Michigan-Sportsman.com banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just wanted to drop a quick reminder that the NRC meeting will be held tomorrow.

The agenda is posted here:

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79137_79763_79909---,00.html

The Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries begins at 10:30, and the Chief is expected to give a preliminary update on the Deer Season.

It appears as though the public speakers are queuing...and there appears to be a host of deer hunting topics that will be covered via the public speakers.

upload_2019-12-11_13-47-43.png


Unless I am mistaken, the meeting will be streamed live via the MUCC Facebook Live feed.
I will probably catch it later in the evening.

For those of you with an interest and time on your hands, it will be at:

Fifth Third Ballpark-Pepsi Stadium Club
4500 West River Road, NE
Comstock Park, MI 49321
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,402 Posts
From the little I could observe of today's meeting, I thought the QDMA Prez, Schnelle, struck exactly the right vibe for presenting his organization as NOT a 'big-buck-trophy-hunter' group. He positioned the QD group as helping the DNR educate hunters, mentoring of newbies, and distributing venison to the needy.

I say 'good-for-him' because several of the speakers had a beef with the DNR and or NRC but only offered an opinion. The "Science-Based" guy, Sweeney, merely offered his opinion....and got some pushback from Ponz, the Chair, on what she felt was a slur.

Two other 'Hunting Regulations' guys merely offered their opinion, and generated few or no questions from the Commissioners. The guy from the Hunting Time Expo offered his observations of the out-of-state 'trophy outfitters' who rent his booths for his Show. His descriptions served as a full-throated endorsement of 'big bucks', 'big antlers' as a viable tactic in propelling Michigan's deer culture and economy forward. (I think he said, or one of those guys said....that deer hunting in Michigan is a "$12 Billion" enterprise......call me skeptical on that one.)

In my view the guy who likely had the most traction was Don Hinds with his presentation about Baiting. He was prepared and spoke well and confidently. Of course, doing a little name-dropping by saying he met one-on-one with Governor Whitmer yesterday, and learned she was going to veto the 4687 bill seemingly earned him some cred with the Commissioners.

Too, his proposal was sort of a Swiss-Army Knife offering that promised to let the Legislature off the hook, the Governor off the hook, and the regulators off the hook. When you can do that in a 5 or 10-minute talk....well, you've found a seam.

Briefly, (and I didn't read the packet of material he offered the Commissioners)....but what he suggested is that we "regulate" baiting by establishing a separate fee-carrying license to bait, a license in addition to the other license, that would allow a hunter to spread 4gallons of whatever over 400sqft. In short, if you want to bait in designated zones, you can. But you gotta pay to do it.

I can't help but think that has an appeal to so many players in this drama-du-jour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,221 Posts
From the little I could observe of today's meeting, I thought the QDMA Prez, Schnelle, struck exactly the right vibe for presenting his organization as NOT a 'big-buck-trophy-hunter' group. He positioned the QD group as helping the DNR educate hunters, mentoring of newbies, and distributing venison to the needy.

I say 'good-for-him' because several of the speakers had a beef with the DNR and or NRC but only offered an opinion. The "Science-Based" guy, Sweeney, merely offered his opinion....and got some pushback from Ponz, the Chair, on what she felt was a slur.

Two other 'Hunting Regulations' guys merely offered their opinion, and generated few or no questions from the Commissioners. The guy from the Hunting Time Expo offered his observations of the out-of-state 'trophy outfitters' who rent his booths for his Show. His descriptions served as a full-throated endorsement of 'big bucks', 'big antlers' as a viable tactic in propelling Michigan's deer culture and economy forward. (I think he said, or one of those guys said....that deer hunting in Michigan is a "$12 Billion" enterprise......call me skeptical on that one.)

In my view the guy who likely had the most traction was Don Hinds with his presentation about Baiting. He was prepared and spoke well and confidently. Of course, doing a little name-dropping by saying he met one-on-one with Governor Whitmer yesterday, and learned she was going to veto the 4687 bill seemingly earned him some cred with the Commissioners.

Too, his proposal was sort of a Swiss-Army Knife offering that promised to let the Legislature off the hook, the Governor off the hook, and the regulators off the hook. When you can do that in a 5 or 10-minute talk....well, you've found a seam.

Briefly, (and I didn't read the packet of material he offered the Commissioners)....but what he suggested is that we "regulate" baiting by establishing a separate fee-carrying license to bait, a license in addition to the other license, that would allow a hunter to spread 4gallons of whatever over 400sqft. In short, if you want to bait in designated zones, you can. But you gotta pay to do it.

I can't help but think that has an appeal to so many players in this drama-du-jour.
Schnelle distancing the Q.D.M.A. from trophy hunting was not questioned.
Does the Q.D.M.A. support or endorse trophy hunting? Can be a question.
It's members can and have put info out on their perspectives. And like any group there is variance. Not as conspicuous without a forum at Q.D.M.A. anymore but members do post elsewhere.

Who's is turning down trophies? (Who expects a Q.D.M.A. member to?) Who promotes them? Who is allowing a trophy hunt to be a focus. Not the Q.D.M.A. per Schnelle?
Well , maybe; sometimes....Folks behind the table just nod along without question.
[Congratulations to the winners of QDMA’s 2019 Dream Hunt Contest:
FIRST PRIZE: TROPHY WHITETAIL HUNT FOR TWO WITH TEAM PRIMOS AT THE FAMOUS COTTONMOUTH]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
From the little I could observe of today's meeting, I thought the QDMA Prez, Schnelle, struck exactly the right vibe for presenting his organization as NOT a 'big-buck-trophy-hunter' group. He positioned the QD group as helping the DNR educate hunters, mentoring of newbies, and distributing venison to the needy.

Poster fairfax1....Were we watching the same meeting?

Was that the speaker that informed the NRC that he initiated an amendment and submitted it to the MUCC to add the restrictions back tothe second tag in the CWD zone?....based on science? Based on his desire for big-buck-trophy-hunting? Based on what?

Didja also see some of what they've been posting on the Mi QDMA FB page?

upload_2019-12-12_17-17-0.png


Hold it.. baiting is banned; instead of bringing them into a 10x10 area, we want to bring them into a point where they will potentially trade saliva on the same branch?


And then there is this:
upload_2019-12-12_17-16-19.png


A couple of points from that second passage to note:

"To make these APR's stick, then expand to the rest of the CWD and bTB areas, and implement in other areas of the state where high population densities are a challenge..."

...and then there is this:

"It shows us that the bear hunters are better at working the political levers of power than we are. We have come a long way, but need to do much more."

I sure hope the people that are complaining about legislative involvement recognize that our deer regulations are already at the beckon of lobbying. The legislature is just the next step.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,321 Posts
Poster fairfax1....Were we watching the same meeting?

Was that the speaker that informed the NRC that he initiated an amendment and submitted it to the MUCC to add the restrictions back tothe second tag in the CWD zone?....based on science? Based on his desire for big-buck-trophy-hunting? Based on what?

Didja also see some of what they've been posting on the Mi QDMA FB page?

View attachment 467845

Hold it.. baiting is banned; instead of bringing them into a 10x10 area, we want to bring them into a point where they will potentially trade saliva on the same branch?


And then there is this:
View attachment 467843

A couple of points from that second passage to note:

"To make these APR's stick, then expand to the rest of the CWD and bTB areas, and implement in other areas of the state where high population densities are a challenge..."

...and then there is this:

"It shows us that the bear hunters are better at working the political levers of power than we are. We have come a long way, but need to do much more."

I sure hope the people that are complaining about legislative involvement recognize that our deer regulations are already at the beckon of lobbying. The legislature is just the next step.
Looks like you watched july meeting with your screen shots
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,402 Posts
....Were we watching the same meeting?

Was that the speaker that informed the NRC that he initiated an amendment and submitted it to the MUCC to add the restrictions back tothe second tag in the CWD zone?....based on science? Based on his desire for big-buck-trophy-hunting? Based on what?
...............................................................................................
Well, poster 'motdean' I offered my impression of what I saw and heard. I had no intention to be a definitive record; however, I did not see offered in today's meeting the 'initiated amendment' you speak of.
Please point out to me and other readers where on the video of today's meeting that was referenced?

Nor, did I see or hear any reference to the July 11th 5-paragraph piece above. Please point out to me and other readers where on the video of today's meeting that was referenced.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,402 Posts
"So it was not actually about the spread of cwd but a lever to pry more money from us & if it drives a wedge between hunters along the way, even better. Amazing"



WHAT was intended to be a lever?
WHAT was intended to be a wedge?
WHAT are you amazed about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparky23

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,321 Posts
I didn't attend or watch the meeting but Fairfax mentioning of a fee to put bait out sounds pretty silly to me. The law that we have now cannot monitor the illegal baiting as it is. Does anybody really think that these illegal baiters are now going to pay for their wrong doing?
It's just plain dumb, raise the combo to 100 and then cry baby baiters can go fishing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,595 Posts
Discussion Starter #18 (Edited)
...............................................................................................
Well, poster 'motdean' I offered my impression of what I saw and heard. I had no intention to be a definitive record; however, I did not see offered in today's meeting the 'initiated amendment' you speak of.
Please point out to me and other readers where on the video of today's meeting that was referenced?

Nor, did I see or hear any reference to the July 11th 5-paragraph piece above. Please point out to me and other readers where on the video of today's meeting that was referenced.
hhttps://www.facebook.com/mucc1937/videos/2532412383696006/
(You have to remove the first "h" in the web address)

If you start listening around the 37 minute mark, he mentions that he authored it and it will be going to the convention in June.

Apologies if I misled. It wasn't intentional, but the additional information that I provided was not brought up today, but I believe that along with adding the restriction back, these other tidbits could be an indicator that it maybe isn't about disease and maybe, just maybe, it is about bigger antlered critters.

I would really like to understand why he would propose putting the restriction back on the second tag in the disease zone. That makes absolutely no sense.

Remember the NRC embarked on a study that was originally supposed to ascertain the spread and prevalence of CWD via APR's. It was in the resolution. Hopefully you read it. Once it was determined that the study can't do that, they decided to continue on with it . Why? It was supposed to increase antlerless harvest for the study to continue....but the bogie they set for this year will allow for a decrease in antlerless harvest.

I really am at a loss as to what is going on with Proposal G and our NRC.

Sad.

I might add, that as things migrate more toward legislative involvement, I can also foresee a day where we might see more of the judicial branch stepping in. I don't know what the details are surrounding the closed session, but it is going to get interesting.

Buckle up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,402 Posts
How much is the ......... permit gonna cost?:rolleyes:


Will assume satire.
But perhaps not.

Permit cost?
That's putting the cart well before the horse.

This was a guy who got his 5-minute whirl&twirl before one of the periodic NRC meetings during their public-input period. He got his allotted time ---and a bit more, as he seemed to catch some interest from some Commissioners. He spoke articulately and controlled. He seemed to be organized and prepared. To my ear & eye this was not his first rodeo.

If you haven't been to an NRC meeting this "public opinion bath" (as Lincoln used to call 'em).....is a regular feature. Frequently it will be some individual hunter/fisher/shroomer/equestrian et al, who simply has got a beef and wants to have his say. Oft times it is some designated speaker for a group who has an axe to grind or a cause to push.

In other words, it would be unwise, not to mention premature to assume that simply because some whirl&twirler had their 5-minutes of fame that their suggestion is gonna be adopted. That, in fact, we are going to see a 'baiting fee'.
Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. I have no friggin' idea.

I opined....on my own ......that that suggestion had more upside, in my opinion, than any other commentary by any other speaker today. And I opined on that for the very reasons I mentioned in my earlier post, namely, it offers a way-out of an OK Corral-moment that the Legislature, the NRC, the DNR, and the Governor seemed to be shuffling towards.

Time and events will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr28schalm
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top