As I do from time to time, I was reading through the Press Release section on the Michigan DNR’s website, and discovered something that I thought was great news, but yet I never heard anything about.

Apparently 2009 was Michigan’s safest firearm season on record.  All of us Michigan hunters managed to enter the woods in pursuit of deer without one fatality.  In fact, only one fatality was recorded for the entire 2009 hunting season, and that happened during the spring turkey season.

“Apparently 2009 was Michigan’s safest firearm season on record”

But I never heard about it in the local news.  Why?  Because only negative gun-related incidences get reported by our local media, and positive hunting and/or gun-related stories get buried.

At first I had an open mind.  I figured that I had missed the story, and that our local publications would have definitely published this particular press release somewhere.  Right?  Lo and behold, though, I could only find this particular press release published in smaller community-based newspapers:  The River Country Journal, an online publication based in Southwest Michigan, published it; The Evening News, based in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, published it; and The Herald-Palladium, also located in Southwest Michigan, published it.  I also found it published in the Bay City Times on Mlive.com.

But what I didn’t find was any mention of it in the Lansing State Journal,  the Detroit Free Press, on WLNS.com (one of our local TV stations), or WILX.com (another of our local TV stations).  I wonder why that is?  You would think that such a thing would get reported in the big media outlets, and allow them to give hunters the credit that they’re due.  But it was not to be.

I hope I’m wrong, and if anyone out there happened to catch this story in or on any of the publications I mentioned, I would love to hear about it.  I have a feeling, though, that that isn’t going to happen.

I’m going to go against what our local media outlets believe in, and give Michigan hunters the credit they deserve.  It was because of all of you that a safety record like this could be achieved.

And that is to be commended.

Popularity: 2% [?]

At this point in time, I honestly believe that the possibility of Asian Carp entering the Great Lakes is Michigan’s biggest environmental threat.  And this may come as a shock to some folks, but I think it’s even more threatening to Michigan’s environment then our current baiting ban.

We’ve all saw these Asian carp on outdoor shows; they are the ones famous for their high-flying antics and tendency – once they are disturbed by a boat motor – to jump,  sometimes right into the boat itself.  Plenty of people have filmed themselves on the Mississippi River trying to arrow one of these high jumpers, and after watching one of these shows, I was even wanting to try my luck at arrowing one of them as well.

But now, Michigan, and many other states that rely monetarily on the Great Lakes, and its $7 billion fishing and tourism industries, are facing a crisis; they are facing the possibility that some of these Asian Carp have made it past an electronic barrier -located in Chicago’s Sanitary and Ship Canal, and supposedly set up to keep them out – and into the Great Lakes.

And that should instill fear into every Michigan angler.

The electronic barrier has been in place since 2002, but has been under the spotlight recently because some Asian Carp DNA was discovered in an area past the barrier.  Then, just a few weeks ago, the canal that contains the barrier had to be poisoned so that upgrades could be made to the barrier as well.  Thankfully, after sifting through approximately 200,000 pounds of dead fish, only one Asian Carp body was discovered……. in an area located before the barrier.

For now.

It is my sincere hope that these fish do not make it into the Great Lakes.  While I do think trying to shoot a few of these fish out of the air with a bow sounds fun, I think the long term negative impact on the Great Lakes will be detrimental.  These carp have the ability to eat 40% of their body weight in plankton per day, and will more than likely force less aggressive fish species – who need that plankton for survival as well – to starve.  Imagine what would happen if these smaller species of fish, that Salmon, Steelhead, and many other fish rely on for food, disappeared.  If that happened I think the days of fishing our local rivers for Salmon, Steelhead, and even trout would be numbered.

Apparently Mike Cox, Michigan’s Attorney General, feels the same way as I do.  Recently he vowed – if locks located at the end of this canal are not closed – to file suit in order to force them closed.  Currently officials are already contemplating shutting the locks, but would like to do more testing in order to pinpoint the location of the carp, before doing so.

While I applaud Mr. Cox’s efforts, I am still a little unsure as to why every agency and official involved keeps dragging their feet.  The locks will not close because they need to do more testing, and Attorney General Cox seems to be trying to expedite the process, and ensure the safety of Michigan’s biggest outdoor resource, but at the same time will not reveal a timeline that outlines when this suit will be filed.

Have much time do they think we have?

Considering these fish are already within 40 miles of the Great Lakes, and maybe even farther; and considering we have a lot of unknowns involved here, I just can’t understand why nobody will step up to the plate and make a decision.

The Great Lakes are 40 miles away from changing forever, and right now we need a little less talk and a lot more action.

Michigan’s anglers, sportsmen, and tourism industry are relying on it.

Popularity: 3% [?]

I recently stumbled across an article on Mlive.com, from the Grand Rapids Press, that contained some startling information.  Apparently, up to this point, Michigan hunters are really taking advantage of the new crossbow regulations in the state.  I had a feeling that allowing crossbows to be used by more of the hunting population would get more hunters in the woods, but I honestly had no idea that the DNR would issue 45,000 crossbow stamps in the first year.

I honestly consider this a win in two ways, though:  It allows for more hunters to get back into hunting – who maybe didn’t have the desire before – which increases our hunting population (a good thing in today’s hunting downtrend); and it allows our local sporting goods stores to make a little money while riding the crossbow bandwagon – Bob’s Gun and Tackle in Hastings has sold more than 250 already this year.

The big question I still have, though, and one of the questions that prominently featured in the crossbow debate, is whether allowing crossbows significantly increased the number of deer harvested during the archery season.  Many hunters were apprehensive about crossbows being used, because they felt it would increase the number of hunters in the woods, and thus increase the number of deer being killed.  With the deer population we have in Zone 3, though, I figure killing a few more deer in that area was a good thing.  Only time will tell, though, if these particular hunters’ fears were warranted, and that allowing more hunters in the woods actually transpired into a significantly larger number of deer being killed.

I will be scouring over the deer harvest reports once the end of the hunting season is upon us, and I will be checking to see if the deer harvest numbers have significantly increased from 2008.  I honestly have a feeling that we won’t see much change in the deer harvest numbers.  The only thing that will have increased is the amount of hunters in the woods.

I realize that many Michigan hunters don’t want to see an increase in hunting numbers – we already have about 7 hunters per square mile.  But I’m the type of guy who wants to see our hunting heritage stick around for years to come, and if crossbows encourage more people to get out and hunt, I’m all for it.

For now, we’ll just have to wait and see if the 45,000 crossbow permits issued up to this point were detrimental to the deer population.  I have a feeling that that is not the case.

Popularity: 2% [?]

In this post about a month ago, I informed everyone about some important changes that were going to effect Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources.  With Executive Order 2009-45, Govern Granholm merged the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality into one new entity – the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

While I believe the move overall was a good one, I was deeply concerned with this particular part of the Executive Order:

The Director of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment shall be the head of the Department.  Consistent with Section 3 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Director of the Department shall be appointed by the Governor, subject to disapproval under Section 6 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.

Since that time the Senate has already passed a resolution that would send the EO back to the Governor, but we still need the Michigan House of Representatives to do the same.  The MUCC sent me a very informative letter regarding House Concurrent Resolution 32, and not only did I do my part and contact my local representatives and encouraged them to vote for and pass this resolution; I’m also encouraging all of my fellow Michigan sportsmen and women to do the same.

Please call or email these three House leaders: (1) Speaker Andy Dillon, (2) Majority Floor Leader Kathy Angerer and (3) Speaker Pro Tempore Pam Byrnes.  We need to tell them that science, not politics, should play the leading role when it comes to our state’s natural resources.  Our Natural Resources Commission should be appointing the Director of the DNRE, not a politically motivated governor.

Popularity: 2% [?]

I was driving home the other night, dreaming about hunting, and wishing it didn’t get dark so soon, when I noticed a thin line of “dust” coming from behind a farmhouse.  Of course, once I thought about it for second, I realized that the “dust” I was seeing was coming from some sort of farm machinery; and being the time of the year that it is I immediately knew what was happening in the field behind that old farmhouse :  they were cutting the corn.

According to an article from the Grand Rapids Press, that I found on Mlive.com, the corn harvest is late this year and DNR biologists fear the still standing corn crop will help protect more deer, and cause a smaller number of deer to be killed.  From the Grand Rapids Press article:

“The one thing that might make this year a little interesting is the corn harvest is a little bit behind. It’s a big factor in deer vulnerability,” said John Niewoonder, acting big game specialist for the DNR. “That may protect a lot of deer.”

Honestly, I tend to agree.  And I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little relieved to see the corn being cut.  Along my drive home, after initially noticing it being cut behind the farm house, I passed multiple fields that contained busy combines.  I honestly wanted to raise my fist and cheer ‘em all on – cut all that corn boys.

I definitely agree with the sentiments of the article, and I think that the standing corn definitely provides a safe haven for the local deer population, and allows them to remain safe and unseen thus giving them a better chance of staying alive.  For the opening day of firearm season, especially after the season I have been having, and the lack of recent deer sightings, I would love to see every single field of corn brought to its knees.

I’m hoping that over the next few days I witness a lot of corn falling prey to the clutches of a combine.  And I hope that has a direct impact on our success rate this weekend, as we finally get to take our guns along with us into the fields and woodlots we so enjoy.

Popularity: 1% [?]