Mike Holmes and MDAA at it again...

General musky fishing discussions and questions.

Moderator: Cyberlunge

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Mike Holmes and MDAA at it again...

Post by Will Schultz » Wed May 26, 2010 1:17 pm

It has come to my attention that Mike Holmes is trying to get the NRC and the legislature to approve a 34" size limit on muskellunge in the UP and boundary waters.

I'm certain he can't back this with any biological data. In fact I have mounds of data to show how much of a negative impact this change would have. I would also like to know if he has considered the economic impact this would have on tourism. I know many Wisconsin anglers fish the west end of the UP and I'm sure they would be unimpressed and no longer make their way to the UP.

This will eventually get to the NRC and we will need to let them know that this is not acceptable. They may not know about this yet but they will and when they do I want to make sure they know Mike Holmes is NOT the voice of Michigan anglers.
Last edited by Will Schultz on Wed May 26, 2010 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

User avatar
Esoxonthefly
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Charlotte, MI

Post by Esoxonthefly » Wed May 26, 2010 1:41 pm

I'll try to call them all today. For what reason does he want to do this?

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz » Wed May 26, 2010 2:41 pm

Esoxonthefly wrote:I'll try to call them all today. For what reason does he want to do this?
It's all about them. It's easier to harvest 34" fish. He simply doesn't care about the resource.
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

User avatar
Jim tenHaaf
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:48 pm
Location: Kentwood
Contact:

Re: Mike Holmes and MDAA at it again...

Post by Jim tenHaaf » Wed May 26, 2010 3:12 pm

Will Schultz wrote:This will eventually get to the NRC and we will need to let them know that this is not acceptable. They may not know about this yet but they will and when they do I want to make sure they know Mike Holmes is NOT the voice of Michigan anglers.
Just tell us what we need to do. Exactly who to write and when to write it. Also, for us abbreviated illiterate folks, what is the NRC? :oops:

User avatar
Kingfisher
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Muskegon, MI
Contact:

Post by Kingfisher » Wed May 26, 2010 4:04 pm

Someone please post a number to call. Mike
""WILL FISH FOR FOOD""

http://www.fishall-lures.com

User avatar
john c
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Mason, MI
Contact:

Post by john c » Wed May 26, 2010 4:17 pm

Gosh, the guy just seems to have it in for muskies sometimes. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some other notion about ‘progress’ preoccupy him – such as opening spearing for some of our other species, as so wonderfully suggested in a previous thread on this forum. …Nope, always seems to be about killing muskies.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-15 ... --,00.html

User avatar
Kingfisher
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Muskegon, MI
Contact:

Post by Kingfisher » Wed May 26, 2010 5:08 pm

I talked with him on the phone and emailed him for over a month and he is adamant that any laws regarding harvest are bad and should all be removed. His personal opinion was that there should be zero size limits on all species and unlimited harvest. He really is a shockingly opposite of sound principals type man. Not what I expected of an ex D.N.R. Officer. My guess is he had a problem with enforcing the law and decided that the law was the problem. He places no value what so ever in trophy sized fish saying that all species are ment to be eaten and therefore they should all have zero size limits. I could not even get him to support a few trophy Pike lakes where the regulations would be for a slot limit which would allow some Pike to grow to 40 inches. His response was that Pike in his area are considered a invasive to trout fishermen and needed to be thinned out. He says we all place way to high a value on Muskellunge and Pike. His opinion of these fish is that they should be killed and eaten like any other fish. Once you understand his way of thinking its easy to see why he pushes for what he does. The man has no comprehension of selective harvest or even sportsman like behaviour just kill as much as you want . I have no use for him whats so ever. Mike
""WILL FISH FOR FOOD""

http://www.fishall-lures.com

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz » Wed May 26, 2010 5:59 pm

Kingfisher wrote:Someone please post a number to call. Mike
The NRC members may not be aware of this yet and as such we'll not want to flood them with calls until such time this reaches them.
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

User avatar
Esoxonthefly
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: Charlotte, MI

Post by Esoxonthefly » Wed May 26, 2010 6:18 pm

I go to the UP every year and this definitely concernes me. The lakes I fish already have pretty low densities and I can only imagine what would happen with a 34" limit. This guy just doesn't get it.

TimD
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Pinckney, Michigan

Post by TimD » Wed May 26, 2010 6:46 pm

Yep! This guy sounds like a real tool! This is why it is so important for us to develop a sound and science based proposal for regulation changes in the state of Michigan.

User avatar
hemichemi
Posts: 2280
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:54 pm

Post by hemichemi » Wed May 26, 2010 8:21 pm

A few musings:

Money speaks loudly; arguments based on money will have great weight and are easy for most people to understand.

Most of those lakes/waters are stocked, right? We can point out how maintaining stocking levels with a 34" limit would make it exceedingly expensive considering how much it costs to raise muskie fingerlings, and how long it takes them to reach 34", and how few survive to that age, will likely be persuasive.

We can also stress that muskie fishing is the fastest-growing (only growing?) segment of sport fishing in the North, and that this (harebrained) proposal will damage the bright tourism potential that Michigan could have, and possibly become a muskie-fishing destination like Wis and Min already are.

<sigh> Sometimes I despair...
Alcohol and calculus don't mix —
Don't drink and derive.

swanezy
Site Admin
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 2:20 pm
Location: Holland

Post by swanezy » Wed May 26, 2010 8:44 pm

lol 34 inches.. sad really

User avatar
Will Schultz
Posts: 7662
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: GR, MI

Post by Will Schultz » Wed May 26, 2010 9:26 pm

A statewide advisory for consumption of muskellunge, based on elevated levels of mercury, recommends that women of child-bearing age and children eat no more than one meal of muskellunge per month, while the rest of the human population should restrict consumption to one meal per week. In 2008, an additional advisory recommending no consumption of muskellunge, due to mercury contamination, continued for Lake St. Clair. (MDCH 2008).
Self interest is for the past, common interest is for the future.

Hamilton Reef
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:43 am
Location: Montague, MI on White River

Post by Hamilton Reef » Wed May 26, 2010 10:45 pm

Thanks Will for the heads up. Two things pop into my mind. Your discription of the situation and Mike King's contact experience with Mike Holmes are probably well known with the MDNRE fishery staff especially with Mike Holmes long history. The NRC will be in contact with the DNRE staff and receive their input before any decisions are made. I predict the NRC will not make any changes. I will be with fishery staff meeting all day Thurs 5/28 at RAM Center and will report back.

User avatar
John E. Sox
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Yoop

Post by John E. Sox » Thu May 27, 2010 7:31 am

I can't speak for the NRC but I can say that the DNR is aware of Mr. Holme's plan and also holds him responsible for helping extend the spearing season. The DNR (sorry, I hate adding the E) is also aware of the large increase in the numbers of muskie anglers (especially in the UP) and is moving towards offering more protection of the species to provide better opportunity. I talked to one of the highest ranking DNR biologists in the UP a while back and he said that they fought hard to get the size limit to 42 and he would be shocked if it ever went back the other way. They find this idea just as wild as we do.

Post Reply