Drummond Island Writing Team Meeting

DAY 1:September 7, 2011

Attending: Chris Cantway, Pat Brower, Patrick Kelly, Dave Jentoft, James Kelley, Steve Walker, Bill Hepler, Denny Bailey, Karen Rodock, Frank Sasso, David Bardsley, Chuck Moser, Jim Radabouh, Terry Minzey, Penny Melchoir, Bill O’Neil, Neil Godby, Kelly Siciliano Carter, Autumn Feldpausch, Brad Kuusinen, Stacy Welling, Gerald Thayer, Steve Milford, Jordan Burroughs

10:02 meeting begins: Facilitator welcomes and goes over agenda, ground rules and introductions.

10:19 DNR Staff goes over stakeholder matrix

10:27 DNR Staff introduces “The Plan”. Drummond Island and team meetings are a complex system. It’s up to attendees to pick featured species, ORV and jeep trails, and recommendations they want DNR to work with as a plan. Building the plan and attendee’s efforts will help build this plan. Recommendations decided in group will be written up and published for public comment then sent to the director, and then hopefully members from committee will present them to the NRC. Writing Team Member- question on public comment stage, what happens should public disagree with something the group decides and then publishes/presents to them? Writing Team Member - concerns regarding 5year plan, what if in two years we find things aren’t working? Writing Team Member - DNR uses plan as guidelines to management. Included in this planning process will be evaluations and processing options, which will allow aspects of it to be reassessed. DNR Staff- This will be a living document meaning it can be cleaned up or changed if need be. Writing Team Member - if uncontrollable instances occur (i.e., weather, 3 really bad winters) what do we do? DNR Staff- In plan, group will establish where they want the herd numbers to be then, local biologist will make management calls year by year based on population and any issues which may have arisen. DNR Staff emphasizes that the group needs to talk to others on island to explain more about what this meeting’s purpose is and why it’s occurring and they should be seeking islander’s input as well. DNR Staff – Reiterating that, as a whole, the group will be signing off on the recommendations created by this group.

10:45 Facilitator- speaks on interests/positions. Orange story stresses communicating the whys behind individual’s agenda/intent.

11:00 DNR Staff– Addressing fish issues: Goes over some achievements thus far – walleye stocking, dam modification, creel surveys, pike project, fish passage at McCormick Creek, Fall Walleye surveys & others.

1

Issues identified by group at last meeting: Water levels – comment on a current water level control study. Writing Team Member- Please address the impact of what fills the lake and not what empties it. DNR Staff- it is being assessed as part of above mentioned study on how to address it, and also what to do about it. It is an important issue, but it’s out of DNR’s hands, we can have input, but no control. John Nevin would be best contact.

Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) – Is not directly in DNR’s control, MI does have AIS core team though working on the issue. Best starting point contact: DEQ contact: Sarah LeSage. USFWS is also doing surveys in SMR.

Stocking Fish – Again not just DNR decision, but we are stocking when and where we can.

Cormorant Control – Federally administered project best contact: Tony Aderman of USDA.

Vegetation Control – in context of property owners/lake front wanting to clear out aquatic vegetation in front of their property. Vegetation is very important for spawning and nursery habitat. Could allow small section to be removed for access purposes, but entire impact needs to be looked at/assessed. Best contact DEQ: aquatic nuisance control.

Access – always looking to increase access and fishing opportunity.

Great Lake and Connecting Channel Influence – DI is surrounded by a great lake and great lake connecting channel which pulls a lot of discussion and possible changes out of DNR’s hands. We have to work with multiple committees: MDNR OMNR, CORA, LHTC: MDNR OMNR, CORA, DFO, USFWS, USGS etc… SMRFTG, TFC groups/clubs as well as have many committees involved in decision making process.

Regulation recommendations: out of scope of group but DNR Staff would be happy to talk to anyone on it. Recommends filling out an Order Change form. Goes over process for recommendation.

Open for questions and clarification:

Writing Team Member - at sportsmen club individuals like the idea of an 8” perch requirement and bag limit of 25 so perch aren’t over harvested. DNR Staff – Fisheries Division does not like to make exceptions to the current rules, again they are stressed to simplify things. Writing Team Member - comments on enforcement and lack there of. Facilitator adds enforcement of perch to Parking Lot to address at the future enforcement meeting. Writing Team Member- US Army Corps of Engineers were not seen on committees list, does DNR review their dredging and digging? DNR Staff- they are perming authority, it’s a joint review by DEQ and others. Writing Team Member- A check process for this is needed. DNR Staff – will get further information and follow-up with Writing Team Member.

2

11:26 open for fisheries discussion- Facilitator- what does group want to propose? Chat with neighbor for 5min then we’ll put up groups ideas.

11:34 Facilitator explains go around room starting conversation.

Writing Team Member – been dealing with permit issues with Army Corps onset issues with DNR, can DNR Staff share contact information and approval process for Army Corps issue? Last meeting we talked about perch issue as soon as ice goes out in spring individuals used to flock here, those days are gone. Something needs to be done to keep perch here so people come back more. Idea of holding off on catching perch until after spawning period, though realize it’s a chicken/egg situation. Pressures of commercial fishermen and sporting fishermen. Recommendations are only as good as enforcement. Question has been of past practices elsewhere of rearing perch. DNR Staff- perch recommendations here, min size of 7” perch are able to spawn several times before reaching that size and also have many many eggs, so long as you have a few fish, they can populate an area very quickly. Increasing predators like pike etc. help with stunting. There is a little being done in WI trying to raise perch, but they aren’t having much luck, it’s not something he would recommend.

+ perch fishing –the tourism days are gone… as a DI writing team we may want to help bring the perch population back to help bring people to island. Cormorant control is helping. Can hardly get smelt.

Writing Team Member- what he hears when out with fishermen. Tribes do not enforce laws, when complaints are made, nothing happens.+ Some say tribes do not enforce their own laws.

Writing Team Member – Tribes, or more so Canadians catching/fishing unregulated. Agree stock needs to be rebuilt.+ Canadian enforcement.+Need to improve the fish population.

Writing Team Members – stocking of fish has been proven by stocking walleye pond as being useful. Stocking is very important for future. Writing Team Member – continuation of cormorant control.+Stocking of fish has been successful. We have to put back. Stocking is important to our future.

Writing Team Member – Cormorants maybe establishing fall harassment/predator control. All under enforcement. Creel limits do help by creating scare for fishermen. Keep them regulated.+Continuation of Cormorant control.+Creel limits do help.

3

Writing Team Member – if only statewide limit of 25 perch or 8” does that increase spawning potential or limit amount people can have? What doing as primary purchase of dollar expenditure? Tourism how do these possible limits affect tourism?+What is the impact of limits and size? Does that increase the spawning? Is it tourism or increasing perch population or size limits?

Writing Team Member - 7” 50 limit in Chippewa and Mac County? DNR Staff- statewide recommendations. Writing Team Member- is possible to go to 8” but keep 50 limit? It would give more time for greater and more spawning, also in favor of season for pike to increase pike. Like fall harassment of cormorants as well.+ 7” min size and 50 fish bag limit is a statewide regulation (looking at regulations) 2013 and 2015 seasons for pike are right on.

Writing Team Member – agree with everything, DNR Staff- touched on vegetation control, there is a wildlife component on vegetation control as well as fisheries.+Vegetation control can impact fisheries and wildlife.

Writing Team Member – Bass were also mentioned and think it would be easy to rear. Perch 25 limit would be great. 8” would be good as well.+Rearing bass would be good. A 25 limit would be great and 8” – fishing regulations.

Writing Team Member - looking at what DNR Staff was going over, concerns of manpower and money come up. Law no longer has manpower or overtime funding. To bring a case to court and have it stick, all facts need to be present, easier to make a better case if two officers are working on a case; budget greatly affects the ability to go this route. Writing Team Member – is there a diversion of funds affecting this? Writing Team Member - no, Fish and game money is earmarked for fish and game. Study in 2009 says each officer spent over $42 for truck/travel. In 2010 over $100. In end, need to double hunting and fishing licenses in order to have funds. General public would not pay more for increased licensing prices.+ Less staff and money makes enforcement difficult.

Writing Team Member – Monitoring for success per dollar spent if program is implemented, say bringing population up, but break bank doing it, and was it worth it? If we rise in good financial standing then it was worth it. Concern of invasive aquatic species as well.+Monitoring for the amount of success per dollar spent. If we implement a program successfully but it broke the bank was it worth it?

Writing Team Member – Invasive species and vegetation control. Veg control, would be good to have best practices/education program to inform and minimize issues for people wanting to remove veg. How could this be done to get the least impacts to habitat?+Invasive species very important issue.+Access is very important+ Invasive species and Veg control. A best practices/education program – how should this be done to get the least impacts to habitat?

4

Writing Team Member – No one solution will take care of everything, people hauling loads of fish out, do no good. Fish are not spawning where they used to.

Writing Team Member – water lever for Great lakes basin. Can group make recommendation regarding it?

Facilitator – up to group, recommend individuals think on language as well during lunch.

12:00 break for lunch

1:00 continue fisheries discussion. Facilitator – topics have been grouped from above conversation

Writing Team Member – get them to remove the protection of federal government regarding cormorants. Facilitator – back to group is that a recommendation of group. Writing Team Member – that is more of a goal to shoot at. As group, rather aim for spring and fall control. Writing Team Member – I see both fall cormorant control and de-listing as both useful/helpful, would like to back up and figure out what population we’d like to be at, population goal. What is end goal? Writing Team Member - control enough that does not interfere with primary fisheries. Group - before fed government control there was no problem. Writing Team Member – Cormorants are protected because they are migratory, doesn’t mean they can’t be delisted. What we can influence we should influence, what we can change we should change. Recommend writing strong letter to government Writing Team Member - limited amount of time to address many issues should focus on easier addressed issues. Issues we can take into more of our own hands. Writing Team Member - need to tell feds take cormorants off list. Facilitator – talk more on reason for getting them delisted. Writing Team Member - impacting fisheries which has taken ~20 years, cannot lose ability to control cormorants which would wipe out fish populations again. Writing Team Member – Recommends that cormorant control continue, expand efforts and press feds and elected officials to remove them from endangered species list. Expand efforts means: e.g. fall harassment. Writing Team Member - I think I’m hearing controlling within fed control? Many members – no want it out of fed’s hands. Writing Team Member - dealing with fed reg. species regulates what we can do. DNR Staff – we are part of discussions which allow us to regulate them. Currently able to be rid of 20,000 statewide. Sportsmen are helping to harass birds near Manistique, St. Ignace, Presque Isle etc are working as well. DNR Staff - are we doing more than any other state? DNR Staff – yes. Writing Team Member - is there an already set policy within DNR on this? DNR Staff – we work on this annually. Writing Team Member does this DI recommendation document, which is being made, help to take forward to feds? DNR Staff – No, nothing that’s being discussed here hasn’t been said. Writing Team Member – does our 8 years of these cormorant control efforts help us at all? Writing Team Member – maybe we should try to expand the efforts. DNR Staff – your ideas could add credence to the process. Writing Team Member – we have restricted times we can harass these birds. Writing Team Member – we want to tell the DNR what to do regarding enforcement. Writing Team Member- letter needs to be sent to proper

5

DNR and government officials saying this is what is supported and this is what we’d like to see happen. Writing Team Member - Should speak in these letters in regards to DI not the state as a whole. Facilitator – is anything being done to see what impact harassment does? Is it measurable? Writing Team Member– it’s very casual; have to fill out form saying how many harassed. Writing Team Member – restricted what we can do in spring, maybe we need to reach out further, ask for moving out of bay further if fall harassment doesn’t happen. Writing Team Member – Should include expansion of state’s cormorant take wanting to go from 10,000 to 20,000. DNR Staff- On statewide basis, inter-agency committee should increase take of cormorants from 10k to 20k. Writing Team Member – we are not going to solve the cormorant problem by just addressing them here. Facilitator – do you want a number in your recommendation? Writing Team Member – let’s expand timing and area and the number allowed. Writing Team Member- increased timing and increased area and take… add to above verbiage by “(fall harassment)”. Writing Team Member - don’t want to know how, want to know what, and want to reduce population to point no impact on fisheries. Don’t care how, shoot, harass etc. Writing Team Member – do we want to add after “endangered species list verbiage” to reduce cormorant population to no negative impact on fishery? DNR Staff – clarification originally had requested increase from10k to 20k they gave us 15.5k. Writing Team Member – hesitant to use the word “no” for no impact because there will always be impact. Group better words – substantial, reasonable. Writing Team Member- like the verbiage “significant”. Writing Team Member – so doesn’t decimate sport fish population. Group- who will regulate that? Writing Team Member – support department’s efforts to increase cormorant harvest numbers sufficiently to reach the objectives of this plan. Group is ok deleting numbers of 10k to 20k and instead going to “sufficient reduction” DNR Staff – we have no means of measuring effectiveness of cormorants on fish. Group- there are studies out there on cormorant effects. Writing Team Member - recommends verbiage change in recommendation. To take out second “significantly” current recommendation:

The group recommends that cormorant control continue; with efforts being expanded (e.g. fall harassment, expanded dates, broader areas of control and take) and press the USFWS and elected officials to remove them from the endangered species list and control the cormorant population in order to significantly reduce negative impacts on the Drummond Island fish populations.

We support the DNR’s efforts to increase cormorant harvest numbers to accomplish sufficiently to accomplish the objectives of this plan.

Group recommends further changes

Facilitator – Restate that if all agree then this is what they will be living with.

Writing Team Member - When EPA issues recommendations to states, can we alter what was given us? DNR Staff - MI can decide to kill less, not more than what EPA or feds regulate. Writing Team Member - clarifies to Writing Team Member that harassment of cormorants has to stop during nesting.

6

Facilitator asks all if they can live with recommendation – all agree yes to above recommendation.

GROUP AGREES The group recommends that cormorant control continue; with efforts being expanded (e.g., fall harassment, expanded dates, and areas of control and take) and press the USFWS and elected officials to remove them from the endangered species list and control the cormorant population in order to significantly reduce negative impacts on the Drummond Island fish populations.

The group recommends that cormorant control continue; with efforts being expanded (e.g., fall harassment, expanded dates, and areas of control and take) and press the USFWS and elected officials to allow further control of the cormorant population in order to significantly reduce negative impacts on the Drummond Island fish populations.

We support the DNR’s efforts to increase cormorant harvest numbers to accomplish the objectives of this plan.

Facilitator - Now is there something group wants to say about vegetation control or invasive species? Writing Team Member – we need to know what DNR is already doing before making any suggestions to it. DNR Staff – for veg control we are not involved beyond permit review and recommendations. Individuals need to obtain permits. Writing Team Member – So DNR Staff and fisheries does nothing on shorelines? DNR Staff- correct. Writing Team Member - do programs used today seem to be successful from biological standpoint? Anything we can do to assist? DNR Staff – basic practices that will spread education of issue and plants. DNR Staff – case by case basis Writing Team Member – vegetation control should be left up to department think they do great work on it. Writing Team Member – wouldn’t want to give recommendation to someone on something we know less about. Writing Team Member- also does not know enough about it, realizes it’s a problem. Writing Team Member – if state is happy and DNR Staff is comfortable with it leave it to state. Group agrees. Moving to aquatic invasive species (AIS) recommendations. Writing Team Member- time to close the seaway, close the Chicago canal. Will improve economy. Everything else has failed. Writing Team Member – why can’t we have someone check these boats for invasives? Group – would this be enforceable? Writing Team Member to Writing Team Member- will that do anything to water levels? Writing Team Member- no. Writing Team Member - let’s put efforts where they will be fruitful. Writing Team Member- carp in Chicago we know nothing about it except what’s in news. Writing Team Member - close salt water shipping. Facilitator - is this what we want to spend our time on? Writing Team Member - move on while he works on text for this topic.

Facilitator – enforcement issue is it ok waiting until enforcement day? Writing Team Member – can give presentation on other day. Group is ok waiting.

7

Regarding Access: Facilitator – it was stated as very important, any recommendations? It’s under many topics. Group – water access. Writing Team Member – Mac Bay access. Writing Team Member – Bay for access to big lake, what about access to littler lakes, is there enough access to smaller lakes? Group- people do not fish smaller lakes inland, they are not the issue. Writing Team Member – Water access on north, south, and east shore mainly, need more boat access. Writing Team Member – if strategically placed would greatly help tourists, fishing, and several other things. All proposed sites go into Lake Huron. Writing Team Member – if we can show a significant need in the area I could be ok with it, but if we already have some there, why mess with it unless it’s significant.

2:30 Facilitator – we do have water access under non-motorized, propose bringing in parks recreation person in to talk more about where we already have access. Group – ok with that.

Facilitator – as a starting point for both lake level stuff and Chicago ship canal, thanks to Writing Team Member we have some text to start from:

The Group recommends to the DNR, federal government (insert appropriate departments) and elected officials and aquatic invasives be prevented reduced by closing Chicago ship canal and eliminating all salt water shipping from the Great Lakes.

The group recommends to the DNR, federal government (insert appropriate departments) and elected officials that the lake Huron an lake Michigan lake levels be restored by reducing outflow to pre-St. Lawrence Seaway dredging of St. Clair and Detroit Rivers.

Writing Team Member– explain reasoning behind above verbiage. Does not think a lot of time needs to be spent on it but thinks we might be able to make a difference.

Writing Team Member seeks clarification on last sentence. Writing Team Member– wants outflow restored to what it was before outflow. Will get to the Army Corps words so clarification can be made. Writing Team Member – appreciates and likes limiting outflow and not lake level. Facilitator - help insert appropriate departments in parenthesis. Writing Team Member - e.g. dept of interior, Army Corps of Engineers etc. DNR Staff – a recommendation like this may help. Facilitator – reminds that the audience of this plan is the DNR, is this a recommendation you have for the DNR? Writing Team Member – seeking committee’s opinion, can we eliminate confusion by eliminating various text? Writing Team Member - committee would have to address Stabenow and Levin. Writing Team Member – agrees this is a concern, but not sure focusing on this is time well spent. Writing Team Member- purposes it say: affects Drummond Island livelihood? Group- yes. Writing Team Member and group agrees to leave text proposed taking out above. Writing Team Member - propose “for betterment of Drummond island fisheries, tourism and citizens…” Facilitator – go around room and seek approval. Writing Team Member- this is a broader topic then just us, so he is reluctant to move forward on it. Writing Team Member thinks it might minimize the effort of this plan. Writing Team Member – ok sending it as a letter as almost an appendix. Writing Team

8

Member – add that it’s recommended to DNR as well so it’s at least stated though not a recommendation. Writing Team Member – we are reaching with this recommendation. Facilitator at end of process we can reassess this topic and whether or not it’s important enough to include. Writing Team Member– this addresses the resource of water which is our biggest resource to leave it out is irresponsible. Writing Team Member – doesn’t this go to DNR which will then be dispersed to proper divisions? All, group says yes, except one Writing Team Member. Writing Team Member- reason I say no to the recommendation: to close all Salt Water shipping is too drastic, it will minimalize the document and group’s credibility. Writing Team Member recommend shipping verbiage becomes an example point. Writing Team Member – still has a problem with salt water shipping. Facilitator – can modifications be made? Writing Team Member – one guy is disagreeing, one guy causes issues like this not to go through we need to make a stance on it. Facilitator – a place holder will be in document regarding discussion but state that a recommendation was not reached. Writing Team Member– one recommendation was agreed on. Writing Team Member – salt water shipping has been proven as providing economy issues, so why not address it? Writing Team Member – should talk on what the DNR should do for us, they can’t shut down the salt water shipping so why are we spending time on it? Group ok’s second recommendation all agrees. Writing Team Member – ok if something like “…take all measures deemed necessary to prevent the introduction of new aquatic invasive species by closing Chicago ship canal and possible elimination of water shipping from the Great Lakes.” Group – all agree to live with it with new changes!

GROUP AGREES For the betterment of Drummond Island fisheries, wildlife, tourism, and citizens,The group recommends to the DNR, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Great Lakes Commission, the International Joint Commission, and the Michigan Congressional Delegation that they take all measures deemed necessary to prevent the introduction of aquatic invasives by closing the Chicago ship canal and possible elimination of salt water shipping from the Great Lakes.

The group recommends to the DNR, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Great Lakes Commission, the International Joint Commission, and the Michigan Congressional Delegation that the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan lake levels be restored by reducing outflow (at a given lake level) to that which existed pre-St. Lawrence Seaway dredging of St. Clair and Detroit Rivers.

Facilitator – next fisheries issue – sport fishing, fish, stocking etc. Writing Team Member – is 8” a problem here? 25 as well? Writing Team Member – side issue: a perch that’s swallowed a hook and is going to die, regardless of size, what do we do? Can we just keep the fish? Writing Team Member- what do you do in these situations? Writing Team Member – pretty lenient, but it’s usually at the discretion of the officer, no black and white answer is possible. Most officers work hard to be fair, but some people lie and

9

purposefully kill the fish to try to keep it. Writing Team Member– for sport fishing purposes, DI is known for its perch, improving sport fishing on DI would be extremely beneficial. Writing Team Member – if we extend 8” based on what DNR Staff said that at 7” they reproduce a lot already, another inch would increase population. Which would it allow it more time for growth and reproduction as well. DNR Staff – lots of factors come into play. Writing Team Member – is a number on it harder for you to enforce and more work so you don’t recommend it? DNR Staff – no you’re tying your hands by recommending a number. DNR Staff – better sport fishing is interpreted differently by many people, end goal should be larger perch, or more perch etc, better is not a good word. Writing Team Member – If other areas keep 50 limit and we go down to 25 people may come here less. Writing Team Member – tourism, we want more people to come here, bigger could be a draw for tourists. Facilitator group quantify what better sport fishing means and better end goal. Writing Team Member - this is just about perch. DNR Staff – DNR often has to propose many options to NRC when making a recommendation.Text given to DNR Staff on break: to Increase the size and number of perch, the DNR is requested to increase the minimum take size to 8” and reduce creel limits to 30. Writing Team Member- group recommends that the DNR manage fish for larger perch. Facilitator- are there other things to focus on instead of size or creel limits? Writing Team Member- pond rearing. Writing Team Member - recommends removing perch and changing it just to larger fish. DNR Staff – recommend including more than just numbers, maybe vegetation verbiage as well. Facilitator – are there studies that can help that we are currently missing that will help with this? Writing Team Member - yes all that info is missing. Writing Team Member – perch are coming back after 7” rule was put in place, so 8” makes sense to help as well. Writing Team Member – DNR is here to provide the information needed. Writing Team Member – if DNR Staff is correct, and go up to 8” they’ll do what it takes to make them larger. Just because you make a fish bigger doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get more? Group needs to decide if you want more or bigger? DNR Staff – that is generally correct can’t usually get both. Also need to consider how many fish make it to 8” size. Not all the research is there yet. Writing Team Member – DNR Staff has 7” limit proven to be successful? DNR Staff – not aware of effects of 7” limit, no tests have been done. Writing Team Member – we want bigger fish, want to be leaders not followers. Writing Team Member- include parenthesis after larger fish saying “e.g. may include habitat, bag limits and reduce minimum size. Writing Team Member – what age does a perch have to be to reproduce? DNR Staff: 2-3. Writing Team Member – so 3-4” they reproduce. Writing Team Member – adamant about 8”, but thinks that if DNR has something better to achieve that, then some wiggle room should be left in verbiage to account for that. Writing Team Member – Writing Team Members are right, 8” to creel limit of 30. At end of 5 years we’ll know if it was right or wrong, let’s just go for it. Writing Team Member – perch have drastically improved over the years with current regulations. Whether or not it works will be viewed by everyone in group. Writing Team Member – make a generalized statement with e.g. stating 8” reg. Writing Team Member- Also sees increase in perch fishing. Writing Team Member – concerned on direction moving vs. quantity. Writing Team Member – That recommendation will go to resource commission and is judged by best possible science on the DNR’s part. Keep this in mind when writing your recommendation. Writing Team Member – DNR is

10

saying they don’t know, we are saying we know because it’s what we see, we think it’s what is best. Writing Team Member – then that’s what you need to tell them. Writing Team Member– DI whether for perch or deer is a good lab, because it’s somewhat isolated good to try stuff here. DNR Staff – Caution because, lots of other factors are playing a part in the size and population of animals. Group – agrees on recommendation

GROUP AGREES The group recommends that the DNR manage the Drummond Island perch fisheries to increase the quantity and size of perch in a manner that may include habitat management, by increasing the minimum take size to 8” and reducing creel limits to 30.

The group recommends that the DNR manage the Drummond Island perch fisheries to increase the quantity and size of perch in a manner that may include the following: habitat management, increasing the minimum take size to 8”, and reducing creel limits to 30.

Writing Team Member – winter spearing of pike was extended last year to add two additional weeks, it needs to go back to the way it was. Reasoning is those last two weeks are during spawning season and the large breeding females are being taken.

Group recommends that the DNR reinstates that pike spearing not go beyond the end of February.

DNR Staff – recently changed spearing regulations to the two additional weeks to standardize them across the state and increase opportunity. Writing Team Member – that does not allow for the uniqueness of Drummond Island. DNR Staff – other locations have issues like this as well. Writing Team Member – why not close pike season for a year and see if that doesn’t help the cause. DNR Staff – believe that would just be decreasing fishing opportunity. Writing Team Member – why are you targeting just speared fish and spearing? Writing Team Member – spears kill the fish, fishing doesn’t as often. DNR Staff – can’t spear through a boat. Writing Team Member – how do you create “slots”? Writing Team Member – those out in shanties are out fishing for bragging rights, not for just a good time. Fish move to the mouths of water and people are better able selectively to take the trophy fish. Why not get rid of last two weeks so fish are more spread out? Writing Team Member – because we feel it interferes with the spawning we feel (given recommendation) …. Adds text to it. DNR Staff – may want to include management for trophy pike. Writing Team Member – should a slot limit be added to recommendation to help DNR? DNR Staff – current verbiage “group recommends that the DNR manage for trophy pike” is good, leaves enough wiggle room. Writing Team Member – add “by incorporating protected slots”. Writing Team Member – question for DNR Staff: is not going beyond end of Feb cause a problem for fisheries? DNR Staff all these have to go through the process. Simpler is better, but it will go through the same process. Writing Team Member – McCormics(?) Marsh this group supports DNR’s efforts to help

11

McCormics work; does it need to be provided? Group – no. Group all says yes agrees to recommendation.

GROUP AGREES The group recommends that the DNR reinstates that pike spearing not go beyond the end of February.

The group recommends that the DNR reinstates pike season dates such that pike spearing not go beyond the end of February.

The group recommends that the DNR manage for trophy pike by incorporating protected slots. Writing Team Member – does island want to try to re-establish smelt population? Is it feasible? DNR Staff – not possible without changing habitat. Writing Team Member – how were they introduced? DNR Staff – came in through canal. Writing Team Member – so they came here naturally. Writing Team Member– Salmon fishing? DNR Staff – potential salmon proposals, different proposals have been done/being done statewide. Facilitator is there any more recommendations on Fisheries topics? Group agrees fisheries is good to be closed. Group wants to hear from DNR Staff on deer stuff.DNR Staff: We hear on the island that people want bigger and more mature bucks. I want to let you know what impacts buck size. There is about a 30% drop in hunter number in the EUP. Wanted to know what it is doing to buck harvest. The regression analysis suggests that there is not a relationship between buck harvest and hunter numbers. A buck has a home range of 4 square miles. At 10 hunters per square mile. 40 blinds and bait piles. Then you go down to 28 blinds if there is a decrease of 30%. 33,000 hunters in UP, 16% of the bucks were 5 ½ or older. Our deer need to get age. We need to reduce the vulnerability of the bucks. What has changed from 1935 to today. Wanting to swing things back. We are so efficient at killing our bucks. Stimulate what has changed: technology, tree stands, over bait and food plots, sitting in heated shacks, trail cams, bucks shot after deer, crossbows, 100,000 hunters in the UP and 28,000 bucks were killed. The estimated percentage of bucks in the population that were being killed were about 25%. Now 60 to 70% of the bucks are being taken out of the population each year. John Ozoga feels the deer reservoirs are gone. If you are looking for more bucks it is not just antler point restrictions. When are we going to get older bucks on the Island? Writing Team Member – discussed that 70% of their hunt club is for harvesting deer during Bow season.

12

DAY 2: Sept 8th, 2011

Attendees: Chris Cantway, Pat Brower, Patrick Kelly, Dave Jentoft, James Kelley, Steve Walker, Bill Hepler, Denny Bailey, Karen Rodock, Frank Sasso, David Bardsley, Chuck Moser, Jim Radabouh, Terry Minzey, Penny Melchoir, Bill O’Neil, Neil Godby, Kelly Siciliano Carter, Autumn Feldpausch, Brad Kuusinen, Stacy Welling, Kyle Pubinski, Steve Milford, Jordan Burroughs

8:00 Facilitator explain change in schedule – focusing on deer today.

Writing Team Member– explains e-mail sent out last night regarding dredging and lake levels on the St. Clair River.

DNR Staff – gives presentation on recommendations process.

Facilitator what is group’s goal for deer? DNR Staff- explains side boards for deer. Not going to increase deer numbers to the point where they cause ecological damage, also, not going to knock snot out of deer herd so they bottom out. Drummond Island has largest deer heard in East UP. Ecological damage is not being seen at this point, we are not jacking up deer populations to 100 per sq mile. Ends sideboard. Writing Team Member –where do you feel we are right now? DNR Staff – in terms of deer populations - You’re right about where you want to be. Writing Team Member – DNR Staff is right, if population is pushed up habitat and brows issues will arise. Please keep in mind tough winters were earlier we are getting back to where we were. Writing Team Member – where were we 20 years ago? Back then our deer herd was twice what it is now and now deer hardly are trophy size. DNR Staff – your focus is more on deer size then deer population numbers. Facilitator – so what are the group’s goals for deer?Writing Team Member – 20 yrs ago see 15 deer in a field, quantity and nice deer. Think we can have twice the deer and still be within ecosystem tolerance. Writing Team Member – bigger bucks is a big goal. Writing Team Member – maintain a disease free herd. Writing Team Member – Does DNR do deer counts? Writing Team Member – we have deer camp survey. DNR Staff – used to do pellet surveys, but data was too broad to be useful. Writing Team Member – does sportsman club do count? Writing Team Member – yes one is done. Writing Team Member – need data on number of hunters and number of deer harvested. Writing Team Member – maintaining a herd that’s not going to hurt ecosystem. Writing Team Member – The number of hunters has decreased because hunters aren’t seeing deer. Writing Team Member – would like to see mandatory count on licenses. Facilitator – that’s a tactic not a goal. Writing Team Member – mandatory license which needs to be turned back in after deer harvest. Writing Team Member - like to see healthy herd with variety of age classes that is in check with ecosystem tolerance. Writing Team Member – needs to be measurable. Writing Team Member – in restaurant can clearly show drop. Even if hunting were closed for two years, books would not be changed drastically. What is ratio of bucks? Facilitator – having enough to bring tourists to the island is that a goal? Writing Team Member – yes. Writing

13

Team Member– in check with habitat, habitat may not be what it was. Writing Team Member – goal would it be better to maintain habitat per desired deer? Writing Team Member – what about remote hunt areas that are restricted to no ORVs?

Facilitator - Propose restrictions to fit these goals?

Writing Team Member – think Writing Team Members comment could be a goal. Writing Team Member– there is a difference between hunting deer from stand or bait pile then walking in the woods. Writing Team Member – if you want remote hunting he can take you, no jeeps or trucks can get in. Facilitator – write down some of your ideas on regulations. Small break to take time to write.

9:03 Facilitator - start recommendations. Writing Team Member – question on process, are number of car deer accidents considered in population? Writing Team Member - we look at lots of things, deer survey, mail survey results, car deer are also looked at. Writing Team Member – is it factored against human population Fluctuations? Writing Team Member – something we look at, but not a lot of stock is put into it. Writing Team Member – developing a more measurable system. It sounds like it’s been tried before to convince DNR through licensing process to get the data will be available. Make it mandatory for hunters to give DNR data from hunt and not allow individual to get another license until data is given. Writing Team Member – has hunted different areas, and has been listening to standardization, look at bucks killed… MI is a white zone; something is definitely going wrong here. Check in stations have been offered, we’ve offered to pay for it. Facilitator – what challenges related to that? Writing Team Member – deer check stations: I believe it was a successful program; it got shut down by DNR after 5yr spike horn rule. It went off books and we have been unable to get it back. DI is very unique, if it’s not a manageable spot in state, not sure what is. UP should be broken into regions. Facilitator – can look at DI as own Deer Management Unit (DMU) and propose recommendations. What happened to check station? Writing Team Member – due to budget issues. DNR Staff – DI went to spike regulations to see if older bucks could be gotten, during process had check station to look at data. Once 5 year effort was finished check station was closed. If the Sportsmen Club (SC) would pay for check station that is very important we could partner with SC and get station back up here. Writing Team Member – should be able to get data through licensing, why can’t turn license back in to provide the data? DNR Staff – A barrier though is that people come and hunt this island then hunt elsewhere. Would need specific DI license created though huge costs would incur. Writing Team Member – sportsman club has been there all along offering to help DNR. We need some idea of what deer herd is doing; they are willing to pay for that to help make Drummond special. Must be something we can do to report deer harvest. Writing Team Member – gathering info on deer killed does not give info on habitat and how many deer are here. Ferry folk used to count deer taken off. Deer can again be counted on ferry. Facilitator – write on paper ideas. Writing Team Member – if you have check and not a ferry count, then you’d have better info not just numbers. Writing Team Member – every other state has region hunting why can’t MI have that? Writing Team Member – that’s not about mandatory check, that’s just adjustments of DMUs. What we are doing and what WI is doing, we are getting similar information.

14

DNR Staff – out west antler point restrictions (APR) are set by DMU, a license is issued by Management unit; hunters do not want to go there because of fluidity. Our hunters move more from county to county so it’s hard to have regions established. The group recommends that there is mandatory check. Make it mandatory that deer hunters give you the data. People must tell what they harvested.Facilitator –does mandatory check give appropriate information? Writing Team Member – no, a special license is needed. Writing Team Member – don’t think that would pass due to administrative purposes. Writing Team Member – can’t you issue two license one for MI one for Drummond? DNR Staff – could do it like South Fox Island, could get letter or free license for DI. Put a stamp on the license. This would give info on everybody hunting on Drummond. Would there then be a survey? Writing Team Member – can you query database? Writing Team Member – can we make a survey mandatory? DNR Staff – not sure, put it in this recommendation and we’ll see what we can do. Writing Team Member – hunting with tribal license does he need a stamp? Writing Team Member – want harvest data to be mandatory. Writing Team Member – is this for all deer seasons. Writing Team Member – yes. Writing Team Member – ok with new suggested recommendation. If Sportsmen club is up for funding this, should that be included? Writing Team Member – yes, we have the money to do it. Writing Team Member – why can’t sportsmen simply turn over info to DNR? Writing Team Member – not all deer are taken back over ferry though so not all deer would be checked. Facilitator, sending a survey out by SC would be feasible. Writing Team Member – DI SC will assist with collection and cost of Deer harvest data. Facilitator – how does SC feel about that? Writing Team Member – good that’s what happens. Writing Team Member – would it be wise to explain at beginning why this is being suggested? Tribal issues should be put into goals as well. Writing Team Member – I have to provide harvest data. Writing Team Member – another goal related to harvest and tribal permits; make it mandatory to have on tribal permits as well. DNR Staff – no can’t, tribal issues are in consent decree at federal level, cannot deviate from that. Writing Team Member – Writing Team Member is right to go to tribe and ask for data. Writing Team Member - we request data and sometimes it’s given sometimes its not. Facilitator – audience of this report is DNR, sportsmen can talk to tribes on own part. Writing Team Member – stamp needs to be free. Group – it will be/is. Writing Team Member – should be in proposed recommendation. something about tribal information being considered as well. DNR Staff – as regional supervisor, I’d have to go through government loops to get the information from the tribes. It’s easier for tribe members to receive it. All 5 tribes need to be spoken to; I’m not at level to ask. Writing Team Member – 78 members in Chippewa tribes, that is the best tribe to contact, the other 4 do not need to be contacted because the majority is with the Chippewa tribe. Writing Team Member– propose words; Tribal deer harvest data obtained from DI SC and should be considered by DNR. Writing Team Member – should that be a separate recommendation? Group- yes. Writing Team Member – if this info is obtained can it help and be used? Writing Team Member – yes can be used as indicator. Writing Team Member – this will give hard numbers which have never been had. Facilitator – group all says yes to proposed recommendation.

GROUP AGREES

15

The group recommends that there be a special free Drummond Island stamp that must be obtained to hunt deer on the Island. Make it mandatory that deer hunters provide DNR harvest data for all deer seasons. The Drummond Island Sportsmen

The group recommends that there be a special free Drummond Island stamp that must be obtained to hunt deer on the Island. Make it mandatory that deer hunters provide the DNR harvest data for all deer seasons. The Drummond Island Sportsmen Club will assist with collection and cost of deer harvest data.

Failure to return the data would result in the loss of deer hunting privileges on DI for the following year. (Amended: This recommendation came after the original recommendation).

The group recommends that Tribal deer harvest data obtained and submitted by the Drummond Island Sportsmen Club be considered by the DNR.

Writing Team Member – length of season? Limit archery season would help deer numbers. Group – archery seasons have never changed though. Writing Team Member- by shortening season that would help. Writing Team Member – season length? Or number of deer taken? Which is being looked at? Writing Team Member – why limit someone’s opportunity to be in woods? DNR Staff – gut feeling most deer taken are in early season. Writing Team Member – concur with DNR Staff. In Dec, am sure there are a lot less hunters. Facilitator – is this a recommendation you want to propose after a few years of data are provided from above recommendation? Writing Team Member – consistency of recommendations, why can’t we regulate time out hunting like it is for birds? Writing Team Member – can bird hunt all the way up to Nov 14th. Silent period is only limitation on bird hunt 4 days before Nov 14th. Writing Team Member – bow hunting regulations have not changed since he was kid, back then people used to hunt with old hard to use bows, now bows are compact and have crossbows as well and more deer are harvested now during this season then before. Writing Team Member – things have changed that’s not a season difference, but an equipment change. Can’t look at bow season, but firearm season, lots of effort is in early season and later dropped off. In DI survey that was sent out, was that issue addressed? Writing Team Member –SC sent out survey asking about cutting the Dec hunt back many people did not like that. Writing Team Member- 70% of people wanted doe hunting, Writing Team Member – we should compile data first before changing something the people won’t like. Writing Team Member – in grand scheme of things, still able to harvest 2 deer, just limit number of deer to be taken, take it down to one. Writing Team Member – not all hunting issues will be solved today; some of these questions should be put aside for later dates when data is available. DNR Staff – road kill data for DI is only obtained if State police are contacted. Writing Team Member – road kill on DI is irrelevant. There was only one guy who killed two deer on DI last year. Writing Team Member – not inclined to shorten season especially trying to cater to tourism on island. We are limiting people coming up here. Rather go down to the one buck rule. Facilitator – does one buck rule help achieve goals? Writing Team Member – what about one deer? Facilitator – address one buck first.

16

Writing Team Member – one buck will lesson opportunities for hunters. Few take two deer. Many take the one deer the additional license allows them to continue hunting though. Flip side – reduces number of deer that can be taken, current regulations restrict bucks anyway with combo license. Writing Team Member – if can take one buck, the little buck will be let to walk and will extend the hunt to full duration. Writing Team Member – likes combo regulations.

10:15 Writing Team Member- combo tag regulations. Were fixed in digest this year. Writing Team Member – I like idea of being able to get a second deer especially limit the size of the last buck. Writing Team Member – if people shoot a doe, their second deer should be a buck. Group – no does allowed to be taken this year. Writing Team Member – APR are already 3 and 4. Writing Team Member – is this the way it’s been? Should we recommend keeping it the way it is? Writing Team Member – feels deer numbers are not enough, need to get them higher. Facilitator – what are ways to raise deer population? Writing Team Member – look at habitat, try to reduce winter, reduce deer mortality. Are we talking entire deer population or just wanting to see more bucks. Writing Team Member – they go hand in hand. DNR Staff – they’d had 3 consecutive mild winters in a row years ago which got deer numbers to the point they were, along with the antler sizes. Then we were hit by 3 hard winters. Writing Team Member – remember having antlers that big all the way up to that point then they started dropping off. DNR Staff – shooting older bucks at that time too. How do we reduce the vulnerability of bucks? The situation is region wide. Writing Team Member – what will reduce the vulnerability of bucks? APR? Efficiencies in hunting? Number of bucks taken? Are any of these going to change things that much? Writing Team Member – there are limited number of deer now and they are younger. This happened because people are now baiting, using ORVs, GPS people are getting into places of woods they’ve never been able to access before. Writing Team Member – why can’t we go to 4 and 4 APR? Writing Team Member – you'd be over harvesting mature bucks then. Writing Team Member – agree, it’s going to depend on what winters are like as well. Some winters you’ll have better antler development.

Writing Team Member – got to go at baiting and at access. All happy with 3 and 4. Let’s focus on baiting right now. Writing Team Member – what is the purpose of having bigger bucks for? Is it for tourism or individuals? Writing Team Member – it has to help tourism. Writing Team Member – philosophy of tourism is applying to this as well as like perch. Facilitator – baiting lets address it. Writing Team Member– people throw hay out all year, is that baiting too? Writing Team Member - anytime you attract deer and hunt over it it’s considered baiting. Facilitator – putting out food to attract while hunting this is what we should focus. Writing Team Member – baiting causes problems. Writing Team Member – 70% of those on survey say they want baiting. Writing Team Member – any idea how people would feel if they didn’t have to defensively bait? At check station hear a lot of hunters baiting just because their neighbors bait. Have an opportunity to hunt the “old fashioned” way, would they? Writing Team Member – no. Writing Team Member – became a baiter in the 80s could go back to not baiting, but does enjoy watching the wildlife. Writing Team Member – can’t bait ducks, I think everyone agrees baiting deer is not a good thing. Maybe it should be banned for a trial period. Writing Team Member – someone came up to DI because baiting was not legal and he had to actually hunt. Quads

17

are allowing people to haul loads of bait, just causing issues. Say stop baiting. Writing Team Member - in tourist business here, not baiting may cause problems in short run, but in long run we might be back in tourist business. Writing Team Member – if that’s direction baiting goes, science is required, will be a rough road. Writing Team Member– propose group recommends no baiting recommendation be instated for all deer seasons. Writing Team Member –science is doable. Writing Team Member – if we do change it we need science to see results. Writing Team Member – goes to quality issue and gets back to more traditional ways of hunting. Baiting is biggest and most important part of getting back to traditional. Writing Team Member – what about food plots? Writing Team Member – let’s have food plots included in it. Writing Team Member- food plots if baiting is outlawed will become an issue. Writing Team Member – baiting is feeding, food plots are more of a habitat thing. Substantial habitat is needed even for bigger antlers. Writing Team Member – just one farm on island. Does that farmer get a block permits? Writing Team Member – everyone will hunt around the food plots. See not baiting as not a good solution anymore. DNR Staff – food plot issue is a private lands issue, can’t tell people what they can or cannot plant on their land. We are going to be talking about habitat. Just whether or not you can hunt on it. Regarding tourism, people like an opportunity to hunt a more natural hunt. If on habitat you’d like to see us plant clover in certain spots we could do that. Food plots do attract deer, but there are there 24/7. Writing Team Member – what is legal difference between telling them they can’t put bait on their prop but not a food plot? DNR Staff – technical difference is NRC has means only of telling people, who are intentionally putting the food out for hunting that it’s illegal. Writing Team Member – cannot tell people not to hunt over a field. Writing Team Member – lots of different views on baiting, why can’t we set aside areas that are wilderness areas with no baiting? Writing Team Member – from biological standpoint it would be very difficult to go that route. DNR Staff – size will be important on that. Writing Team Member – sportsmen club says they want bait. Writing Team Member – but limited areas were not addressed. Writing Team Member – let’s find some common ground. Writing Team Member – can we wait and just see what above information provides? Maybe deer will come back with above recommendation. Writing Team Member – like to point out and remind people that if you change multiple things it becomes harder to judge what’s affected the deer. One change would be best. Writing Team Member – spend money on educating the people on the island. Make up fliers to tell people what you’re trying to do. Writing Team Member – one: talked more about monitoring then changing any deer herds. Two: if a consensus isn’t found we need to look at areas of DI for compromise. Three: whatever is decided, island folks need to provide the information to the rest of the island. Education is important. Writing Team Member – lets try portioning DI and having only part of it baiting. Writing Team Member- travel is made to occupy majority of lower portion of DI, upper portion left as mainly wilderness. DNR Staff – talks on state-owned land on map. Writing Team Member – tax reverted land is not included on the map. DNR Staff there is more state owned land. Writing Team Member – draw attention to area north of lakes and west of Townline Road. – There are many areas where there is no access. DNR Staff – if you want to create a proposal to eliminate baiting north of the river I will carry that forward. One thing to understand, size matters, you will not pull deer out of their home range with bait. You can get deer to shift their activity center. Cannot pull them out of home range,

18

but can shift it. If 3-4 square miles is the average home range of deer, you need to look at huge area to have impact. Writing Team Member – would like to reword things because the question asked was very cut and dry. Writing Team Member - what about north of corner road and a straight line drawn out from it, and north of it no baiting? Writing Team Member- deer migrate south for winter. DNR Staff – for baiting we have control over whether or not people are able to do it on their land. DNR Staff – public land, private land elimination of bait, it needs to be all or nothing otherwise it won’t work. Writing Team Member – tribal members are still allowed to bait, it’s a nightmare to enforce. Writing Team Member –it is a leadership opportunity, it has to be whole island or not. Writing Team Member – can stop discussion right now because no one can agree thus far? Writing Team Member – agree it would be best to have whole island. Having part of island no bait allows for testing. Writing Team Member – if it can’t be enforced then there is no point in having it. If tribe isn’t on board no way to enforce it. DNR Staff – are there a lot of land owners up north who would not like being unable to hunt? Writing Team Member – what about going back to the education. DNR Staff – ownership of this plan falls on the members shoulders along with the people on the island because we only have one officer. It’s going to be up to the group to make this plan work. Writing Team Member – can we write something in so it comes into effect in three years? So people can prepare? Writing Team Member – maybe we need to go back to educating the people. Writing Team Member – banquet is coming up for SC maybe we could add more detail and re-ask them. Writing Team Member – maybe we have different recommend options to take to these people. Writing Team Member – let’s come up with a few recommendations for him to present to the SC. Writing Team Member- 3 proposals we should put them up for people. Writing Team Member – lot of people are tourists, the backlash that could occur could undermine the whole thing. Writing Team Member – 99% of hunters use bait on this island. Writing Team Member – thanks everyone for their participation. Writing Team Member– propose supporting a no-baiting recommendation in the area xx including sections xxx (north of bass covered) as indicated on map. Writing Team Member – area was chosen because it’s limited private property, prime habitat. Writing Team Member – earlier heard it’s the machinery that makes baiting more accomplished wouldn’t we want that area allowed for baiting so people can use their ORVs? Writing Team Member- all the trails here are made to maximize ability to hunt, DI has over 10% of the trails here. So if we can do something here with hunting we should. This area is both best for ORVs and deer habitat. Will limit ATV users in prime area, allowing deer more time to mature. Means to try to get everyone on same page. Will support it for these reasons. If law can help in situation please do. Writing Team Member – don’t have to use ATV to bait, can use ATV to get to hunting location. Writing Team Member – already restrictions on ATVs during deer season. Writing Team Member – dirt bikes should be gotten rid of. Facilitator – that is a different topic. This given proposal will be one for Writing Team Member - to present to the SC. Writing Team Member can we add that if SC members agree that it can then be implemented? Facilitator – agreement will need to be quantified and Writing Team Member will need to decide that. Writing Team Member – maybe add a time frame to it. DNR Staff – need more than a time limit, a way to monitor deer instead. Writing Team Member– if we include the section in which the deer were taken on the mandatory check. DNR Staff – need age info too. Writing Team Member– whatever data is needed let us know and we will get it.

19

DNR Staff – serious questions on whether or not someone was accurate on their aging skills. Best way would be to cut out incisor tooth and send it in to get aged. Writing Team Member – would like to see this for a minimum of 5 years. Writing Team Member – is baiting inter-related to access? Writing Team Member – no. Writing Team Member – ok no issue then. Writing Team Member – my concern was walk in only hunting areas, people. Who want that kind of hunt would be ones that wouldn’t want baiting. Writing Team Member – so baiting and access are not related. All agree – yes.

If the DISC comes back favorable for this proposal then as a group we recommend a no-baiting recommendation in the area xx including sections xxx (north of bass cove road) as indicated on map for a minimum of five years.Note: The group agreed but only if DI SC came back favorable..

1:00 Facilitator – resume deer discussions. Group decided that no recommendation needs to be done on equipment. Writing Team Member – wait, I think crossbows are firearms not bows. Writing Team Member – do we have any ability to change it at all? DNR Staff – if you want special regulations, ask for them. Writing Team Member – recommendations are made to dumb down, not everyone can tell. Facilitator – does it need to be an education thing? No further comment. Writing Team Member – equipment, is what is lethal right now, make the hunters work a little more. Writing Team Member – was and is still totally against crossbows, this allows people to kill a quick and cleaner isn’t that what we want? Writing Team Member – story of someone who shot and left 3 animals in the woods. At least crossbow allows for greater accuracy. Writing Team Member –you’re still only allowed two deer, does it matter what is used to take these deer? Writing Team Member – More pros behind crossbow then not, and if that’s what the majority of hunters want to use it then let them. DNR Staff – Recognize that we distribute tags with the knowledge that not every will be successful. Writing Team Member – rifles were limited to two weeks because of lethality, but now crossbows are more lethal, shouldn’t archery season be adjusted accordingly as well? Back on one deer discussion: Writing Team Member - not all hunters are trophy hunters, I could live with one deer proposal. Writing Team Member – don’t like one deer, likes still being able to sit after a deer has been taken. Feel should limit the kill not the license. Started on crossbow accuracy, success-rate has gone up with bows because of crossbows, why not limit crossbows to specific seasons. Writing Team Member – wants to recommend a crossbow season coincides with firearm season. Writing Team Member- people purchased a crossbow and now they have to decide between rifle or crossbow, that’s not fair. Writing Team Member – combo license allows hunters to take two bucks with trophy buck on second tag, still taking one deer, what if we up the trophy criteria so people can still be out there. Writing Team Member- then you’re harvesting all the 5pts not the 4pts. Facilitator – is more data needed to come to a recommendation? Writing Team Member – what if crossbow is used in a season in October for two weeks. Writing Team Member – Writing Team Member would you have a problem with upping the trophy buck criteria? Writing Team Member – change the tags instead of the seasons or equipment. Writing Team Member – if we go to one deer problem would be solved. DNR Staff – is this conversation targeting what? Writing Team Member – bigger and more deer. Writing Team Member –problem with crossbows if they increase success rates.

20

Writing Team Member – propose 3 point on one side for regular tag, the 5 points or more on restricted tag. Writing Team Member – does not agree, leaves all the 4 points in the woods. Writing Team Member – buck size is still going to depend on habitat and winter. Writing Team Member – if he survives the 3 year season he’ll become bigger. Writing Team Member – by going with 5 points, I think that’s going to increase tourism. Writing Team Member – 3+ points allows for 4 points to still be taken. Writing Team Member – don’t think this solves the issue. DNR Staff – do you think people won’t agree with it? Or people at the table won’t agree with it? Writing Team Member – people. Recommendation: The group recommends that the restricted portion of the combination license for Drummond Island be changed from 4-5 points on one side during all seasons and cannot be used for an antlerless deer. All agreed – yes.

GROUP AGREES -- RECOMMENDATIONThe group recommends that the restricted portion of the combination license for Drummond Island be changed from 4 to 5 pt on one side during all seasons and cannot be used for an antlerless deer.

Group agreed on new recommendation (see October notes page 6) which voids this recommendation.

Back to crossbow issue, is it a mute point now? DNR Staff – we can come back in 5 years to re-assess things if group wants. Writing Team Member – would help in deliberations to know if we will revisit in the future. DNR Staff – we can report back the impacts, but I don’t think you want to revisit these recommendations before the 5 year mark. Writing Team Member – 5 and 10 year plans are all well and good, but we have no control of weather, what then? DNR Staff - setting antlerless quotas is what is going to effect population on island, so winters will be taken into consideration when assessing whether or not to have an antlerless season. Facilitator – so we are not addressing crossbows anymore? Group - correct. DNR Staff – is group ok with current spike horn rule? Writing Team Member – are older deer able to have spikes? Writing Team Member – yes, after a bad weather some 2 year old deer will still have spikes. 3 year old deer can catch up if they were spikes originally. DNR Staff – have seen, following tough winters, lots more spikes. Tough winters = antler points going down. How many second bucks are killed on the island? Across all UP 1% are killing a second buck. Writing Team Member – to DNR Staff we’ve had spike rule, forever but lots of people don’t think it’s effective. Is it? DNR Staff – allows people to crème off the best of the yearling crop. On positive side, does assure more deer make it up to 2 year age. Group thinks this is a topic to be discussed at next meeting as well (spike rule), along with deer habitat. Writing Team Member – I want to know what DNR is doing regarding partridge habitat as well. Writing Team Member – do we discuss elevated blinds? Writing Team Member – yes many do not like them. Writing Team Member – this doesn’t have to be restricted to firearm season. Added Elevated blinds for deer hunting to be discussed at next meeting.

Next meeting wrapping up deer, game and non-game, terrestrial. Recreation topic for sure be in November

21

All media discussions will go to DNR Staff or DNR Staff.

22