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.
21 - 40 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
A simple majority might be a good idea if they were asking when you purchased your license (which frankly, seems like a better idea than the way this is being done).

Since you're talking about a focus group, which will likely consist of very avid hunters, the percentage should be much much higher.

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned that the number of people who only hunt a couple of days per year VASTLY outnumber the hardcore hunters who only want to shoot 140" deer.

I seriously doubt that people who hunt 2-5 days per year are being represented in this panel, depsite them making up the majority of those who would be impacted.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,795 Posts
The problem as I see it is that currently the 66% has to be all "YES" votes and "No Opinion" and "No" are counted as no.
I understand why they have the 4 options (yes, no, no opinion, and don't care) in order to get the compliance in the survey but only yes and no votes should be considered.
I voted for 60% but could live with 66% if ONLY yes and NO votes were considered.

Big T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
66%. Overwhelming majority
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Munster, you stated:

"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."

For the life of me I can't see how the inherent bias Mr. Frawley acknowledges relates to your assertion [see underlined part of quote]. Can you enlighten us?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, you stated:

"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."

For the life of me I can't see how the inherent bias Mr. Frawley acknowledges relates to your assertion [see underlined part of quote]. Can you enlighten us?
Not exactly sure what you are asking but I'll take a stab at it.

The annual hunter harvest survey that is mailed out every spring is sent to a fairly large number of hunters who have purchased licenses. Only a portion of those hunters tend to take the time to return those completed surveys. Many hunters simply throw them in the trash. The DNR follows up with those who do not return the surveys and gives them another chance. Still a certain percentage don't return the surveys. Those hunters who take the time to complete the survey and mail it back to the DNR are likely to be more interested in wildlife management issues then those who simply throw the survey and both of the follow up postcards in the trash,

The pool of hunters who are chosen to receive the APR survey is taken from hunters who have previously participated in the annual harvest survey AND who have purchased antlerless licenses in the DMU that the APR's are being proposed for. As a result the APR hunter sample is made up of hunters who took the time both to complete the initial annual harvest survey, took time to complete and return the APR survey and who have previously purchased antlerless licenses in the DMU.

The combination of those factors creates a non-random sample composed of hunters who tend to be more avidly interested in deer hunting and more involved in wildlife management issues then the average Joe Lunch bucket hunter who does not purchase antlerless tags and failed to invest the time and effort required to complete and return the DNR surveys. It's not much of a mental stretch to assume that such a non-random sample would be more inclined to agree with management changes such a APR's when compared to a truly random sample of deer hunters.

It's similar in some ways to comparing the views of those who visit this forum compared to the average deer hunter. I'd bet pretty good money that there would be a higher level of support for APR's among MS forum members, then there would be among a randomly selected sample of Michigan deer hunters.
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
Percentages, shmercentages. Pick a number and move on, I say.

As to the surveys; ALL landowners owning, say, 40 or more acres should be allowed to participate, and they should be alloted one vote for each acre they own. You own 40 acres, you get 40 votes; 1,000 acres, 1,000 votes. THAT is what I would call representative decision-making, for it truly would weight stakeholder interest in the most equitable manner possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Munster, based on all the MDNRE survey material published over the years, antlerless tag purchase is totally not a factor or consideration in selecting the hunter sample. Consequently, your assumption [that the hunter sample has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions] falls apart.

On the other hand, considering the land fragmentation here in Michigan and the inclusion of landowners with as little as 5 acres, it's not much of a mental stretch to assume that the landowner sample would be overly represented by small parcel owners more inclined to disagree with management changes such a APR's.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Percentages, shmercentages. Pick a number and move on, I say.

As to the surveys; ALL landowners owning, say, 40 or more acres should be allowed to participate, and they should be alloted one vote for each acre they own. You own 40 acres, you get 40 votes; 1,000 acres, 1,000 votes. THAT is what I would call representative decision-making, for it truly would weight stakeholder interest in the most equitable manner possible.
If that was the policy in Leelanau Co. there would not be a deer left. The large landowners are all farmers who would like to see the deer herd eradicated. Would not be a good policy in my opinion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster, based on all the MDNRE survey material published over the years, antlerless tag purchase is totally not a factor or consideration in selecting the hunter sample. Consequently, your assumption [that the hunter sample has an inherent bias built into it that favors those that are in favor of passing of antler restrictions] falls apart.

On the other hand, considering the land fragmentation here in Michigan and the inclusion of landowners with as little as 5 acres, it's not much of a mental stretch to assume that the landowner sample would be overly represented by small parcel owners more inclined to disagree with management changes such a APR's.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong in the assertion that is bolded above. Antlerless license purchase is absolutely the determining factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. These surveys are specific to a certain DMU and antlerless licenses are the only way to determine who hunted in a given DMU with any reliability. If you want to argue about it I suggest that you talk to Brian Frawley or Brent Rudolph, they will confirm that the APR pool of potential survey recipients is based on individuals who both previously participated in the annual harvest survey and who purchased antlerless licenses in the specific DMU in question. It's not even enough to have applied for an antlerless permit in the specific DMU, they only use those who were successful in obtaining a permit.

Why, pray tell, would smaller parcel owners be less inclined to support APR's? I've seen no evidence that would support that conclusion but feel free to provide some. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,922 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
·
677 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.
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:


Tell a farmer or property owner that pays for emergency response vehicles, schools, 911 and feeds the peoples deer, 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Munster you're 100% wrong. Antlerless license purchase is absolutely not the determining factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. Please read and consider the following 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)."

Similar wording is used regarding the hunter sample protocol for all the MDNRE APR survey reports to date.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Munster you're 100% wrong. Antlerless license purchase is absolutely not the determining factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. Please read and consider the following 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)."

Similar wording is used regarding the hunter sample protocol for all the MDNRE APR survey reports to date.
Phil -

A couple of weeks ago I sat through a presentation by Brian Frawley and Brent Rudolph, as well as 3 NRC commissioners and Dr. Mason, in which Brian outlined the process that has been used for selecting the sample pool for APR surveys. Brian clearly stated that past antlerless deer license purchases were the method used for identifying individuals to populate the pool for potential APR survey recipiants. The annual harvest survey was used to get mailing addresses, Antlerless sales data was used to insure that individuals included in the sample pool hunted in the specific DMU in question. I asked Brian about potential bias from using a non-random pool to generate the sample and he confirmed that there is a potential bias and indicated that they apply some statistical manipulations to try and minimize the impact of the bias.

There were at least 4 other MS members present at that meeting, maybe one of them will jump in and either confirm or deny my recollection of what Brian and Brent said regarding this question.
 

·
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
·
20,922 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
·
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
·
20,922 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
·
884 Posts
Munster, you're 100% wrong. I talked with Brian Frawley today and he said that [during the presentation you make reference to in your previous post] both he and Brent Rudolph clearly stated that antlerless license purchase is absolutely not a factor in who is selected for the pool of potential participants in the APR hunter surveys. He said that they explained that the antlerless tag purchase universe was not used because only half the hunters buy an antlerless license/tag. He went on to say that the hunter sample proctocol that is followed is set forth in the APR guidelines and is reiterated in the state's APR Survey and Evaluation Reports. [See Below]

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)."
 

·
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.
 
21 - 40 of 81 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top