June 9, 1999

Natural Resource Commission

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Commissioners:

One important part of Quality Deer Management is addressing the concerns of landowners, in particular, agriculturists. Yes, there is some opposition to the DMU 107 Proposal and it comes primarily from the members of the Clare Chapter of the Michigan Farm Bureau. This, I find strange. The main focus of QDM is getting the number of deer correct for their habitat. Passing on young bucks is important in achieving a biologically sound deer herd, but it is not the key. Getting the numbers correct is. QDM is the farmers’ best friend. I know this personally, I have farmed in DMU 107 for 15 years and know firsthand the damage that deer can do. A good QDM program solves that problem.

It is our wish that in our third attempt that you, the commission see the value of Quality Deer Management, (QDM) and Approve Mr. Marc Yenkels DMU 107 Proposal.

The DNR does not support this proposal.

Let us analyze some of their objections. They state we received 57% landowner and 46% hunter support. You kick out the ‘not sures’ of the landowners and the number goes to 72% approval.

The hunter part of the survey is quite interesting. All of Clare County was surveyed using the same individuals that returned surveys to the DNR from the 1996 hunting season. There were over 500 hunter surveys sent out by Mr. Yenkel. DMU 107 is in the eastern 1/3 of Clare County. If you count only the surveys returned that stated, "the hunter hunted in DMU 107" and kick out the ‘not sures’, you get 68% approval. The rest of the hunters in Clare County actually voted in the negative. This is understandable. Why vote in the affirmative for QDM for someone else. It’s like asking the people of Ohio to vote for our governor. This same reason also greatly affected the number of surveys returned.

Me thinks, someone is stacking the deck.

The baiting issue was decided by the commission in spite of the fact that the hunting public was not overwhelmingly in favor of highly restrictive baiting. Nevertheless, the decision was made because it was the right thing to do.

Note: This proposal is not called an experiment. It is properly named a demonstration, which will show the benefits of QDM to all. When properly applied, QDM has proven itself, over and over again.

Commissioners, open your minds and accept the truth. The nay-sayers who erroneously feel their authority is being challenged are leading you astray. I implore you to accept the proven and positive QDM experiences of others and apply their success stories to Michigan.

Mr. Marc Yenkels’ DMU 107 QDM Demonstration Proposal is the right thing to do.

In closing, I would like to visit the issue of safety. The recent tragedy of the uncle shooting his nephew is an example. I understand that the uncle had a valid buck and antlerless license. In other words, "If it’s brown, it’s down." The nephew was not wearing a hunter orange hat and the uncle heard a sound and saw a motion. If there was a segment of the deer herd that was protected which would have forced the uncle to look and thoroughly identify the deer before he shot, I firmly believe that this young lad would still be here for his family to hear his laugh, yell, and cry. Unfortunately, now what his family hears is each other crying.

Thank you and "keep the fun in hunting."

Ed Spinazzola

President; Mid Mich. Branch QDMA