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 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 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
·
5,660 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.

Landownership should have some weight, a guy who lives in an apartment isn't shelling out money in property taxes on land, and if a guy is homeless, he has got alot more problems then worrying about APR's now doesn't he?

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
You can hunt public land, And you could sell or lease your property.....You are not tied to anything

And a public land hunter can save his money like the rest of us have and bought some land and can have a further say in the matter. They can buck up as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
Excerpt from the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Wildlife Division Report No. 3360, March 2002.

"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)."

Another good reason to check your deer and participate in harvest surveys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
I would like to direct the APR workgroup to a survery that has been running for close to a month. There is no question that this site represents some, but not all, of the State's most dedicated and opinionated hunters the State has to offer. This site has been/is monotored by quite a few eyes and the word has gotten out. Those that wish to have their voices heard are speaking, and this poll clearly shows that the vast majority wishing to use the opportunity to speak their minds and be active within our hunting community are doing so. Last I checked there were close to 50K registered users of this site, not all of which are deer hunters. Those that have responded are well over the 66% which has been set previously as the bar, we are now approaching 70% in favor of Statewide APR's.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=353772
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
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
well..........

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.

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

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);)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
A concern regarding having a separate landowners sample, since only about 6.5% of the people living in Michigan hunt, do we really want to set a precedent in creating a situation where about 93% of the people making a decision regarding hunting, are non-hunters? I realize that non-hunting landowners, like farmers, have a vested interest regarding the deer population but still, it makes me a little uncomfortable that such a large percentage of those included in the landowner sample may not have the slightest idea of what the potential consequences of the issue may be. Food for thought, anyway.

Ohh, I completely agree, I was just taking caution to the suggestion by Swamp that landownership should not be a driving factor. I do not think it should be THE driving factor, however, it should be given considerable deliberation. Given the fact, that most of the resource resides on said lands, and further.....the apparent outcry that there currently are few public land hunters in these northern districts where new regs are being proposed. It would be absolutely preposterous to allow a public venue to override private input in regards to these new regs, given the light of the current situation. Right? Unless the vast majority of the claims are just sensational and untrue, it cannot be both......correct?:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
Many, if not most of the landowners in the northern counties do not even live in the area. Most of the local people hunt the public land. You are suggesting that the guy from Detroit or Lansing and only spends a week or two will decide what the guy that lives up north can shoot. Doesn't seem right to me and I wouldn't expect a high compliance rate.

Interesting, I suppose then us downstaters that pay tax money to help your kid's education in the local school districts can expect a refund then huh? Poachers are poachers and will us any excuse to violate, your compliance rate is without merit.

Lots of us spend a great deal more than a week or two on our properties throughout the year. I find that it is the public land hunter that spends less time in the woods, walks out to their spot and plops down every year, quite the opposite of your presumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
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.
I do not desire to cut anyone out of the decision making process, landowners do have a bigger stake in the matter whether you want to accept it or not, period.

Again, the random poll here is reflecting close to 70% approval.;)

Buying a license is a moot point without having residency (driver's license with address) or a tax ID number for property in the proposed area.

Incidentally, this poll on this thread is revealing from those responding, that better than 47% are in favor of 51% majority for approval.

If I were a betting man, which I am sometimes, that the vast majority of guys and gals that participate in surveys and polls, deer check station would be better than 50% are property owners. It couldn't be that they feel they have more vested than the public land hunter or they have a higher degree of participation/interest in how things are managed, could it?:idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
I would hardly call protecting some of the 1.5yr old bucks 'Trophy' management.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
To get thing back on track. Interesting to note, of respondents to this poll 63.44 % are in favor of lowering the bar for the approval rate from 66% and of that segment 75.7% are in favor of lowering it to a simple majority of 51%.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,660 Posts
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top