deer season when many hunters are reporting few, if any, sightings of deer at all. “People called me every day during the gun deer season, wondering where all the deer are,” said Voss Guntzviller of Guntzviller Taxidermy in Elk Rapids in Antrim County, who added that he was “shocked” to hear of the added licenses. “I told them all the same thing-I don’t know. I’m sure not seeing any when I’ve been out there hunting this year, and I told them that I know for a fact they’re not here in my store. My taxidermy business is way down this year.”

Guntzviller added that he doesn’t believe there are as many antlerless deer this year, either. “People usually call me to ask if we buy deer hides. We’re only getting a few calls like that, so in my opinion, we’re not harvesting very many antlerless deer, either. The deer just aren’t there. To issue more tags to harvest more female deer in light of what appears to be a much lower deer population just about everywhere in northern Michigan
just doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Tom Durecki, a sporting goods dealer in East Jordan in Charlevoix County who belongs to a hunting club in DMU 452 in northeastern Michigan, said, “Issuing more tags at the
last minute is just crazy. The deer population here in Charlevoix County is low enough as it is without issuing any more tags, but I think they’re out to wipe out the herd completely in the TB area. It’s rare to see a deer over there.”

Despite the lack of deer sightings, sporting goods dealers all over the state reported that the extra antlerless tags were selling well. “Some of them have sold out again already, like Clinton County,” said Mary Ann McNamara of Grand River Bait and Tackle in Lansing. “People around here were real glad to get the extra tags, even the people who already had several tags they hadn’t filled. But it wasn’t like there was a line of people running in to get them-there weren’t. There’s still tags left in a lot of areas.”

McNamara added that demand seemed particularly high for more tags in Ionia and Eaton Counties, which did not have any additional antlerless tags issued. “Yet, people tell us they’re seeing very few deer as well. I don’t understand why they’d want more antlerless tags if they aren’t seeing deer.”

“I think, despite the publicity about our return to a quota system this year, that a lot of people thought that private land antlerless permits in unlimited numbers were once again available for sale over the counter, as they were in previous years,” said Glen Matthews, DNR District Wildlife Biologist. “That wasn’t the case. From what I understand, there were complaints made to Lansing from agricultural areas that because many deer management areas in the lower peninsula were sold out before they got a chance to buy antlerless tags, farmers in those areas wouldn’t be able to harvest the number of deer required to avoid future crop damage issues. These people were apparently not aware
that there was a quota on private land tags-that none of our DMU’s had unlimited tags this year.”

Few farmers in Michigan asked for special Deer Management Assistance permits this year, said the biologist. “Apparently, there just isn’t a lot of interest in hunting deer before autumn, even from farmers in areas with high rates of crop damage.”

Matthews added that many areas of Michigan, such as Crawford County in northern Michigan, and Calhoun County in southern Michigan, still had private land anterless permits available for sale over the counter when the additional tags were added to other
areas. “It’s not as if there were no private land antlerless tags available anywhere in the state-there were. But it may be difficult to get permission from landowners to hunt on the private lands in counties like Calhoun, or in counties like Crawford, which unlike other counties, doesn’t have a lot of private land at all.”

Matthews said that he was unaware of the plans to issue additional tags until the day that they were issued.

In an announcement on their website, the DNR said that the additional licenses were added to facilitate the department’s goal of eradicating bovine TB in the deer herd in northern areas, and to provide additional recreational opportunities in southern and
central Michigan. Said Big Game Specialist Rod Clute, “Running out of antlerless permits isn’t consistent with our goals so we added additional permits to be consistent with those goals.”

“It was already too late for a lot of people to use those tags when the DNR issued them,” said Tom Durecki. “I think northern and central Michigan saw a lot of disappointed deer hunters who didn’t see any bucks during the opening weekend of the firearms deer season, and at the time, couldn’t buy any doe tags at all because they were already sold out. So they went home, and they didn’t come back. With a one tag per day rule, some
hunters could have bought dozens of tags, while others who forgot or thought they were unlimited couldn’t get any at all when they tried, until these extra tags were issued. But it
was too late by then. Most people are done deer hunting now, which is probably good, because a lot of areas don’t seem to have the deer for all the tags that are out there anyway. Where’s the sound, scientific wildlife management here?”

The additional private land antlerless tags are available at all retail DNR license outlets on a one per day per hunter basis until the quota set for that particular area is reached. The tags may be used for the December muzzleloading season, as well as areas which will have a late private lands firearms deer season. The last of Michigan’s various deer seasons will conclude on January 1, 2003.