In a nutshell, the Natural Resources Commission has an entire year to develop the new Hunter Heritage Program, which will provide “hunting opportunities for youths under the age of 10 by allowing them to hunt in conjunction with the mentored youth hunting program”.  Basically, children ten and under can hunt, as long as they’re accompanied by an adult mentor.  And even more important than that is the fact that these children will also be allowed to purchase a youth hunting license, which entitles them to hunt deer, turkey, small game, trap fur-bearers and fish for all species.

Below you’ll find a little more information about the program, which comes straight from the press release:

• A parent or legal guardian of the minor child must apply for the license on behalf of the child;
• A mentored youth hunting license will cost $7.50;
• The mentor, who must be at least 21 and possess a valid hunting license, will need to accompany the youth at all times;
• At age 10 the youth will no longer be eligible for a mentored youth hunting license, but will need to either take hunter safety and then purchase a regular license, or hunt under an apprentice license for up to two years.

While many are a little disappointed, and were hoping that this program would be in effect for the upcoming hunting season, I’m all for giving the NRC an entire year to develop all of the intricacies related to the program.  The passing of this legislation is such a monumental occasion – honestly,  it’s something I thought I would never see in my lifetime – and since it’s going to provide our youth with so many outdoor opportunities, I’m more than willing to wait one more year.

This is such a HUGE step in the right direction, and I couldn’t be more ecstatic about this new law.  With Abby getting a little older every day, and with another one on the way in December (hint, hint), this law couldn’t of come at a better time.  And, more importantly, and not so selfishly, it’s going to do a world of good for Michigan’s youth, and for the future of hunting as we know it.  In a state which only replaces 26 of every 100 hunters it loses, it’s definitely going to have an incredible impact on our state’s hunting future.

We can’t wait for next year!

Abby and I are going to get a chance to hunt together much sooner than I expected, and that is awesome!

In a nutshell, this legislation creates a “Mentored Youth Hunting Safety Program” that eliminates Michigan’s minimum hunting age and allows parents – not a governing body – to choose the moment in time when their kids are ready to experience hunting for the first time.

I seriously can’t believe this is actually happening.  How cool is that?

While it’s still going to be a few years before I’m comfortable with taking Abby hunting, just the fact that I’m going to be able to decide when she’s ready to hunt is awesome; it’s going to make it much easier to recruit kids into hunting in the Great Lake State, and it’s going to help curb the fact that, currently, for every 100 hunters we lose, we only replace 26 of them.

I truly believe this is a monumental moment in Michigan’s hunting history, and it couldn’t come at a better time for me and my family.  Also, it’s going to give all Michigan families a chance to get their children interested in our long hunting traditions before they get hooked on television, video games, Ipods, etc.

I sincerely hope the Governor signs this bill.  It’s so surreal, and so awesome!

Note: If you want to read the entire press release from MUCC, click here.

If you recall, baiting was banned in the Lower Peninsula back in 2008, after a captive deer tested positive for Chronic Wasting Disease.  Since that time baiting has been quite the topic in Michigan – and while I’m still not so sure that this is the right move, the fact remains that it will be legal once again, so – if you choose to participate – I promise not to judge, even if I may not agree with you.

I’m sure many hunters in the state are rejoicing after this victory, and I’m also sure that many gas stations are already placing their orders for bags of carrots, corn, apples, etc.

Whether you like it or not, it’s back – for at least the next three years anyway.

All of the big names will be there, and I’m sure Jeff will probably have a picture of him and Tiffany to share when he returns.  I think that is his only goal.

He’ll arrive in Indy tonight, have an action-packed day of it tomorrow at the show, and then be returning home, completely exhausted from having to stand next to Tiffany for so long.

As for me:  I’ll be dreaming about getting out ice fishing this Saturday, and finally being able to put my lack of outdoor activity – in the last few weeks – behind me.  And I couldn’t go to the show, because some of us have to work for a living.

So look for some excellent pictures in the days and weeks ahead, as we cover what Jeff was up to down there.  You might see some new products, some exciting new companies, or just pictures, and pictures, and pictures of Jeff and Tiffany.

We’ll just have to wait and see what he comes back with.

I do hope he comes back, though – especially before Saturday morning, since he’s the one with the new, warm ice shanty.

Note: Stay tuned for a post straight from Hawaii.  You will not want to miss it, because it’s pretty cool.

How can one define the “right” way to hunt?  Who decides the “right” way?  And who decides what the “wrong” way to hunt is?  And, if, let’s say, hunting “ethics” were defined by a particular group of hunters, wouldn’t it then be possible that those hunters, who do not agree with the defined “ethics”, could be discriminated against because their choice of hunting tactics, methods, etc. are deemed “wrong”?

It’s a vicious circle, and it constantly revolves and evolves, but it results in a simple point: just because you don’t agree with my way of hunting, doesn’t mean that it isn’t the “right” way – or the correct way – or the desired way for everyone to hunt.  To each is own I always say.

And while hunting “ethics” have been a topic I’ve come across quite a few times, I have yet to see this issue be brought up when it comes to fishing.  A recent article I came across, however, brought it to the forefront for me.

In Michigan, we have a pristine river – the Pere Marquette – which contains one heck of a steelhead and salmon run every year; it also contains a good amount of trout, and is honestly one of the best fisheries in the state, if not in the United States.  However, this river has a section which is known as a “flies only” section; it is a section of river which only allows flies to be used, and is also a “no-kill” section – fish cannot be kept.

A recently proposed plan by the state would extend this “flies-only” section an additional 2.9 miles, and prevent those anglers who choose to use live bait or artificial lures from being able to fish in this particular section of river.  It has opponents crying foul, and it made me ask myself a few questions:  Is this fishing discrimination?  With these particular regulations are we not forcing a certain method of fishing onto others, and preventing them from using their preferred – and legal in any many other bodies of water – method of fishing?

Now, if there was a scientific reason for this particular change, I could totally accept it.  But Jim Dexter, Michigan DNRE’s Lake Michigan Basin Coordinator, admits that isn’t the case.  “On the PM, there is no biological justification,” he said.  “If there is a strong biological reason to do something to protect a population, we won’t even ask people’s opinion, we will just do it. That’s our job.  But if there is no biological reason, it becomes mostly a social issue, and we can’t please everyone. A lot of people feel this is discriminatory. We say it isn’t. You can still fish every mile of water in the state that is open to the public.”

Obviously, and admittedly, this is a social issue.  This proposed plan and regulation is motivated by social issues, rather than scientific ones.  It has the look and feel of legislation being put in place to please a few, while affecting many.  And if you have any doubt about that read what Jim Schramm, president of the Great Lakes Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, had to say about the issue:

“It’s good because it moves the meat fishermen away from the upper river … the people tend to be slobs.”

If that particular comment doesn’t bring to light the fact that these regulations are being encouraged by those who feel their way is the “right” way, I don’t know what will.  Let’s paint every “meat fishermen” with a broad brush, shall we?  Geesh!

I have fished the Pere Marquette with a spin cast reel, as well as with a fly rod.  I have fished it with spin tackle, and with flies.  I have released fish on many occasions. And while I have fished the “flies-only” section quite a few times, I have also fished many other sections of the river – where keeping fish is legal – and have managed, between Jeff and myself, to take home our share of fish as well; yet I wouldn’t consider myself a “slob” because I chose to be a “meat fishermen” that day; nor would I try to impose my chosen method of fishing the Pere Marquette – with a fly rod – on those who choose not to use one.  After all, Jeff and I started salmon and steelhead fishing with spin cast tackle.

Though I can understand wanting to keep certain areas of the river “flies-only”, because it tends to keep the river more pristine, and provides for a different atmosphere on the river, I have definite reservations when these regulations are blatantly being put in place for social, and not scientific, reasons – that they’re being put in place to please a small group of fishermen, who feel their preferred method of fishing is “right”.

How can we decide a particular portion of river needs to be fished a certain way?  And how can a group of anglers impose their way of fishing onto the masses?  It seems to replicate the same tactics that I always despise when they’re used by anti-hunters, vegetarians, and vegans:  trying to enforce one’s chosen way of life, or hunting method – or fishing method in this case – by legislation or otherwise, onto someone else because they deem it as “right”.

And I don’t think I’m very comfortable with it.

I knew the gloves were just starting to get put on, or – if you’re a hockey fan – just starting to come off – and it didn’t take long before my premonition came true.

Just recently, a package of three bills was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives that, if passed, would create regulations for businesses that offer wild boar hunts.  Of course, this legislation is being proposed at the same time that the state’s resources managers are still contemplating the “invasive species” question.

The debate is on.

While the “invasive species” group would like to have swine listed, and end any high-fenced hog hunting operations – because they think there is a direct correlation between where feral swine are located, and where these facilities exist (in a nutshell, they blame hogs escaping from these facilities as the reason for feral swine in Michigan) – the legislation backers, namely James “Jase” Bolger, R-Marshall, would like to have “sporting swine” within these facilities deemed as livestock, and thus under Michigan Department of Agriculture authority.

Here’s Bolger’s reasoning behind the legislation:

“I think declaring any livestock an invasive species is a dangerous precedent. My view is if it is in a fence, it should be under the purview of the agriculture department,” Bolger said. “The bottom line is, we want to address a serious issue but not overreact and eliminate an entire industry. We need to protect every job we can here in Michigan.”

I am all for protecting jobs in my home state, because Michigan is severely lacking in that department, but I just never really thought to look at the feral swine problem from this particular angle. Honestly, I’m all for saving jobs, and I’m not against having fenced pig hunting opportunities in Michigan for that purpose - but I do think these operations need to be regulated.

As time passes, and as more details come out about this particular issue, my feelings could change, though – simply because problem pigs are a new issue for me, and I’m still learning; plus I have reservations about the true repercussions of a possible “pig problem” in our state.

In the meantime, though, this legislation doesn’t look like such an unreasonable proposition, and seems more sensible than the “invasive species” route.

The ramifications of either option, however, still remain to be seen.

Ram has came out with a new line of pickup trucks called the Outdoorsman, and they are specifically targeting the hunters and shooters amongst us with their new Mopar Rambox Holster:  it can hold two shotguns or rifles in a lockable, watertight compartment on either side of the truck bed.

Pretty cool, if you ask me.  Oh, and fishing rods will fit in there, too!

I wonder if a bow will fit in there?  Or if they’re going to come out with something similar on Ford trucks?

I mean, even a built-in gun case wouldn’t make me buy a Ram truck.  And…take it easy…… because I own a Dodge – a Nitro – but it’s not a truck if it doesn’t say Ford on it, right?

Hehe.  Let me hear it in the comments (whether it’s a debate about trucks or simply what you think about the gun case).

State wildlife biologists are on the verge of listing feral swine as an “invasive species”.  If that happens, those deer and elk ranches – which sometimes provide pig hunts as well – will not be able to do so anymore.

The NRC will be gathering information about this topic this month, but it will not be acted on again until sometime in September.  That should give everyone a few months to ponder how they feel about having wild pigs in Michigan:  By listing them are we losing an opportunity to hunt a different species?  Or are we helping out the entire Michigan ecosystem?

Now…..listing them will not ban all opportunities for a hunter to put some pork in his freezer.  They still have the possibility of running into a feral porker, and as long as they possess any valid hunting license, they can legally shoot them on site; only hunting pigs on hunting preserves would be affected.

Why are they being so hard on the hunting preserves?

Apparently because they see a direct correlation between the areas where these hunting preserves exist, and the locations where hunters have legally killed feral swine.  In a nutshell, the biologists believe that most of Michigan’s feral swine are escaping from the hunting preserves.  As Russ Mason, the state’s wildlife chief put it:

“Where we find the pigs running wild we find (a hunting preserve) nearby. There is one chance in a thousand that there is no relationship between the two.”

How do I feel about all this?

I’m very torn.  On one side I would love to have the same opportunities that Phillip, Rex, and Jeff have – but, on the other side, I can see the pig problem getting completely out of control if it’s not properly handled now; and as much as I would love to have a chance to bag a few porkers, I would hate to see the pigs decimate the landscape so much that it starts to effect Michigan’s whitetail habitat.

I’m sure both sides of the issue are getting taped up and ready to put on the gloves.  We’ll just have to wait to see what the NRC decides.

Note: Want to read more on this particular subject?  You can do so here!

The leak originated south of Marshall, Michigan, but has started to make its way towards the Kalamazoo area.  Officials have assured the public that they will be able to contain the spill within Morrow Lake, a dam pond east of Kalamazoo, but we all know how that can go.  I’m hoping for the best, but trying to prepare for the worst, because if the spill cannot be contained in such a location, there is the possibility it could reach Lake Michigan; that gives me chills just thinking about it.

Obama has already pledged a swift response to the spill, and local legislators are speaking out against Enbridge, the company responsible for the pipeline.  I’m holding my breath, though, and hoping that this spill is contained and cleaned up in a timely manner.  If history is any indication, though, I have fears that this will take much longer than anticipated to get under control, and who knows what longing affects it will have on the local wildlife population.

Right now, heavy rain is inhibiting the clean up duties, as well as a lack of trained personnel to help with wildlife clean up and rehabilitation.  I’ve already read and heard stories of people who were willing to help, but who have been turned away because they don’t have the proper training.

The river in question is only about 25 miles south of my hometown, and though I haven’t seen the devastation first hand, we will be in the area for a wedding this weekend.  There is a part of me that really doesn’t want to see, and to say I feel pretty damn helpless is an understatement.

Let’s all hope that everyone works together, and gets this thing cleaned up as soon as possible with as little environmental impact as possible.

It’s all just very depressing.  It literally makes me sick to my stomach.

Update: After working through my helpless feeling, and after thinking to myself “How can I help?”, considering there is no way I’m trying to pick up a ornery goose covered in oil, I did manage to find a few ways that us simple and untrained people can help:

If you want to volunteer your time to help animals in need or oil cleanup, try one of the following options:

— Call the official assistance number, 1-800-306-6837.

— Call Pam Decuypere with the Circle D Wildlife Refuge, 269-778-9181 or 269-365-5349.

— Visit the Circle D location at 13500 East U Ave. in Vicksburg. Bring donations of money, buckets, vegetable oil, dish soap and rags.

— Call Matt Davis at 967-3321 or e-mail him at biggfoot18@aol.com.

— Join the Facebook Group Kalamazoo River Oil Spill.

— Drop off items such as non-fitted sheets and soft towels, cardboard boxes, small white boards, duck tape and firewood at Crossroads Church and Ministries, 717 N. Old 27, Marshall.

We are going to do our part and drop off some much needed supplies at the church listed, which is close to my wife’s work.  If they need duct tape and cardboard boxes, I am more than willing to oblige.

Having Asian Carp in the Great Lakes, though?  I’m not okay with that.   I’ve wrote a post about exactly where I stood on the whole issue, and now the situation is much more dire.

Yesterday, an Asian Carp was discovered in Lake Calumet, on Chicago’s South Side, only six miles from Lake Michigan.  I’m very concerned, and I think John Rogner, Assistant Director of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources said it best with this quote:

“The threat to the Great Lakes depends on how many have access to the lakes, which depends on how many are in the Chicago waterway right now.”

I completely agree, but the problem is we don’t know how many are in the Chicago Waterway right now.

At first, everyone assured us they hadn’t made it past the electric barrier put in place to keep them at bay.  Then they found Asian Carp DNA beyond the barrier.  Then they told all of us that just because there was DNA didn’t mean any actual fish made it past the barrier.  Oh, but wait, because now, after all the reassurances and testing, they find a live carp beyond the barrier and in an area that was poisoned in order to kill off any carp that might be present.

Interesting!  Is anyone, like me, starting to not trust all the speculations and promises?

I’m starting to lose a little faith here, and I’m starting to wonder if Michigan, and the surrounding Great Lake States, is on the verge of  a complete ecological disaster.

And no one is doing anything to stop it.