Lack of Hunters? Part II

[Eastern Yooper]

Boehr, good debate going so far!

In response to your rebuttals:

Blinds: You state that the logging industry was a big push behind the regulations due to damage of nails in trees etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it always been illegal to go hammering nails into trees upon public lands? You furthermore mention various litter left behind..... again: It is and always has been illegal to litter. Therefore, the laws were already on the books to prosecute those who would choose to desecrate public lands.

I see absolutely no need to have restricted the majority who didn't abuse the building of blinds.

Next, you mentioned my comparing ice shanties and hunting blinds on state lands. Specifically, you stated I was "mixing apples and oranges, period". Two completely different issues here? Well, I have thought about it and here is my take: Besides the obvious (fishing versus hunting), suppose I build a $200 plywood ice shanty that is 5'x6' in dimension. It has a hole in the floor for spearing and a window to look out for checking tip-ups. My name and address are properly displayed on the outside, and I place this shanty out on Munuscong Bay. I install a clasp and lock the door when I'm absent.

Two months earlier, however, this same shanty was used as a 'Type 3' (Constructed Ground Blind) for my firearms deer hunting on public land. I placed this blind out no sooner than Nov. 6th, again with a clasp and locked door.

Get my drift here? In both instances, these are used as a shelter to engage in recreational activities upon public land. However, in one instance it would be considered criminal to break into the shelter; while in the other case it would not. After all, according to Michigan law, the first person to occupy a hunting blind may legally use it.

Baiting: While sportmen may differ on this issue (ie. 'the will of the people'), the DNR has publicly gone on record stating they are OPPOSED to baiting in any way. Period.

You ask for clarification regarding my statement, "This kinda mirrors gun-control from my perspective". Here goes: Everytime some looney like Colin ferguson goes on a shooting rampage, a new restrictive gun law gets passed (and this negates your statement that "laws don't change because of one incident"). As a direct result of Colin Ferguson's subway massacre, Bill Clinton was successful in passing the legislation restricting the new manufacture of handgun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. WHOOPEE!!!! If my wife and kids get mowed down at McDonalds tomorrow and the idiot's gun only had 10 bullets instead of 15, well, I'll sure be thanking the President. Or how about the tragedy in Flint and renewals for mandating firearms be stored with trigger locks?

Basically, I feel we are legislating ourselves to death! Those gun laws are not addressing the real problems at hand; one cannot legislate common sense. You mentioned nails in trees as a result for the blind restrctions. There are (3) types of blinds recognized by the state. Eventually, I foresee only portable blinds being allowed because of 'The BIG PICTURE'. Ditto for baiting: GONE. And shining: GONE.

The end result is that the majority have/will lose favored methods/pasttimes because of the result of a few. Just like the repeated attacks upon gun ownership.

Finally, I mentioned how hunting in general - particularly deer hunting - has gotten more restrictive and complicated. I compared it to waterfowl hunting, and you pointed out that waterfowl regs are set by the Feds, not the State. Frankly I feel that remark is projection and placing blame on the Feds, but I'll give you that. If one considers the BIG PICTURE, however, and not who's fault it is for the myriad of waterfowl regs to siphon thru..... one realizes that not only waterfowl hunting suffered, but hunting in-general suffered when folks said the 'hell with it all' and laid up their shotguns.

As I stated in earlier posts, hunting is supposed to be about enjoying the outdoors, respecting the wildlife and our natural resources, and having fun. Further examination of the BIG PICTURE reveals this: The 1989-90 Hunting and Trapping Guide was 16 pages from start to finish. The 1999-00 Hunting and Trapping Guide was 46 pages in length. That is THIRTY MORE PAGES of rules and regulations imposed upon the Sportsmen and women of the State of Michigan.

The BIG PICTURE tells me that hunting, trapping, and fishing is getting more complicated, complex, and restrictive in the State of Michigan.

------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'

[boehr]

Eastern Yooper...the debate continues. But your post get a little off track because we are including what the people want as a factor.

Blinds...You again try to combine ice shanties and blinds. Blinds don't fall through when the ice melts so you don't really have a choice to remove a shanty. If you are in a ice shanty fishing and someone stops 100 feet from you and starts fishing, how much does that bother you? If you are in a blind and someone else stops 100 feet from you and hunts there, how much does that bother you? Hence, confrontations and a big difference in the amount or area used by a different recreational activity, get my drift. The difference is that the public can't complaint that Hunter Joe has this portion of public land staked out for his hunting year around. Also blinds left in the woods and not used again and after years ends up looking like junk piles and unless somebody knows its there, it's left. On most lakes, you have all those people that live around the lake watching those shanties that are still left there as everyone is moving there shanties off as it slowly gets warmer. In fact, because a number didn't remove their shanties, there are also date for their removal from the ice now too. Boaters and lake residents complained about that because they would be the ones to hit them with boats or clean them up as they washed on their beach.

As far as your explanation for gun control...You go into a long explanation about Ferguson but you were talking about the hunting regulations (DNR) in the post so I guess you must have made a bad statement there concerning gun control and hunting regs by the DNR.

Baiting...If the DNR was completely opposed to baiting, why is there still baiting? Would I personally like to see baiting gone, yes. I think MUCC is also said get rid of baiting (the people?). Again the baiting issue has been debated for years with the public being pretty closely divided on this issue. Again this issue combines with the TB issue with lots of different opinions.

Shining…you didn’t make additional comments on that issue.

Deer hunting in general has gotten more complicated? Then you talk about the hunting digest 10 years apart. Read both of those and you will see a big difference. The biggest difference is the DNR has tried to include even more laws into the digest because the people didn't have it in the old (1990) digest and they had to call for answers. The old digest did not have anything about Quality Deer Management, Button Bucks, more of an explanation for handgun laws so they wouldn't get into trouble, Tagging big Game, Combination Deer License regulations, Hunting Hours, a chart with exact times, an Easier Chart for Hunting Seasons, All Deer Check Stations, Firearm Safety, Trapping of Fisher, Information on TB, and a lot more pictures...so don't even go there. The laws are not that much more, just more information for the public to inform them. So your statement of "THIRTY MORE PAGES of rules and regulations" is nothing but a FALSE statement!

Waterfowl regs, no, not blaming the Feds, again you said it was the DNR and I said I will not allow misconceptions, that you had from your posts. As far as waterfowl, hunting pressure in the state has increase over the years for waterfowl. Especially since the point system was done away with a number of years ago.

As far as the good old days and hunting and trapping going down, you need to take a good look around. Ever since about 1979 or so and up to today, we are in the good old days for the most part. I'm sure there might by a few more but the only species I can think of that was better prior, was pheasants. Everything else, fish and game we have more of and you can take more LEGALLY! Hunter putting their guns away and saying the hell with it. That’s not true either. The problem we have is we are not getting the younger generation to take part in this outdoor recreational activity. When the DNR tries to promote something to get younger hunters involved (youth hunt, etc.), some (not all) yell and scream it’s wrong but do nothing to promote young people themselves.

[nightstalker]

Man this is great guy's . Dont stop here , keep going. :D

------------------
In the wind he's still alive!! Fred Bear

[Eastern Yooper]

My retort:

Blinds: Ice shanties vs. deer blinds: I don't like someone being 100 ft from me whether its ice fishing or hunting. The point being made here is that another hunter may legally use my deer blind; while that same person cannot use my ice shanty. Seems like a double-standard to me. And I believe you know this. Furthermore, you entirely avoided my reference to hammering nails and littering already having been illegal prior to all the blind restrictions. The DNR already had the laws on the books to enforce such violations..... yet you came out and admitted it was mostly the logging industry who was behind the push for restrictions. Interesting. So we have had quotaless antlerless deer permits as a direct result of a lawsuit threatened by the Michigan Farm Bureau; Baiting restrictions because of the cattle industry screamoing about TB; and loss of blind privelages because of the logging industry. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Seems like the will of special interest groups are responsible for these laws...... not the will of the public at large. You're squirming on this one: Chalk one point up for Eastern Yooper.

Gun Control: In a nutshell (I guess I'm not summarizing this very well) : There is a knee-jerk reaction to pass more laws when something happens. Bureaucrats seem to think by making something illegal that it will solve a problem and make it go away. Not true; you and I and everyone on this forum knows this and is well aware of the comparison I am making. Whether it is a legislator thinking trigger locks will prevent another Columbine; or a logger lobbying to outlaw deer blinds..... the problems will still be there after the proposed bill is made law. There are plenty of gun laws on the books; just as there are plenty of hunting regulations on the books. Enforce what we have.

The DNR's official stance, as reported to the NRC, is that they would like to see a total ban on baiting statewide. Again, I think you are fully aware of this.

Shining: No comments from me on this one, because we're gonna lose it... which I think is sad.

I mentioned the hunting digest getting more complicated in the last 10 years, and you refuted that.... telling me instead "don't even go there". Interesting. The THIRTY MORE PAGES of rules and regulations I cited you claim to be a FALSE statement. You go on to say that "The laws are not that much more, just more information for the public to inform them. The guide now contains easier chart for Hunting seasons, all deer check stations, firearm safety, trapping of fisher, info on TB, and a lot more pictures". How nice....... and how totally untrue. FACT: From 1989-1999 there have been 72 (FOLKS: read SEVENTY-TWO) MAJOR RULE CHANGES imposed upon Michigan hunters. So I did go there, and chalk up another point for Eastern Yooper.

You mention my reference to waterfowl regs and you state, "no, not blaming the Feds, again you said it was the DNR and I said I will no allow misonceptions, that you had from your posts". I read and reread all of my previous posts, and not once did I blame the DNR for the myriad of waterfowl regs. My posts have not been edited, so please point-out where I specifically make reference to the DNR. I made a statement that hunting in Michigan is getting more complex and restrictive similar to what happened to waterfowl hunting. In point of fact it is you who is making assumptions and taking my statements out of context. E. Yooper: 3; boehr: 0.

Finally: Not ONCE have I complained on this forum about a supposed lack of fish and game in this state. NOT ONCE. So I don't know where you're coming from on that one; that reference you made seemed to come from left field.


........ and the saga continues.



------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'

[Eastern Yooper]

Hey friends:

I'm gone to the hunting camp until Monday..... I'll pick this up then, and I look forward to reading the different opinions.

Have a great weekend, all!

------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'

[hoytshooter]

WOW, I agree with eastern yooper........NO WAIT A MINUTE I agree with boehr.........NO NO WAIT, hell I don't know but this is a great debate, and I'm loving it. :D :D :D

[boehr]

Didn’t know we were keeping score.J OK lets see…

Your quote about Waterfowl regs "Remember what happened to duck hunting about 20 years ago? Seems as though the same is happening to deer hunting." Do to the fact that that is in your same post, one of the posts in the beginning of this debate, complaining about all the hunting regs with deer, who were you blaming then?

Back to the baiting…I think we have both posted our comments there. I will make the point though about mechanical feeders. Will of the people to change it back so it was changed back to mechanical feeders being legal.

Blinds…I don’t know where you ice fish but there are a lot of places where large groups of people ice fish very closely and lots within 100 feet of each other. As far as ice shanties, some fishermen leave equipment it there shanty which is why they lock them. Not a good idea to leave equipment in there but just the same. Of course with the exception of the Great Lakes, the public has a right to fish on the waters of this state providing the can gain access to the water without trespassing. Not true on the waters of this state with hunting and trapping. The adjacent property owner has reparian rights for hunting and trapping which causes structures on the ice and structures on public lands to be a little different here. Public lands anyone can do anything as long as it’s legal but, public waters anybody can not do anything because of reparian rights as to hunting etc., regardless if the season is open. So much for your double standard. Your words "yet you came out and admitted it was mostly the logging industry who was behind the push for restrictions…" You better go back and read the posts yet a third time. My words were "…loggers in the UP had a lot of input…", you ignored the information about confrontations where there has been a lot more of the hunters having confrontations in certain areas. I don’t think all the confrontations between hunters are special interest groups. I mention loggers because you are from the UP and gave something in addition to what you should be also aware of, I guess you were not. You are correct though, I didn’t get into the litter but I will since you bring it up. I attempted to give you an example with the bear baits but you must not have read that part. So you want a CO that locates a pile of junk on state land, and assume the first unsuspecting hunter that decides to utilize the blind that some slob leaves behind, to believe that the hunter using the blind in the woods is the slob. Sorry, I or I’m sure everyone on this site doesn’t want to be in that situation. I have read may posts about all the good hunters on this site picking up bags of crap left behind by slobs and the junk left behind by those who don’t even hunt. Littering is one of two things, a civil infraction which has to happen in the officer’s presence and a warrant can’t be issued for, or a misdemeanor which must happen in the officer’s presence or must obtain a warrant through the prosecutor. The law pertaining to blinds has helped in keeping the woods cleaner and less territorial confrontations between hunters. I agree, it hasn’t completely stopped it but it has helped. Again, I guess you would rather have no action by the DNR but you would be the first to be yelling why don’t the state do something and if you were not yelling it would be my guess that you didn’t care. Names on raised platforms, been around longer than I can remember. Of course do I dare mention you can now hunt with a gun from a raised platform, don’t need another one of these major rule changes for you to count that made it easier for the hunter, didn’t have to remember he couldn’t hunt from a raised platform! J

The digest and 72 changes. Will I debate that number, no, as for the reason, which there are more as stated with raised platforms. Did some of those change make the law easier for the hunter, yes. Was some of those for the benefit of the hunter, yes. Are the THIRTY MORE PAGES you claim all have to do with those new laws or are they what I stated in my last post, Quality Management etc. You know the answer and you are again making misconceptions. If you don’t then you really need to read the digest because I do have every digest dating all the way back to…no not just 1990 but 1980. But lets examine some of those changes that you listed or all the regs you make it sound like they were so bad that you mentioned in an earlier post of yours;

-Regular license good for antlered deer, geeez, always been like that as far as I can remember.
-Regular bow license good for deer of either sex, always been like that too.
-Combo license, legislation pushed through by an organization at the last minute that not only caught the CO’s of guard but the sportsmen too. I agree, been lots of confusion about the combo but as people are learning to understand the combo license, isn’t it better? Let’s hear from anyone who wants to do away with the combo license!

-Antlerless tags and the 5 acre - 40 acres confusion, I agree and standby for a change to make it all equal for everyone, of course you can then claim another major rule change Yooper. And this can’t be because the people want it so it’s equal, it must just be the DNR or a special interest group want it, right Yooper.
Now general and private antlerless permits in certain deer management units. How else do you want to attempt to manage the herd? This also has been around a long time and I don’t believe there is much confusion on this point like you attempt to indicate. You indicated you not complaining about the amount of game (deer) but, if not, then this management can’t be too bad can it?

You make it sound like a person has to memorize the regs for the whole state and that’s not even close. Even I can’t memorize all the regs for the whole state but as a hunter I have no problem knowing the regs for where I hunt. It’s not that hard, in fact, it’s just as easy as it was when I was 14 and just started deer hunting, and that’s a lot long that just 20 years ago.

Your response…..

You know Yooper, last summer the members had a get together and if that happens again this year, I’m going to try to attempt to attend and I hope you do to because I would love to debate this whole thing all over with you in person. I hate writing, I have to do too much of it at work now.J

[Eastern Yooper]

Whew!

I logged-on this morning and couldn't find our topic.... I thought someone had nuked it! I was kinda miffed!

Now I see that Steve started a whole 'nother page just for deer: Good!

Anyways.....

Waterfowl regs: The point I am making here is that there is a quagmire of rules one must sift thru..... just like hunting and fishing in-general is getting to be.

Baiting: The will of the people got mechanical feeders legalized again; yes. BUT: Was it the 'will of the people' who got them outlawed in the first place..... or was it the Natural Resources Commission? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Blinds: You state, "The law pertaining to blinds has helped in keeping the woods cleaner and less territorial confrontations between hunters. I agree it hasn't completely stopped it but it has helped." Interesting. There have always been - and always will be - problems with hunters out in the field.... or else WHY HAVE CONSERVATION OFFICERS? Think about this: Where else could you get three-quarter of a million armed people out in the woods for a two week period and have as few problems as there are percentage-wise? Of course, there are bound to be some jerks out there that have no respect for the rights of others or the law. No amount of additional laws will change that, ever.

You go on to say, "Again, I guess you would rather have no action by the DNR but you would be the first to be yelling why don't the state do something and if you were not yelling it would be my guess that you didn't care". Well-now, this is where you and I have markedly different, contrasting views: Whether it is blinds, littering, or ORV's, the laws were always there to control those that were wrecking our natural resources. Why not use those exsisting laws to prosecute violators? My opinion is that its easier for an agency to outlaw the honest legal use of the resource by everybody.

For example: The so-called blind violations. Hammering nails into trees and littering were a few reasons listed for the crushing restrictions imposed upon Michigan sportsmen. Fair enough reasons. But how about instead of the sweeping changes, if it was instead simply made law that a hunter affix his name and address to a blind? That's the way it was for waterfowl blinds and ice-shanties; why not do the same for deer blinds? The majority have paid the price for a relatively few amount of jerks, and I think that is wrong. Period.

The digest and 72 changes: I don't dispute the fact that the digest is more informative, helpful, and specific on hunting & trapping. And yes: Some of the rules have in point of fact eased rules upon hunters. But 72 major rule changes is 72 major rule changes. And I pointed this out only after you made the statement that "not that many new laws and regulations have been imposed" when I made specific reference to the fact that the guide hade grown an amazing 30 pages in the last ten years. Sorry; the deck is still stacked against you on this one.

Deer licenses: JUST MY OPINION here now folks, but I feel a hunter should buy a deer license.... not 'bow' or 'firearm' license, but a simple deer license. It would be good for any season, and for either $ex deer. A combo license would be as it currently stands, with the exception that the tags would be good for (1) antlered deer and (1) antlerless deer. Period. Simple for everybody to understand. AND: I personally feel licenses should be increased to $20, as I feel we hunt whitetails for what amounts to a mere pittance in this state.

I have no problem with the current antlerless system, other than the variance in private land acreage.

boehr: Think about my next statement: "There are too many complex hunting, trapping, and fishing laws in this state which could be shortened and even some done away with."

Do you (a) Agree or (b) Disagree with that statement?

-------------------------

A get-together sounds fun. If it works out, I wouldn't mind attending. In fact, I'm heading to Wyoming this next October for the very same thing. Several guys from all accross the country met on another forum, and we're getting together for what has come to be known as 'The Gathering'..... and I can't wait!

I hope it falls together for folks from this site, too.

Your turn, boehr...........



------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'

[This message has been edited by Eastern Yooper (edited 11-27-2000).]

[Pinefarm]

E.Y. If you talk to people in the timber industry, you'd know why the rule against nails and screw in tree steps is there. When I had part of my property timbered off, the cutters wouldn't even take a tree with a single nail holding up a posted sign. The reason was simple, their cutting machine costs several hundred thousand dollars and a penny nail could do a lot of damage. Tree steps can be a killer at the mill. I think you'll find, and Boehr can correct me if I'm wrong, that it's not so much the DNR that is against nails or tree steps, but the U.S. Forest Service. Much of the public land in Michigan, and nearly all by me, is not State of Michigan property, but U.S.A. The U.S.F.S. does a lot of timbering off of that land. I may be wrong, but my guess is that the U.S.F.S. requested these rules.

[Eastern Yooper]

Bob:

I've got a couple of friends who are loggers.... one even owns his own lumber company. I'm well aware of the problems foreign objects impaled in trees creates, and I've never advocated nor promoted pounding nails into trees.

My point was this: It was ALREADY illegal to do so before they passed all the new laws placing severe restrictions on blinds. They could have merely ticketed those who were already defacing public property.

I also know a couple fellas who work for the U.S. Forest Service, and they have always had restrictions regarding blinds placed on USFS lands..... which they enforced, I might add.

Too bad the MDNR couldn't have done the same.

------------------


VEGETARIAN: Indian word meaning 'Bad Hunter'

[boehr]

Well Eastern Yooper, we are starting to get repetitious here. I will try to keep it simple.

Waterfowl regs - hunter numbers have been increasing.

Blinds - you agreed, it has helped.

Baiting - we have beat this up even with the limited rational and not getting into the TB issue.

Major Rule Changes - Don’t fool yourself, there have been more that 72 since 1990 just as in any other activity outside the resources. It is just that those may or may not have effected you. The others have no effect on you and that’s why you don't know about them. Many have made it easier and better. All are for the resources. They all fit into safety, equal opportunity, and wildlife for generations to come. As I said before, I understand the rules where I hunt just as easy as I did when I was 14 years old!

You want just a deer license, not bow or gun, OH my gosh, are you suggesting another major rule change??? That may not be far into the future as that has been discussed. Maybe, Maybe not.

As far as your statement, I agree and disagree. You can not manage a state as diversified as Michigan by the same rules for every part of the state. All sportpersons have their own ideas for the area they recreate in just as you do.

The End of the Repetition

[Eastern Yooper]

Touche!

I would like to close this by saying, "Thanks!" to boehr for providing some intelligent, thoughtful debate.

I've been on a few different forums, and it is RARE to find the insightful, considerate, and respectful exchange of differing ideas that has occurred here. Quite often these can go to 'hell and a handbasket' in the blink of an eye when someone takes something the wrong way, or on a personal level.

I tip my hat to you, boehr, and I really enjoyed this. I learned some things, and I appreciate the opportunity to have engaged in this very civil debate with you.

I hope others enjoyed it, too.

[clarkstonmi]

Wow!!! you guys would have been winded if you were standing in front of each other. I bet in person the tones of your voices would have gone up a few times :p :p. I think that you both have / had valid points and was great reading......Thanks
Ken

[boehr]

It's very good to have intelligent conversations about issues because we all learn things. Nobody can have vast knowlegde on issues throughout this state, it's just to big and diversified. It is a great state for hunting and fishing, there is no other as good. A big part of what makes this state great though are us hunters!

Well then boehr if you and Eastern Yooper are so good . WHY don't you settle this election in Fl . LOL
On the serious side you both have many good points
thanks


[This message has been edited by sportsmaster (edited 11-28-2000).]