[Munsterlndr]

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.

Phil -
I may be wrong about the antlerless license aspect, I have certainly been wrong before, I'll confirm it at the next meeting. The fact remains that the APR sample used is not a truly randomly generated sample and is somewhat self selecting by being based on a sample pool of hunters who have previously participated in the annual hunter survey. Did you ask Brian about that potential bias in your conversation?

I believe that hunters who choose to take the time to respond to the DNR surveys indicates a higher level of interest and involvement in the sport then those who decline participating in the survey. This creates the potential for a sample group that will have a greater pre-disposition to support APR's then if the sample was generated simply from those hunters who purchased licenses the previous year.

 

[Justin]

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.

You are 100% correct IMO.

 

[swampbuck]

"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

 

[swampbuck]

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..........

 

[soggybtmboys]

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

 

[soggybtmboys]

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)

 

[Munsterlndr]

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.

 

[soggybtmboys]

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?

 

[Justin]

Osceola county is being considered and the state land around me was packed. I don't like the idea that a landowner can draw and hold a public resource on their land and then receive special consideration because of it.

 

[Pinefarm]

The justification for any consideration for landowners is that they aren't nearly as transient in a particular location.

For example, my family has been hunting our land since the early 1960's. Assuming all things stay good, I believe that my family will be hunting that same land for the next 50 years.

Public land hunters are far more apt to float around. They may hunt Osceola for 2 years, then maybe Wexford for 3, try the UP for a year, etc.

It's not a "class" thing where some "rich" landowners are throwing their weight around. Many of my neighbors with 10 and 20 arces are poorer than most people reading this right now.

But they've been there for years and will likely stay there for years. There is virtually no certainty that public land voters, who vote on rules for a county will be anywhere in the area come the next year.

 

[kenn1320]

Yes the land owner has a vested interest on what happens on his/her land. However this is a public resource and I have heard over and over that the herd should be managed using science. I think asking the public if they want APR's is like asking a kid if he wants candy or to be grounded. If a more diverse age structure is what is best for the resource, then step up to the plate DNRE and implement rules to achieve that. Asking the public what they want and trying to appease the masses is not managing using science.

 

[Justin]

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.

 

[swampbuck]

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.

 

[soggybtmboys]

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.

 

[soggybtmboys]

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:

 

[Pinefarm]

What evidence is there that locals hunt public land more than non-locals?

Only some 14% hunt public land exclusively. That means 85% have some access to private land.

From my experience of both owning a sporting goods store "up north", in an area with lots of public land and from talking to hunters on the public land near me, most hunting the ample public land were not locals.

Part of the draw to the "Baldwin area" is ample public land only a short 60-90 drive from the large populations of the greater Grand Rapids area. Proximity is the Baldwin area's biggest draw.

Sure, some locals hunted the public land, but nearly everyone I knew living around Baldwin had some access to local private land.

Conversely, most I've talked to on the public land near my place are 80-90% non-local. And I do go to their camps. I introduce myself and politely inform them that if a wounded deer comes onto my place, not to go in after it without me and they're welcome to come to the cabin after dark and we'll go get it.

Most I've talked to are from the greater Grand Rapids area, but that's an hour away. Hardly "locals".

And judging by the new, expensive trucks some of them are driving, they aren't local Baldwinites hunting to "feed their family".

 

[Justin]

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.

Where you spend your tax money is your choice and doesn't have anything to do with it. As far as the rest of it, I guess we disagree. I have seen the opposite in my area.

 

[Justin]

What evidence is there that locals hunt public land more than non-locals?

Only some 14% hunt public land exclusively. That means 85% have some access to private land.

From my experience of both owning a sporting goods store "up north", in an area with lots of public land and from talking to hunters on the public land near me, most hunting the ample public land were not locals.

Part of the draw to the "Baldwin area" is ample public land only a short 60-90 drive from the large populations of the greater Grand Rapids area. Proximity is the Baldwin area's biggest draw.

Sure, some locals hunted the public land, but nearly everyone I knew living around Baldwin had some access to local private land.

Conversely, most I've talked to on the public land near my place are 80-90% non-local. And I do go to their camps. I introduce myself and politely inform them that if a wounded deer comes onto my place, not to go in after it without me and they're welcome to come to the cabin after dark and we'll go get it.

Most I've talked to are from the greater Grand Rapids area, but that's an hour away. Hardly "locals".

And judging by the new, expensive trucks some of them are driving, they aren't local Baldwinites hunting to "feed their family".

Your area is hardly "up north" according to your earlier posts. Most of the guys I've talked to in my hunting area state land are locals. Most stands that have addresses on them are local. Most of the cabins in the area are deserted other than deer season.

 

[Justin]

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.

Exactly!

 

[Pinefarm]

When I spoke of not being as "up north", that's "up north" as far as snowfall and habitat limiting deer numbers.

My area is within Zone 2.

We need to seriously address this landowner issue, since the APR workgroup will be considering the conversation.

First, the narrative that some try to paint that somehow landowners are well off "landed gentry" from the city and the public land hunters are poor local working stiffs left with the scraps is a canard.

The second canard is that landowners will vote in lockstep for APR's.

Take just my camp for example. Within our group, there's 4 other landowners. But on the income scale, they don't make a 1/3 of some of the other guests.

One has 15 acres in Lake county and he works at an auto parts store. Another has 20 acres near White Cloud and he's a cop. Another has 15 acres near Muskegon and he's a salesman for industrial materials and the other has about 10 acres in Oakland county and is currently unemployed.

While this guys lead decent, "normal" lives, they are far from "the rich". And compared to some of the other guests, they are the least well off.

The second issue is that if landowners get extra consideration for APR's, since they have a vested interest, that they'll automatically vote for antler regs.

Around my camp are many full time residents. AKA "locals". Many have 10-20 acres. These folks are far from well off. Of those, I'm certain many would strongly vote no for APR's. I have no clue how many, but I know of some who boast of shooting spikes to spike others passing some young bucks. Let's assume that those types of landowners are against APR's.

The narrative that some try to paint, using some type of class warfare "us vs them" is a faulty premise that shouldn't be allowed to stand.

It's no different than if renters tried to claim homeowners were "the rich", regardless of the home size or value.