Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Is this why we have limited bear tags?

Jump to Latest

  • From treestands to ground blinds, all your hunting must-haves can be found at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
81 - 100 of 207 Posts
#85 ·
Okay, so now we’ve established that when you said this, that you didn’t actually have any expert opinion or source material that supports the claim at all.

tenring said:
Most experts would say, this doesn't make sense, the computer model is wrong and needs to be reworked.
Click to expand...
This is just the most recent example of your input in this thread. Bold claim, no backup. The answers to your frustrations are publicly available, the methods used, the connection between them and the outputs are all available to learn from. But you’ve made it clear that you aren’t going to accept them, as you’ve made it clear that you don’t have anything concrete to base your own opinion on

And that said, this is where I leave you.
 
#86 ·
Hunters Edge said:
Stop playing with words. Limited tags to increase bear populations. You can call stabilization but if you look when they went to lottery tags or limited tags the bear population has increased in the UP and LP

When it was over the counter we already had a stable bear population with the exception of islands such as Beaver Island. They continue to reduce the outdoor experience and keeping bear populations in check which would reduce property damage.

This all started with hounds men. Wanting it easier to find scent and to train during the off season. Even changed the youth hunt to accommodate those who use dogs to run bear.

The biggest downside is loss of outdoor activity by limiting tags and bear destruction to private property. I guess you could also figure loss of license sales and also money generated by those who would be hunting which would spur the economy. Mostly helping to keep diners and motels afloat.

Another by product of increased bear population is less deer. The biggest thing is by limiting tags it's limiting outdoor activity. By knocking the deer herd from being to rebound it is lowering deer numbers more importantly the quality of the hunt and loss of hunter retention. Even if deer tags are over the counter one reason for loss of license sales is loss of deer herd
Click to expand...
Why are bear < deer?

Bear numbers from OTC times is what you want? Why? IMO bear are much more interesting and better tasting.
 
#87 ·
Botiz said:
Okay, so now we’ve established that when you said this, that you didn’t actually have any expert opinion or source material that supports the claim at all.



This is just the most recent example of your input in this thread. Bold claim, no backup. The answers to your frustrations are publicly available, the methods used, the connection between them and the outputs are all available to learn from. But you’ve made it clear that you aren’t going to accept them, as you’ve made it clear that you don’t have anything concrete to base your own opinion on

And that said, this is where I leave you.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article discussing all the flaws with the model? Do you believe that lowering quotas = increased harvest?
 
#88 ·
Botiz said:
Okay, so now we’ve established that when you said this, that you didn’t actually have any expert opinion or source material that supports the claim at all.



This is just the most recent example of your input in this thread. Bold claim, no backup. The answers to your frustrations are publicly available, the methods used, the connection between them and the outputs are all available to learn from. But you’ve made it clear that you aren’t going to accept them, as you’ve made it clear that you don’t have anything concrete to base your own opinion on

And that said, this is where I leave you.
Click to expand...
You have their computer model? Is it an excel file or other program. Please post the file here. We all would love to see it. The only thing I've seen discussing their model is the article I posted.
 
#90 ·
Botiz said:
Okay, so now we’ve established that when you said this, that you didn’t actually have any expert opinion or source material that supports the claim at all.



This is just the most recent example of your input in this thread. Bold claim, no backup. The answers to your frustrations are publicly available, the methods used, the connection between them and the outputs are all available to learn from. But you’ve made it clear that you aren’t going to accept them, as you’ve made it clear that you don’t have anything concrete to base your own opinion on

And that said, this is where I leave you.
Click to expand...
It just hit me. You work for the DNR. The only person that would defend this indefensible model is someone from the DNR or someone that worked on the model. Busted!
 
#91 · (Edited)
sureshot006 said:
I would bet michigan thinks other states have flaws too. It's one side of the story, and clearly bias toward deer.
Click to expand...
I don't know about other states. The article made it pretty clear that the model is flawed and seems to cause a feedback loop that just leads to higher bear populations.

Does anyone know how long they have been using this model? When did you create it Botiz?
 
Discussion starter · #92 ·
sureshot006 said:
I would bet michigan thinks other states have flaws too. It's one side of the story, and clearly bias toward deer.
Click to expand...
sureshot006 said:
Why are bear < deer?

Bear numbers from OTC times is what you want? Why? IMO bear are much more interesting and better tasting.
Click to expand...
It could possibly be that far more individuals, camps and hunters, deer hunt vs bear hunt. At one point over 700,000 deer hunters even today around 400,000 to 500,000. In Michigan it's like 55,000 apply for bear permits.

DNR allow crop permits for deer do to damage unfortunately they do not for bear or bear damage. In the red oak a landowner could be waiting 12 to 14 years to help eradicate this damage to fruit trees and crops

Why should 500,000 license deer hunters sacrifice their experience and harvest results for 55,000?

Also the biggest concern is many deer hunters dropping out for several reasons. Mainly lack of deer harvest and or lack of deer sightings while hunting.

Many areas in the UP and NL have fewer deer and because of that fewer hunters. It is one reason so many are hunting in zone 3. Even then they have to contend with more hunters, lack of property and less of an outdoor experience with hearing traffic, noise pollution, dogs barking and on and on. They put up with these, because they see deer and are able to harvest them.

There was a study by DU years ago. Brood success skyrocketed with predator control vs non control.
 
#94 ·
Hunters Edge said:
It could possibly be that far more individuals, camps and hunters, deer hunt vs bear hunt. At one point over 700,000 deer hunters even today around 400,000 to 500,000. In Michigan it's like 55,000 apply for bear permits.

DNR allow crop permits for deer do to damage unfortunately they do not for bear or bear damage. In the red oak a landowner could be waiting 12 to 14 years to help eradicate this damage to fruit trees and crops

Why should 500,000 license deer hunters sacrifice their experience and harvest results for 55,000?

Also the biggest concern is many deer hunters dropping out for several reasons. Mainly lack of deer harvest and or lack of deer sightings while hunting.

Many areas in the UP and NL have fewer deer and because of that fewer hunters. It is one reason so many are hunting in zone 3. Even then they have to contend with more hunters, lack of property and less of an outdoor experience with hearing traffic, noise pollution, dogs barking and on and on. They put up with these, because they see deer and are able to harvest them.

There was a study by DU years ago. Brood success skyrocketed with predator control vs non control.
Click to expand...
IMO, people whine too much about bear. The people that don't bear hunt, I dunno... I don't get it. But I'm thankful because they're nowhere near as plentiful as deer.
 
#95 ·
Hunters Edge said:
It could possibly be that far more individuals, camps and hunters, deer hunt vs bear hunt. At one point over 700,000 deer hunters even today around 400,000 to 500,000. In Michigan it's like 55,000 apply for bear permits.

DNR allow crop permits for deer do to damage unfortunately they do not for bear or bear damage. In the red oak a landowner could be waiting 12 to 14 years to help eradicate this damage to fruit trees and crops

Why should 500,000 license deer hunters sacrifice their experience and harvest results for 55,000?

Also the biggest concern is many deer hunters dropping out for several reasons. Mainly lack of deer harvest and or lack of deer sightings while hunting.

Many areas in the UP and NL have fewer deer and because of that fewer hunters. It is one reason so many are hunting in zone 3. Even then they have to contend with more hunters, lack of property and less of an outdoor experience with hearing traffic, noise pollution, dogs barking and on and on. They put up with these, because they see deer and are able to harvest them.

There was a study by DU years ago. Brood success skyrocketed with predator control vs non control.
Click to expand...
Roughly 27,000 people applied for bear tags and 40,000 for point only in 2024.

 
81 - 100 of 207 Posts
About this Discussion
206 Replies
21 Participants
Last post:
Forest Meister
Michigan Sportsman Forum
posts
9.2M
members
105K
Since
2000
A forum community dedicated to hunting and fishing enthusiasts in the Michigan area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Michigan Whitetail Deer Hunting Detroit River and Lake Erie MichiganWaterfowl.com Upland Game hunting, Dogs and dog training Saginaw Bay and its Tributaries