Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

9. In order to institute a changes of this nature do you think the DNRE should conti

  • 66%

    Votes: 113 36.9%
  • 60%

    Votes: 47 15.4%
  • 51%

    Votes: 146 47.7%
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,157 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
In order to institute changes of this nature, do you think the DNRE should continue to require the current 66% approval rate or should it be lowered?


Comments will be allowed, however please direct them to the APR work group and not eachother. This forum will follow the same rules and guidelines as the whitetail forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
If you don't get the buy in then you will have a hard time with compliance. Just look at baiting. I think it would send a very poor message to lower the percentage because the DNRE hasn't done a good enough job of advocating the message.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,457 Posts
66% seems nice and safe, but when a majority want something and haven't achieved the 66% the majority loses to the minority. That doesn't sit well in a democratic society, imo.

Some quick math:

65% for
35% against.

The proposal fails even though those for had 185% more votes than those against.

Doesn't inspire confidence. Seems like a pass the buck methodology that middle management applies when it lacks the guts to make a decision. Are they really managing the resources if they're simply going with an overwhelming consensus? No not at all, they're simply allowing others to make the management decision, which is cowardly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
Seems like a pass the buck methodology that middle management applies when it lacks the guts to make a decision.
I have always interpreted it as a concern over the enforcement issue. They don't want to institute a social regulation that a large percentage of the hunters don't support. If more than two thirds of the hunting population are already on-board it's an indication to them that the new rule won't turn into an enforcement nightmare.

-na
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,318 Posts
Wouldn't the MNRC set this and the DNRE enforce? Two thirds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
I think we as hunters tend to look at it as what we want and the 66% is too high to achieve those desires.

I am looking at it from the standpoint that the 66% approval rating is in place for any organization and or individual to have to reach with regards to getting a proposal passed......

What if PETA or HSUS or any other anti-hunting group were to put out a proposal to the DNRE that just absolutely hurt us as hunters in this state? They too would need to reach the 66% to try and get passage, and with our hunter numbers declining each year I would like to see the 66% stay in place. If it gets lowered it will make it that much easier to have our opportunity to hunt get taken away from us.IMO

Jason
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,892 Posts
I definitely would like to see it changed to a simple majority. I also think it needs to be strictly yes and no votes and not including undecideds or don't cares as one way or the other. That biases the vote IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,239 Posts
Seems to me that to make any hunting regulation change (based on social issues more than any biological science) it must have an overwhelming support of the hunting community to have any degree of success.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,600 Posts
A simple majority might be one thing if 100% of the hunters who would be affected by the regulation change had the opportunity to vote. That is not the case with APR initiatives, only a small sample of hunters get the opportunity to vote. The 66% is designed to placate those who may be opposed to the changes but who are not included in the survey. You might not like the change but if 2/3rds of those polled voted for it, it's probable that a majority of all hunters would support it. It might be hard to say the same thing if the regulation is changed with only 51% of the sample supporting it. I see the super majority as a reasonable safeguard designed to make sure that the decision is truly reflective of a majority of public sentiment, even those who don't get to participate in the sample.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
A simple majority might be one thing if 100% of the hunters who would be affected by the regulation change had the opportunity to vote. That is not the case with APR initiatives, only a small sample of hunters get the opportunity to vote. The 66% is designed to placate those who may be opposed to the changes but who are not included in the survey. You might not like the change but if 2/3rds of those polled voted for it, it's probable that a majority of all hunters would support it. It might be hard to say the same thing if the regulation is changed with only 51% of the sample supporting it. I see the super majority as a reasonable safeguard designed to make sure that the decision is truly reflective of a majority of public sentiment, even those who don't get to participate in the sample.
^ Quoted so I don't have to retype the same thing myself. 66% makes sense. 51% would be a joke and something in the middle is also unnecessary IMO. I'd rather things not be changed as easily than things being changed quite often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
A simple majority might be one thing if 100% of the hunters who would be affected by the regulation change had the opportunity to vote. That is not the case with APR initiatives, only a small sample of hunters get the opportunity to vote. The 66% is designed to placate those who may be opposed to the changes but who are not included in the survey. You might not like the change but if 2/3rds of those polled voted for it, it's probable that a majority of all hunters would support it. It might be hard to say the same thing if the regulation is changed with only 51% of the sample supporting it. I see the super majority as a reasonable safeguard designed to make sure that the decision is truly reflective of a majority of public sentiment, even those who don't get to participate in the sample.
That may be true if it were a completely random poll........By requiring a ownership of a Minimum of 5 acres, The poll is NOT RANDOM. While I feel the poll should be taken at license purchase for everyone, At the very minimum PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR THIS TIME.

Deer are a public resouce. They are NOT the property of those owning 5 acres or more, They have no more vested interest in those deer than a hunter who dwells in an apartment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,937 Posts
In America, a minority should not prohibit the wishes of the majority in a matter such as this. 50.1% is even better than 51%.
It isn't like having to wait for a 3x2 5pt is a violation of the US Constitution, where the majority shouldn't have the say, to protect the minority as small as one.
66% approval is way too much of a burden. In elections, 55% is considered a landslide. Even in the US Senate, only 60% is needed to override a filibuster.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,600 Posts
People need to understand that this is not an election where everybody gets to vote. They should also be aware that the sample that is used is not a randomly generated sample, it has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions. The DNR is aware of that fact, Brian Frawley acknowledged that there is an inherent bias in the sample due to the fact that members of the hunter sample are taken from individuals who have previously participated in the annual harvest survey.

People should also be aware that these are not particularly large samples. For example, in the Leelanau Co. survey, a 1% simple majority would only be 12 hunters. That means that if just a simple majority was employed, implementing APR's could be based on as few as 12 votes, which would in turn impact the hunting experience of almost 4,000 hunters.

If everybody who would be impacted had the opportunity to vote and express their opinion, I would go along with a simple majority, but that is not the case and there has not been any viable suggestions made for how the sample size could be increased in a cost effective manner.

Given the fact that relatively small sample sizes are used and as a means to somewhat compensate for the inherent bias contained within the sample, in my opinion, employing a super majority insures that the decision is truly reflective of public sentiment, instead of just a statistical anomaly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,665 Posts
That may be true if it were a completely random poll........By requiring a ownership of a Minimum of 5 acres, The poll is NOT RANDOM. While I feel the poll should be taken at license purchase for everyone, At the very minimum PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR THIS TIME.

Deer are a public resouce. They are NOT the property of those owning 5 acres or more, They have no more vested interest in those deer than a hunter who dwells in an apartment.

I would urge the APR workgroup to take this consideration when deliberating approval ratings in the case of a statewide APR program. Survey taken at the point of sale ensure everyone a fair say in what is about to happen. I agree with Swampbuck in regards to a Statewide APR proposal. Also, with this particular case, it would not be necessary to get a supermajority due to the fact that there was a complete sampling of hunters statewide.

Now, in the case of a specific DMU or regional area is where it gets a little sticky. I have pondered this quite a bit since I had made a suggestion to use point of sale, similar to the waterfowlers' HIP survey. How could one ensure that the survey sample was indeed reflective of who actually hunts the DMU? Realistically, there are only two ways this can be accomplished to maintain the credibility sought from the survey seeking an approval. A form of identification, such as a Driver's License or equivalent State ID card listing the hunter's address in the DMU in question.......and a tax id number from a private landowner in the DMU. Otherwise, you may run into a finger pointing game where some will claim that outsiders tied to organizations or groups have 'salted' the survey to reflect wishes that are not congruent with what the residents and the landowners wish for that DMU. This shall protect the integrity of the survey.

In specific DMU's or regions, there should be thought or consideration to the make up of that DMU with regards to percentage of public lands vs private lands. It would be entirely unacceptable for a DMU that is a majority of private lands to sit in the back of the bus to what public land hunters wish for in that particular DMU. The same can be said in DMU's where Public lands make up a majority of the land mass, where it would not be fair to have the private landowners driving the agenda in that DMU.

There should be some weighted average when it comes to assessing the survey when it come to these particular cases. If a DMU is too large or it is deemed this is problematic, there could be further redistricting of land to try and keep the majority of public land and private lands within a DMU to help sort out any of this.

Not sure how realistic that would be, but just an idea.

In my opinion, I like to see everyone get a fair shake. However, a landowner does have the greater vested interest in the area where he/she has land. They are tied to that area with the ownership of land, where as a public landowner does not have the same financial stake in that DMU and is not tied by the same manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,710 Posts
[QUOTE. In elections, 55% is considered a landslide. Even in the US Senate, only 60% is needed to override a filibuster.[/QUOTE]

I think the about should be considered. 58% is about half way between a simple majority(50.1%) and what I would call a super majority(66%).

L & O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,937 Posts
While a public resource, the reality is that most deer reside on private land, most deer hunters hunt private land and most deer are killed on private land. From a management standpoint, what's most "efficient" for the private land hunter to control the deer herds should be paramount. While not necessarily fair to the public land hunter, it's best for the resource as a whole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,157 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Comments will be allowed, however please direct them to the APR work group and not eachother. This forum will follow the same rules and guidelines as the whitetail forum.


Guys, these poll are not for discussions amongst yourselves, take those discussions back to the main forums. Please direct you comments toward the workgroup only and save me a lot of time deleting posts.


Thanks
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top