Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Although I'm in favor of full inclusion for the entire State of Michigan.
How about a trial season (3 years) for southern Michigan on private land and other areas (T.B. zone, Kent Co). The DNR would be able to research and study the impact , if any, crossbows may have. Private landowners would be able to decide if they would allow crossbows. If there is a detrimental impact on the herd, Michigan can simply go back to what they have now. Just an idea.:)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
I've suggested private land only in the past and have been told that there would be no support for it at the legislative level.

In light of the new threat of CWD and the clear and compelling evidence that dramatically reducing deer populations is the single most effective means of limiting the spread of the disease, I'm not sure why full inclusion is still even an issue. Clearly, anything that can be done to increase hunter participation, get more hunters in the field earlier in the season and increase the number of deer harvested should be done. Arguments about "tradition", etc. are simply no longer relevant to this discussion. Anybody that puts their own particular self interests ahead of the overall interests of the herd should be ashamed. In addition to full inclusion we should be expanding archery season from Sept. 1st to Feb. 1st, making December an antlerless only "any weapons" season, eliminating the combo tag and putting in place an OBR and maybe couple it with earn a buck and a 3 pt. Mars in the SLP. Gentlemen, the time for debate is over, it's time for the NRC and the hunters of Michigan to make a meaningful attempt at meeting the population goals that were established in 2005.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
Have to allow everybody the same choice of tools. Allowing private only gives private land owners a choice to hunt state owned animals non-land owner would not have.

Skinner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
971 Posts
Have to allow everybody the same choice of tools. Allowing private only gives private land owners a choice to hunt state owned animals non-land owner would not have.

Skinner
Exactly, you could not say it any better than that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
I've suggested private land only in the past and have been told that there would be no support for it at the legislative level.

In light of the new threat of CWD and the clear and compelling evidence that dramatically reducing deer populations is the single most effective means of limiting the spread of the disease, I'm not sure why full inclusion is still even an issue. Clearly, anything that can be done to increase hunter participation, get more hunters in the field earlier in the season and increase the number of deer harvested should be done. Arguments about "tradition", etc. are simply no longer relevant to this discussion. Anybody that puts their own particular self interests ahead of the overall interests of the herd should be ashamed. In addition to full inclusion we should be expanding archery season from Sept. 1st to Feb. 1st, making December an antlerless only "any weapons" season, eliminating the combo tag and putting in place an OBR and maybe couple it with earn a buck and a 3 pt. Mars in the SLP. Gentlemen, the time for debate is over, it's time for the NRC and the hunters of Michigan to make a meaningful attempt at meeting the population goals that were established in 2005.
Although I've never used the 'health of the herd" as a reason for my own wish for full inclusion, it certainly would be hard to argue that it would not be a benefit. Of course that would mean that the anti's would have to place the herd above of their own agendas. I doubt that's doable considering their current reasons for not wanting the crossbow inclusion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
161 Posts
The more I've thought about a "trial" season the more I dislike the idea for one main reason: Healthy people not covered under the physical limitations permit process are going to go out and spend hundreds of dollars with the possibility of being told in 3 years that they are no longer going to be able to use that weapon in harvesting deer. With the possibility of that happening, not as many people will go out and buy one to use. A "trial season" is ok in my book if you already are using that weapon during another time of the year anyways. Case in point: The early doe season. You can already use your normal deer hunting weapon (bow or gun) during that time without the possibility of your weapon of choice being illeagal to use in a couple of years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
I have not burdened myself to read all the post in this thread.
I can not support a rule that divides our hunters. Why should us that hunt state land be limited in choices but thoose that own/or hunt private land have more rights?
Full incluision is just that, giving the right to all.
Start adding laws like this to the book and you may open a gate that no one really wants to see.
I have the same right to harvest a deer on public land as I do on private land. So please do not support a rule that would say it is diffrent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,865 Posts
I would not be in favor of this as it would again exclude hunters from the fall archery season. Look how well the trial seasons worked for dove hunting. Open a door part way and someone will slam it. Full inclusion for the entire state with no trial season but during all legal archery seasons is the only solution.
____________________________
No One Left Out = Full Inclusion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,697 Posts
Didn't the EAS do the same thing?
Ken it does And I have been working on that one with the dnr and check stations. I have turned in Gps locations of sevral places I hunt.
What this will show them that deer do not know the diffrent places they travel. The public land I hunt is surronded by private land.
I video one hunt of a friend and we had a large doe walking the trail to his 2nd shooting lane for the first lane is shooting onto public land whit a sign showing it is open to pubic hunting the 2nd shooting lane is on private land and that is when the doe was shot. I have forward both of the gps location to the dnr to show them that while limiting this to private land we are effecting the hunters on public land.
As stated earlier this season I do not support this hunt of private only.
Did I hunt it?
Yes I did hunt and harvested a deer for my freezer.
I looked at the locations of my public stand and the location of my private stand at one location and the total distance was less than 1/4 mile.
So I went out and hunted. In this area I know of 15 does taken. I do believe that will have effect on my Public land hunt on October 1st.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
Didn't the EAS do the same thing?
Nope comparing apples to oranges;

The early antlerless season was set by “wildlife specialists” in order to reduce the overcrowded deer population on Private Land in said management units. The high deer population is attributed to being on private land not public. In previous years this tool has been used in other troubled management units drawn by the state. This is no different then any other boundary. Ie Rifle vs Shotgun, Zones, Got a line separating these too.

The difference here however is using a recreational hunter as the tool in thinning the overcrowded wild deer from the private land. The DNR could have opted instead to use “Trained Sharp Shooters”, poisoned baits, to accomplish this task as has been used also in the past, and mostly to the taxpayer’s expense. What about crop damage? Target problem animals, discrimination no, problem elimination yes!

Now back to the original question, Allow crossbows for the entire section may make for a better study unit. But I am not sure how well it would work out because how many people would run out and purchase crossbows for a trial.
[/COLOR]
Skinner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Skinner: although I feel that we can not pick and choose, You have a good Idea in principal.

#1 The need for herd reduction is at a critical point, especially with CWD and the baiting ban. Hunter's in the S,L.P. have this issue, the rest of the state does not. Without bait piles, the archery hunters will be less effective and we do not need more deer down here.

#2 MBH is perdicting that the sky will fall if we let crossbows be part of the archery season, and a little sky falling in the S. L.P. would be a good thing. Crossbows should allow longer and better shots. this with Full inclusion and All lands + the millions of extra hunters that MBH is predicting will hit the woods. should eliminate our over population problem down here.

#3 Haveing a trial season of 3 to 5 years will offer an oppertunity to test the theries of both sides of this issue and give scientfic data to allow the NRC to make a decession based on facts, not scare tactics. If MBH is right, the population in most of the S. L.P. will be too low and we will need to restrict anterless permits to let it come back. If they are wrong we can open the state to full inclusion.

#4 People that invest in Crossbows and the epuiptment that is needed to hunt with them will be taking a chance. They may have their sport eliminated from possibility in MI. They will know this coming in, and would be able to sell there epuiptment on Ebay if they can not continue to use it. So they would not loose all of there money.

#5 With the current CWD thret to MI we can not continue to have the population issue in the S. L.P. that we have today. this plan fixes some of that problem. Can anyone tell me why this would not work?

thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The difference here however is using a recreational hunter as the tool in thinning the overcrowded wild deer from the private land. The DNR could have opted instead to use “Trained Sharp Shooters”, poisoned baits, to accomplish this task as has been used also in the past, and mostly to the taxpayer’s expense. What about crop damage? Target problem animals, discrimination no, problem elimination yes!

Have there actually been instances of a Department of Natural Resources agency using poisoned bait to thin overcrowded deer herds?

-Dean
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
The difference here however is using a recreational hunter as the tool in thinning the overcrowded wild deer from the private land. The DNR could have opted instead to use “Trained Sharp Shooters”, poisoned baits, to accomplish this task as has been used also in the past, and mostly to the taxpayer’s expense. What about crop damage? Target problem animals, discrimination no, problem elimination yes!

Have there actually been instances of a Department of Natural Resources agency using poisoned bait to thin overcrowded deer herds?

-Dean
Nope not for deer but State's amd Agency's in the past have used poisoned bait to control "Other" animals. The state will do what it needs to do to accomplish it's goals. Work for them or against them.

I'm also honored Dean for the fact of the years you have been a member on this site you have posted 4 posts. Two of them directly to me. Why Do you feel I'm so special?

Skinner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Skinner,

I realize that in the distant past, poisoned bait has been used especially in predator control. I just wondered why you would incorporate that practice in discussion on thinning overpopulated wild deer herds.

I just saw a couple of posts from you on subjects which kind of interested me. That's why I asked questions.
-Dean
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top