APRIL, 2008 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION (NRC) MEETING

The day started with the Crossbow Disability Work Group meeting. This was the second meeting of the group. As with all such endeavors it takes a couple of meetings before things settle down. It looked to me like it’s going to take many meetings before this group settles down. There had to be 60 or 70 people in the room and all had their own ideas on how to measure disability. (I would have loved to see that many when we were doing the license fee study. We didn’t have that many non-work group attendees at all the meetings combined. I guess it wasn’t personal enough.) It seems to me that the measurement is whether or not you can pull a bow. At least that’s how the doctor sitting next to me felt. If the physical therapist had a 30-35 pound recurve bow and used it to test the patient’s ability, the question of disability or inability would be answered. But both the doctor and I agreed that was too simple for government work. That test, by the way, would apply to all hunters of all ages. There were those who wanted to solve the problem by making crossbows legal across the board. I think the DNR needs to take a poll of all hunters and let that be the guide for a decision.

The Fisheries and Wildlife Committee had an update on Lake Huron. This was the same update we had at the April club meeting. Basically the food base of the lake has changed in favor of walleye and in disfavor of salmon both because of the collapse of alewives. The zebra and quagga mussels have removed much of the zooplankton on which the alewives fed. Who knows what the next ballast dump will bring.

The DNR had planned a five day anterless only hunt in September for the southern part of the lower and in the TB area. There were so many complaints from the “deer experts” who didn’t like one thing or another that the hunt plan was changed. The Commission discussed the issue and I believe the hunt will be scheduled when and where it will accomplish its intent – to reduce the deer herd in the overpopulated areas. As I see it the DNR has the responsibility to maintain the natural resources at the carrying capacity of the habitat in a healthy manner for all concerned. It is not their job to please everybody. The deer herd in southern Michigan needs to be reduced and maintained at a lower level. That’s going to be a big job. A little cooperation should be in order.

The Quality deer management process was (once again) reviewed as a lead-in to a request from the U.P clubs who want to restrict antler points state wide. They sited the latest DNR hunter survey in which everybody wanted more deer, bigger deer, bigger bucks, bigger racks, etc. Well who doesn’t? The key point on the survey was the question: “What should the DNR do?” The answer for 70% of the respondents was; “Keep the current regulations.” The quickie survey I took at a club meeting had the same result. There was no support for stricter antler restrictions. The folks from the U.P. ignored that question in their presentation until I endeared myself by reminding them. Since this issue will not go away, I suggested to the U.P. boys that the restrictions they are proposing could be applicable to the U.P. only for a period of five years. If it works, take another survey and let the hunters decide. I think this is a viable solution and the U.P. representatives seemed to agree.

The next two issues are very problematic. The wolf management plan was discussed. This is not a management plan; it is a plan to allow the wolves to expand until some as yet unknown saturation point is reached for which there is no measurement. Between the animal rights people and the interpretations of the endangered species act we may have to go back to living in trees. The welfare of the resources is not being met.

The second such issue is cormorants. I can repeat the same comments I made about the wolves. I hope the wolf population doesn’t reach the same proportion as the cormorants before a problem is recognized. How do you oil wolf eggs?

The Committee of the Whole reviewed the budget status which changed little from last month. The legislative report pointed out HB 5839 which disallows the DNR from collecting launch fees (loss of funding) and SB 1234 which limits the use of air boats (noise abatement). The forest management plan and the ORV management plan still do not meet the demands of the users. They do, however, meet the needs of the resources – I guess we’ll see who wins. The Pigeon River plan is proposing to add 280 miles of equestrian trails and more bicycling miles. This was insufficient for the users and I mean “users” in the strictest sense. The amusement park in Grayling is called the Axiom Project and includes many other industrial endeavors besides the amusement park.

There were three major groups at the meeting who signed for public appearances. The smallest but the loudest group was the trail riders, about nine speakers. They want to be able to ride all over the Pigeon River unrestricted. That’s not exactly accurate but that is how they came across. They seem to forget that the Pigeon is intended to be a pristine area and a lot of it was purchased with hunter monies which puts Federal restrictions on its use.

Next were the supporters for the original anterless deer hunt in the southern part of the lower in September, about eleven speakers. I think the commissioners were much in agreement with their comments.

Then came the Axiom supporters, about twelve speakers. At first it appeared that the DNR had not done something but it was explained that the developer was remiss in his duties and the group was quite premature in its efforts. These people really made it a long day.

Three motor cycle trail riders complained about other people using their trails. There were complaints about the forest and ORV plans, support for raptor hunting, youth hunting and QDM. Opposition to antler restrictions, QDM and campground closures. And someone who wanted to change the spear fishing regulations.

If you will note all these issues have to do with the users using what they want to use in any manner they wish to use it. In many cases there is no consideration for other users. In only one or two cases was there any consideration for the resource. Have we become users instead of providers? Have we become ignorant as to the needs of the resource? Do we, at all, understand how fragile these eco systems are? Where we should be nurturing and protecting we seem to be letting these users do as they please.

At the last meeting I determined, through a series of questions, that we know how to harvest the resource with all the latest doodads and gadgets. But do we know what makes the resource work. And if we do not, what is the guarantee that the resource will continue to exist let alone be maintained. We spend a lot of money hiring the best we can find to manage our resources and then let a small vocal, ignorant, group to harass our managers into allowing the resource to deteriorate. Fortunately, thanks to good management, the deterioration has been minimized. The managers look to us to minimize the harassment. I think we owe more effort in that direction. It’s a lot more fun and a lot more gets accomplished when we work together for the betterment of the resources.

Jim De Clerck