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 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
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
·
20,917 Posts
Wildlife are a public resource, Help in trust for the residents of this state. Not just the landowners.

They already recieve the only consideration justified in DMAP'S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
Land ownership SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. It is a public resource, A landowner has no more vested interest than a apartment dweller or even a homeless person.

Purchase of a hunting license should be the ONLY QUALIFYING FACTOR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
I Can tell you don't live in a college town were people that have nothing vested can vote to raise property taxes.:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

Actually I live in a town where the residents approve an 18 mil tax on non- resident owners.:lol:


Tell a farmer or property owner that pays for emergency response vehicles, schools, 911

What do these things have to do with a free ranging PUBLIC resourse ?


and feeds the peoples deer,

Nobody asked them to feed the deer......In fact in the SLP it would probably help if they didnt. They can build a fence or buy tags/welcome hunters and kill the deer if its a problem.

they should have the same say as a homeless person sucking off the system and hunting state land and they will tell you go live in some communist country.
Yes , as far as a free range wild animal that is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Landownership should have some weight, a guy who lives in an apartment isn't shelling out money in property taxes on land,

Actually soggy legally a portion of the rent or fee's is their share of the taxes and they are allowed to use that portion on income taxes.

and if a guy is homeless, he has got alot more problems then worrying about APR's now doesn't he?

Not my call........Regardless of his current situation he should not lose his interest in A PUBLICALLY HELD RESOURCE

A landowner is tied to his land, a guy that lives in an apartment can go wherever the wind blows him, therefore, he has very little real 'vested' interest.
You can hunt public land, And you could sell or lease your property.....You are not tied to anything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
Can someone explain how the purchase of land entitles one to control of a free range publically held resource whether that resource is on public or private land.

Because you own land in Alcona or Hillsdale or whatever county, how does that give you more influence in what a public land hunter in Roscommon county can shoot.

Somebody really needs to explain that to the workgroup.


And just for the record my Home and property are paid for free and clear and I violently disagree with your premise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
"The estimate of hunter support was also calculated using a simple random sampling design. A random sample of these hunters was obtained from lists of people that indicated they had hunted in Leelanau County during 1998-2000. These lists represented randomly selected people included in annual deer harvest surveys that were conducted by the Wildlife Division
(Frawley 1999, 2000, 2001)."
That was 1/2 of those surveyed.......The other half included in the survey were selected from property owners owning 5 or more acres........THAT IS ABSOLUTE BIAS TOWARD THOSE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT APR'S
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
can someone explain how the purchase of land entitles one to control of a free range publically held resource whether that resource is on public or private land.

Because you own land in alcona or hillsdale or whatever county, how does that give you more influence in what a public land hunter in roscommon county can shoot.

Somebody really needs to explain that to the workgroup.


And just for the record my home and property are paid for free and clear and i violently disagree with your premise.
well..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
You cannot argue out of both sides of your mouth. One point, you wish to exclude the weight of local landowners, which may or may not be in favor of any new regulation. Where might I add, most of the public resource resides, good or bad...having a more profound effect on said lands.

Maybe you should have a look at the amount of state/federal public land in your area. When you do factor in the amount of residential/commercial land..........I think that you will find that public land outnumbers private hunting land......Heres a link.....
http://www.midnr.com/FLW/LandsOpen-Hunting/Hunting_Land_alcona_county.pdf
[/COLOR]
http://www.midnr.com/FLW/LandsOpen-Hunting/Hunting_Land_iosco_COUNTY.pdf

What makes you so sure that most of the deer reside on private ?

Next moment, you wish to exert light to the fact that it should only be a localized phenomenom, because of location.

I would say more of a regional phenomenon.......North of m-55 I believe that public hunting land outnumbers private HUNTING land

At a negotiation table you would be asked to define your position or asked to leave the talks because you present conflicting views with no rational cohesive debate.

(S**t or get off the pot, plainly, can't have it both ways);)
I would not exclude land owners........The poll should be completely random. With participants (preferably all of them) taken from those who purchased a license and hunted the proposed area.

If you are so damn sure that APR's are so popular, Why would you be opposed to a COMPLETELY RANDOM POLL. If APR'S could get a majority of a true random poll, I would support it. I am pretty sure it would fail, and I think you are also. Thats why you guys want to EXCLUDE the public land hunters opinion.

As a matter of fact you have hunting land, you can already control the harvest on your land. Why do you even care if the regs are changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
The 1 1/2 y.o. buck harvest in the NLP was 48% last year and that number has been steadily falling, Have you noticed the difference ?

Would the 3point/4point APR'S be expected to protect more than 52% of 1 1/2 yo bucks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
Its falling because there arent as many.. Dont forget they reduced the herd by over 50% in some areas up here and even more in others.. I used to pass on 1.5 year bucks and now I'm lucky to even see one and Im hunting harder than ever.. It snowed here yesterday so I went for a drive this morning. When I first hit state land I set my trip odometer to zero and I went 6.6 miles before I cut the first set of tracks. I drove around the 2-tracks for 2 hours this morning and was lucky if I cut a dozen tracks in total.. Yes, its that bad.. I think the DNR finally agreed its bad because they stopped all antlerless permits here on both public and private land. My 17 acres and food plots havent had a deer in them since the middle of Oct, not even at night and I'm surrounded by farm land that used to hold alot of deer.. I also have the only water source (pond) in the area... After my morning drive I walked my 17 acres and not a single track anywhere.
That was 48% of what was killed. I also went for a drive this morning in Roscommon county. In about 10 miles I seen 3 deer tracks and at least 10 coyote tracks. Might have to become a coyote hunter.:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
Yotes are thick in that area, have relatives that live/hunt there. They stopped doe permits in that area 4yrs ago, maybe longer? Strange they do not see the herd rebounding. I keep reading its easy to bring the herd numbers up by stopping doe hunting, but you wouldn't know it in that area. My father n law saw his first deer after hunting 7 days straight.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
They sold 1000 private land permits this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,917 Posts
That is a very small selected sample of a much larger group. A better indicator for the APR workgroup would be the percentage of hunters, Who have quit buying the combo tag and switched to the single license to avoid antler restrictions. It's considerable.

That data will also be available for the tb zone in the spring.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top