[motdean]

I think a lot of Yoopers would be okay with that. Obviously the Michigan DNR would still be involved, it's not like it'd be seceding from the state, just the NRC. I think it'd surprise a lot of people how much money is generated for the state from the UP and it's abundance of recreational activity.

But it will still be the same DNR giving the same recommendations for the UP.

I can foresee just as many disgruntled yoopers with this proposal.

 

[Cork Dust]

I'm shooting from the hip. If pulp prices are low, subsidize (to the extent it makes sense). Increase clear cutting (tteims). Change timber laws (same). Plant conifers (or whatever). Incentivize large private corporations that own land (tteims). Overall, re-direct effort and resources ($) to increase winter cover. They can't change the weather, I'm assuming they can do better improving this.

At one of the first meetings of the U.P. Winter Habitat Work Group, prior it being renamed by dropping winter from the title, the first forester who asked the genera question: When can we stop considering deer in our forest management efforts? Was the MDNR U.P. Forestry Division acting supervisor... His actual statement was: 'We need to establish exactly what finished looks like so we have a goal in forest habitat management.' His words caught my attention because, as a biologist, I had always been taught that forest habitat management was an ongoing process. Habitat (trees) sprout and grow to maturity and are either harvested or progress to senescence. That was when I fully realized why all forest management economic models view fish and wildlife on the landscape where the trees are "managed" as externalities.

My point? There has to be a desire to change to alter the status quo... Prior the onset of the Deer Management Initiative work group's marathon meetings efforts. There was only one corportate forest owner that sent personnel to the meeting or opted to attend via remote connection. They were already actively engaged in reorganizing their cutting management criteria.

 

[Cork Dust]

Who resigned?

Anthony and Nyberg both show as still being on the NRC. Both are from the UP.

He retired to the U.P. Dr. Robin Michigiizhwigookwe Clark resigned from the NRC in response to conflict of interest cllaims. When she was initially appointed she was an adjunct professor in natural resources mgt./community ecology at MTU. She subsequently accepted a position in natural resources management- I don't recall her specific title.- with the Chippewa Ottowa Resource Authority and moved to the Soo.

 

[Cork Dust]

But it will still be the same DNR giving the same recommendations for the UP.

I can foresee just as many disgruntled yoopers with this proposal.

The more important point is that the local legislators that concocted this proposal can't...
On the flip side, the NRC members failed to grasp that they lost a great deal of credibility with the agency they oversee by pushing forward with the DMI...an the achieved the same effect with the resource user base when they rejected the DMI proposals made by both the Region 1 and Region 2 appointees. Anthony and Nyberg were the principal drivers of the DMI, with secondary support from Cozad when this effort was established. No clue where any of then "sit" now...

 

[pgpn123]

At one of the first meetings of the U.P. Winter Habitat Work Group, prior it being renamed by dropping winter from the title, the first forester who asked the genera question: When can we stop considering deer in our forest management efforts? Was the MDNR U.P. Forestry Division acting supervisor... His actual statement was: 'We need to establish exactly what finished looks like so we have a goal in forest habitat management.' His words caught my attention because, as a biologist, I had always been taught that forest habitat management was an ongoing process. Habitat (trees) sprout and grow to maturity and are either harvested or progress to senescence. That was when I fully realized why all forest management economic models view fish and wildlife on the landscape where the trees are "managed" as externalities.

My point? There has to be a desire to change to alter the status quo... Prior the onset of the Deer Management Initiative work group's marathon meetings efforts. There was only one corportate forest owner that sent personnel to the meeting or opted to attend via remote connection. They were already actively engaged in reorganizing their cutting management criteria.

Seems ludicrous. This isn't a redwood forest. Improving for deer should also improve it for most other wildlife I assume.

 

[Cork Dust]

Seems ludicrous. This isn't a redwood forest. Improving for deer should also improve it for most other wildlife I assume.

Generally, yes. They are an edge species that does best in early succession habitats. The old axiom is: you manage for deer; you manage for grouse...and all other small game animals. Clear-cuts ain't very pretty to downstate retiree transplants...they have to be sold, figuratively and litterally. Secondarily, you also end-up enhancing fawn survival, particulary from coyote predation, since you increase the high stem count acreage on the landscape and spread the fawning does density out to a greater degree.

That inidividual I mentioned is now retired from the Foresty Department. There are a couple of other undermotivated Widlife folks still around as well. Forest Meister would be a good source for additional background. Ms."Hooey" has essentially killed the U.P. HWG via benign neglect. The Ottawa National Forest has an active supporter at th helm for the moment who has engaged in a broad array of forest habitat improvements, particularly along stream and river corridors. Weyehauser largely came and went from U.P. forestlands ownership. Not a fan of Plum Creek Forestlands Lyme is active. But the vast majority of the WDC acreage(over 75%) is not owned or managed by the MDNR.

I would encourage our local state level legislators to craft an initiative to replace the Region 1 deputy supervisor with a resource backgrounded individual rather than a former member of Gov. Whitmer's press office. Removing her would likely have broad benefits, since she functions more as an impediment to cooperation and cross-talk within and among the MDNR resource management divisions than a facilitator.

I don't know spit about what private corporate forestlands operating margins are, short or longterm. Not a very compelling business model to buy large blocks of timberlands and primarily sit and wait to harvest them on forest compartment basis.

 

[pescadero]

Yes. The PTD is social. LOL! The managing for sustainability is science. Have we argued in a circle yet?

The managing for sustainability is social.

How you achieve that management might be science.

 

[Ranger Ray]

Oh boy!

 

[Retired Hunter]

I was discussing this article on FB with a guy today. What radical ideas would they propose to help the deer herd? They cant do anything about the wolves until they are no longer federally protected (if I remember right). They could issue more bear tags but nothing they can do about the yotes and bobcats as they aren't real heavily hunted. Maybe have a limited moose season which is probably doable.
In my opinion, the biggest factors that effect the deer herd the most are harsh winters, degraded deer wintering yards, and lack of clear cutting/popple/browse regeneration to provide good winter browse.
The weather they cant control. They can work on the deer yards but its my understanding thats already being addressed but is a slow evolution considering it takes trees time to grow and I dont see them cutting forests just for the deer. So I don't see how a separate game commission could help.
I made the comparison of the UP to the NELP (where I hunt) and presented this:
Where I hunt, deer numbers in the HNF are relatively low compared to what it was in the 80s, much like the UP. Hunter numbers are less than what they used to be so they aren't stacking them like they once did. Winters aren't as harsh so I dont think we lose much to winter kill, and we don't have wolves. While yes, there is predation from bears/yotes, I don't thinks its exceptionally high. So the numbers in the NELP havent rebounded and they aren't rebounding in the UP. Why? The one main key I come up with is lack of timber harvest resulting in popple/browse regeneration. In the 80s, there were fresh clear cuts with young popple everywhere to provide good winter browse and there were a ton of deer. Now, all that is old growth and of zero value to the deer from a nutrition standpoint and the herd just isn't rebounding. Mast crops are very hit and miss.
Compare the UP and northern Michigan to southern Michigan. In southern Michigan, winter kill is minimal to nearly non existent, they don't need yarding complexes, theres no wolves/bears but they do have EHD, a lot more vehicles to avoid (which they don't do a good job at) and hunters kill a lot of deer, but the herd continues to grow? Why? Availability of quality food pretty much year round and much less harsh winters.
Just my ramblings and 2 pennies worth.

I do know we have wolves here in Presque Isle, I have seen them. Even the coyotes have moved from my area, I haven't seen or heard one in 3 years. The deer population is stable though. I harvest buck or doe, whatever crosses my path and I take 3 or 4 a year.