I won't be able to make this one in Ionia because its the same time as Indian River.
Ionia is a 2nd meeting of the Southern Lake Michigan Unit, so I assume it will be some (maybe all?) of the same DNR folks as the Mattawan meeting the day before.
I gotta get to the Indian River meeting which is a BIGGIE and is the only shot at Northern Lake Huron crew
From the Mattawan meeting topic:
For those asking how the meetings were run – the DNR gave a powerpoint presentation on the proposed regulation changes which included some bass and trout stuff as well. The audience could ask questions during specific parts of the powerpoint and then there was some open discussion after the powerpoint as well. This meeting actually had comment cards which the audience could write down any comments/concerns/arguments about the proposed regulation changes. This was really nice as you didn't have to voice any concerns during the meeting and just write your opinions on the card. If you wanted to, you could just bring a copy of what MMA supports and just write that on the comment card haha.
So please don't be afraid to go to these meetings in fear you will have to speak publically. You don't have to speak at all and hopefully the Ionia meeting will have comment cards so you can just write any comments about the muskie regulations.
FYI if Jay Wesley of DNR is attending this meeting, be prepared for this sentiment which he said to me just recently:
"with a 1 fish per year bag limit it really doesn't matter what the minimum size limit is"
Clearly shows his ignorance about the majority of our muskie fisheries. He probably will not come out and say anything like that in a public setting, but be prepared that this is what he thinks- and Hammer him on it!!
"Duke" said:
FYI if Jay Wesley of DNR is attending this meeting, be prepared for this sentiment which he said to me just recently:"with a 1 fish per year bag limit it really doesn't matter what the minimum size limit is"
Clearly shows his ignorance about the majority of our muskie fisheries. He probably will not come out and say anything like that in a public setting, but be prepared that this is what he thinks- and Hammer him on it!!
OK here's the "JP has other things he needs to do" version of the Master Angler entries spin on this:
All info is catch and keep, as harvest is the only thing that matters in this situation.
Northern strain Catch and Keep:
35 entries over the last 10 seasons, or 3.5 fish/year
17 entries over the 3 seasons that had the tag, or 5.66 fish/year
GLS Catch and Keep:
58 entries over the last 10 seasons, or 5.8/year
17 entries over the 3 seasons that had the tag, or 5.66 fish/year
Combined effort of all strains is 9.3 fish/year over the last 10 years, and 11.33 fish/year with the tag.
Also, the second highest totals of harvest in one year for both groups was in 2015, a year in which we had the tag. The lowest amounts of harvest for both groups in one year was a tie for 2011/12/13… all years without the tag.
I was counting quickly and might be off by one fish in either column so don't quote me, but I think it is pretty clear that though the tag helps, it isn't actually helping save trophy fish at all.
This also supports an idea Duke has mentioned, that the whole no MSL, or slot limit idea is only valid when all anglers are being "successful" or harvesting fish. In our case the population densities are small enough, and "success" rate is already so low, that limiting yearly harvest/angler isn't going to affect much. Limiting total harvest is the goal, not individual angler harvest.
There was 14 people at the meeting last night.
4 were mma that i knew, not sure about two of the guys as i didn't know who they were.
3 bass guys, 1 trout guy.. and my boss came who i got hooked on musky fishing and should be joining muskies Inc and mma soon.
Total 7 musky guys.
Disappointed with the reasoning for wanting to lower round to 38 inches and the capture data was from 2010 which was nearly a decade ago..
He gave the data for that capture to Steve and we read through it. Doesn't seem logical to lower a size limit to 38 when the females are only around 6 years old at that age.
"swanezy" said:
He gave the data for that capture to Steve and we read through it. Doesn't seem logical to lower a size limit to 38 when the females are only around 6 years old at that age.
We can only help them get better data, maybe that will make a difference and maybe it wont. I had a very frank discussion with one of the biologists at the Indian river meeting because it was brought up by some guys in the room about helping them collect aging data. If the original samples are good, there is no need to discuss collecting dorsal spines from any fish up there since it's not going to change the model dramatically and likely not at all.
However, in situations like Round and Diane it would be nice to have some data from larger/older fish to apply to the growth model. In addition if you look at all of the places where there isn't any growth data, well… MMA can help. I would also add in that I don't believe that the 38" MSL will have a negative impact on the Round Lake fishery in the short term, meanwhile MMA will have 2017, 2018 and 2019 to help them obtain some additional samples of older fish.
So… We will be having a training session at an upcoming meeting on the correct process for obtaining genetic samples and in some cases tagging. I heard a comment from one of the biologists at the Waterford meeting that collecting age structures needs to be done right and should be done by the field crews. Not true.
Id be willing to gather some samples if possible sometime this year with some of the fish, especially if i catch any of the bigger fish in the lake.
Just keep me posted.
I don't disagree either that changing it to 38 will affect it short term either, the long term is where the affect would lie.. but by then i probably won't be fishing it much if at all if our other local GLS stockings mainly because of the shorter trips for me to the lakes
Hey Swanezy, the two other guys ( me and my buddy) are MMA members. So 6 members and one potential, isn't that bad considering only 14 total. I mentioned to unit manager, Brian Grunderman about muskies going through the damn/spillway and overall fishery in lake Ovid. Thats when fisheries biologist Scott Hanshue addressed my concern. As of now they have no cost effective solution except to plant more muskies. Then he went on to say that Ovid is a tough fishery to maintain because the inlet is so small and it doesn't flush/clean itself out very good. The bass also seem to be steadily declining in numbers and size. I knew they where aware of the situation, but I still wanted to bring it up. Both Brian Gunderman and Scott Hanshue where involved and willing to talk to anybody with a question or concern. They have a "lot of water" to cover so I defiantly appreciate their efforts.
I need to do a better job of introducing myself. We did talk to a couple MMA guys ( Mayham for one) in the parking lot, and If I wouldn't have been so tired, I wouldn't of minded having a beer. Another time.
____________
Brent
52
13