Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,720 Posts
The SLP Regional Deer Advisory Team consists of representatives from 11 organizations as well as 5 at large members. Here's a link noting the group's members.

http://deer.fw.msu.edu/involved/slteam.php/

We've met once so far and our second meeting will most likely occur at some point in the next 1-2 months. The first meeting was dedicated to defining topics of priority interest for SLP hunters and the SLP deer herd.

Here is a summary of the priority topics discussion from the first meeting:

SOUTHERN LOWER REGIONAL DEER ADVISORY TEAM INAUGURAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 17TH, 2012
Summary of Small Group and Proposed Overall SLDAT Priority Topics for Consideration:

Group 1 (Chrysler, Lounsbury, Severance, Smith, Squibb)

• Education: population health, disease, major management issues (baiting, for example)
• Hunter retention: access, mentoring
• Habitat: public and private, establishing clear priorities or guidelines based on scientific basis, also consider deer damage to habitat

Group 2 (Blitchok, Curtis, Eldred, Morang, Mosser, Shepard)

• Access: review of programs in other states, facilitate hunter-farmer connections, offer tax incentives, improve public land opportunities by allowing use of DRIP funds in the SL, set up park and municipality hunting opportunities that don’t compete with other hunting, educate landowners about protections for those allowing access
• Population management: consider population size and composition (age structure, sex ratios), disease management, special cases in parks and municipalities
• Funding: facilitate NGO funding for habitat work, direct timber harvest revenue from State Game Areas to managing facilities and habitat on Game Areas

Group 3 (Homrich, Kunkel, Long, Strunk, Trotter)

• Hunter access: provide incentives for landowners, educate landowners about liability protection, prioritize land and/or easement acquisition in SL (maybe create program for voluntary donations)
• Hunter satisfaction: need to define metrics for what determines satisfaction in the SL (deer sightings, sex and age composition, quality habitat, etc.), and need to measure and assess satisfaction for youth hunters distinctly from other hunters
• Youth hunting
• Population management: demonstrate impacts of abundant deer populations, evaluate success of available tools, and document objectives of various regulations and seasons to assess progress towards meeting those objectives

Overall

• Harvest management: identify objectives for population management (size and composition), damage management, facilitating access and recreational opportunities; evaluate past success and base future recommendations on these various objectives
• Hunter recruitment and retention: evaluate the influence of hunter access and satisfaction, and consider means for addressing these issues to stop or reverse decline in hunting participation
• Habitat: demonstrate deer impacts on habitat and develop scientifically based management guidelines; explore opportunities for increasing habitat management on both public and private land
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
There's been some recent speculation about which buck regulations the SLP RDAT "supports", and as co-chair of the RDAT I think it would be appropriate for me to address that topic here on the forum.

The simple answer is that our group currently has no stance on buck regulations. It's possible that over time we may be asked by the department to weigh in on certain proposals or concepts that are being considered, and it's also quite possible that won't happen.

It's also possible that in the future the group may decide that buck regulations are a priority topic, but you'll notice that the priority topics from our first meeting did not include buck regulations, although I suppose that the importance of controlling deer numbers very well could tie in to regs.

Anyway, the point is that the SLP RDAT currently doesn't have a stance on buck regulations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,270 Posts
There's been some recent speculation about which buck regulations the SLP RDAT "supports", and as co-chair of the RDAT I think it would be appropriate for me to address that topic here on the forum.

The simple answer is that our group currently has no stance on buck regulations. It's possible that over time we may be asked by the department to weigh in on certain proposals or concepts that are being considered, and it's also quite possible that won't happen.

It's also possible that in the future the group may decide that buck regulations are a priority topic, but you'll notice that the priority topics from our first meeting did not include buck regulations, although I suppose that the importance of controlling deer numbers very well could tie in to regs.

Anyway, the point is that the SLP RDAT currently doesn't have a stance on buck regulations.
I think the confusion probably comes from some of the members of the SLPRDAT being vocal in their strong support of modifying buck regulations. Therefore some people are probably getting confused and linking that to the RDAT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think the confusion probably comes from members of the SLPRDAT being vocal in their strong support of modifying buck regulations. Therefore some people are probably getting confused and linking that to the RDAT.
Yes, I believe that is the case.

One of the things that might be helpful for everyone to understand is that this is a very diverse advisory team. The team consists of groups and individuals who have a long history of coming to varied conclusions on many different hunting related topics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,809 Posts
Agree with Swampy, Good update. Your efforts as well as the time to post this are much appreciated.

Best Rgards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,049 Posts
I think the confusion probably comes from some of the members of the SLPRDAT being vocal in their strong support of modifying buck regulations. Therefore some people are probably getting confused and linking that to the RDAT.
I wonder who that would be.:D

If I recall correctly Mr. Wake and I could be wrong as I have a worst memory then most Alzheimer's patients, but I tried posting some of these same subjects here and you accused me of pushing some agenda. Well I guess I was, but it was the RDAT's agenda.:lol:

Anyway, yes I support just about any change if it takes pressure off 1 1/2 yo bucks and increases pressure on antlerless where needed. I was not a big APR guy until recently, but after looking at a lot of the data here and around the country I have become a bigger fan, but if I had my druthers it would be an OBR. I really just don't see why it would be so hard to go to one buck one doe here in the SLP, but I'm told over and over again it's not going to happen. But these again are my views and not that of the RDAT's, so I apologize if that somehow came across that way, although even with my big mouth I am sure I never said that.

Whoops getting off topic, when November says it's a diverse group he's not lying, I've heard on here a couple times that the RDAT's are loaded with QDMA slappys, I can tell you from personal experience that is far from the case.:lol:

I don't think there is any doubt that I am probably the most vocal RDAT member and I've been told that may come back to bite me, but I'm an unpaid public servant and the worst that could happen is that you fire me and I can go about enjoying my life. You might not like what I say or you might, but one thing is for sure, you'll know where I'm coming from. You want transparency you got transparency.:lol:

If any of you have any suggestions or would like to address an issue feel free to contact me anytime as many of you already have.

Thanks for posting Mr. Chair

Have a good day, Pez
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,865 Posts
Excellent report N.S.

It would be nice to see updates like that from all 3 groups
:yeahthat: That type of reports enables the rest of us to feel that the work groups care about what their peers think. I believe that most of us appreciate the time and effort that the work groups put in for deer hunting in this state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,270 Posts
I wonder who that would be.:D

If I recall correctly Mr. Wake and I could be wrong as I have a worst memory then most Alzheimer's patients, but I tried posting some of these same subjects here and you accused me of pushing some agenda. Well I guess I was, but it was the RDAT's agenda.:lol:

Anyway, yes I support just about any change if it takes pressure off 1 1/2 yo bucks and increases pressure on antlerless where needed. I was not a big APR guy until recently, but after looking at a lot of the data here and around the country I have become a bigger fan, but if I had my druthers it would be an OBR. I really just don't see why it would be so hard to go to one buck one doe here in the SLP, but I'm told over and over again it's not going to happen. But these again are my views and not that of the RDAT's, so I apologize if that somehow came across that way, although even with my big mouth I am sure I never said that.

Whoops getting off topic, when November says it's a diverse group he's not lying, I've heard on here a couple times that the RDAT's are loaded with QDMA slappys, I can tell you from personal experience that is far from the case.:lol:

I don't think there is any doubt that I am probably the most vocal RDAT member and I've been told that may come back to bite me, but I'm an unpaid public servant and the worst that could happen is that you fire me and I can go about enjoying my life. You might not like what I say or you might, but one thing is for sure, you'll know where I'm coming from. You want transparency you got transparency.:lol:

If any of you have any suggestions or would like to address an issue feel free to contact me anytime as many of you already have.

Thanks for posting Mr. Chair

Have a good day, Pez
I probably have an even worse memory, and I can't go back and look with this phone, but I think I took offense to that post because it sounded to me like the RDAT was hammering all of us uneducated average Joes. After further communication clarification, I learned that it wasn't meant that way.
I'm very comfortable with the handful of names I recognize on the list. Mr. Chrysler included. I also very much appreciate these people volunteering their time trying to improve our deer and or hunting.
My initial respone to this thread was just to offer an explanation to where the confusion may have come from, not at all complaining about how or what RDAT members say or do as individuals. I didn't even here any buzz about RDAT's alleged position until NS posted this.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,763 Posts
but if I had my druthers it would be an OBR. I really just don't see why it would be so hard to go to one buck one doe here in the SLP, but I'm told over and over again it's not going to happen. But these again are my views and not that of the RDAT's,
Pez we might agree again!! I too am a believer in a OBR, and more so for the social side of managment. I think it benefits both sides and the middle. I think it makes the regs simplier, benefits the entire state from the UP to SLP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Keep up the good work NS. Looking forward to more updates.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,721 Posts
Pez we might agree again!! I too am a believer in a OBR, and more so for the social side of managment. I think it benefits both sides and the middle. I think it makes the regs simplier, benefits the entire state from the UP to SLP.

RDAT

Regional Deer Advisory Team............

Well boys since it seems a lot of us can all agree to the OBR, how about you all add that to your advice to the state.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top