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.
"Will Schultz" said:
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? 
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.
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … –,00.html">[Permission to view this media is denied]
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
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…
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).
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.
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.
Here is an excerpt from age to length data for a couple northern Wisconsin lakes that have slower growth. According to the management plan for Michigan muskellunge, they need to have 4-5 years of spawning to sustain a fishery. It is widely accepted that female muskellunge reach maturity at 6 years of age. As you can see, even in slow growth waters a 34” size limit would allow harvest before or during the first year of maturity. The impact of allowing a 34” minimum size limit could have long lasting repercussions on even slow growth waters in the Upper Peninsula.
Estimated length-at-age (in) of muskellunge captured in fyke nets on Plum
Lake, 1993 – 2007.
Age/Length
5/32.3
6/34.4
7/36.4
Estimated length-at-age (in) of muskellunge captured in fyke nets on Big
Crooked Lake, 1993 – 2007.
Age/Length
5/33.5
6/35.7
7/38.0
Holy freaking s— I get so pist when I hear things like this from that imbecile that I shouldn't even post a reply. I get more pist knowing that he's actually had some success with his goal of Esox eradication. But thanks for the heads up, and on a positive note this can serve to motivate us and others with a clue to take responsive action as needed.
I mistyped the wrong date of my fishery meeting (too darn many meetings), but I also talked today with a DNR biologist and received the same basic message as Sox. However, he did say the DNR have been over ruled by dirty politics in the past using politicians to over rule the NRC. The anti-DNR politicians are easy to find in the UP.
57
25
1 Guest(s)