Michelle and I both agree that the Musky Tag should cost between 10 and 20.00 with all proceeds going into the stocking efforts. If anglers have to pay to harvest one those numbers you posted will drop like a stone. It will also give the D.N.R. a more accurate count on how many anglers really want to kill a Musky. Both of us are in total agreement that the free tag is no indication whatsoever of how many people are actively pursuing killing these fish. I also talked in depth with guy who spears Pike and he said he would not pay to harvest a fish he cant eat due to toxin levels. Mike
"Kingfisher" said:
Michelle and I both agree that the Musky Tag should cost between 10 and 20.00 with all proceeds going into the stocking efforts. If anglers have to pay to harvest one those numbers you posted will drop like a stone.It will also give the D.N.R. a more accurate count on how many anglers really want to kill a Musky. Both of us are in total agreement that the free tag is no indication whatsoever of how many people are actively pursuing killing these fish. I also talked in depth with guy who spears Pike and he said he would not pay to harvest a fish he cant eat due to toxin levels. Mike
The point of the tag is not to count on how many anglers really want to kill a muskie. The higher number works better in our favor and shows "interest" in muskellunge fishing. If there is no interest, and less than 1,000 tags are issued, do you really think the state will issue funding for muskies??
There would be more than a 1000 issued in the St Clair area alone if the tag was $5, even it if was $20 there would be more than 1000 issued in the St Clair area.
This tag isn't supposed to give harvest information, that was never the intention.
Pretty sure we'll never see a tag for any fish with a fee attached in our lifetime and the money can't be earmarked so it would go straight to the general fund.
i figure the more the better. they will be able to use the data they get for dispersion maps, and enter it into statistical models and be able to predict angler participation in specific areas, and compare that to stocking efforts. then use that to show increased economic impact by adding new lakes to the stocking list. they can also judge, based on all that, a little more about harvest rates than they previously could. it would be nice if people would report their harvest, but they know only a certain percent will, and figure out a lot from that. this info is really a pretty big tracking study of fisherman…
"vano397" said:
i figure the more the better. they will be able to use the data they get for dispersion maps, and enter it into statistical models and be able to predict angler participation in specific areas, and compare that to stocking efforts. then use that to show increased economic impact by adding new lakes to the stocking list. they can also judge, based on all that, a little more about harvest rates than they previously could.
You so smart
I know that the tag was not issued to count how many fish are harvested but it can be used to count how many want to harvest.
We are about to embark on pushing for season closures without knowing for certain how many anglers actually want to kill Muskies. I dont believe there are 1000 in the St. Clair area ,couple hundred maybe. Every charter captain and musky fisherman I know of down there practices catch and release. I have talked to many over here who spear and kill lots of pike and they would be fine with protecting Muskies in our new drowned river mouths. Most of them agree they not the same as Pike and that we need them to eat Sheepshead and Shad. I guess I just dont see the state wide blood lust for killing Muskies that the rest of you do. I doubt very much that there were more than a couple hundred killed state wide.
Also why would lower tag numbers issued cut funding? The D.N.R. Knows full well that most Musky fishermen are Release fishermen. We sell kill tags on deer and they go for 20 bucks now. I still say put a price on the tag and we will know who wants to kill them and how many there really are. Until then nothing should change . Not without some proof. I stand with all of you on changing the season on the chain and all Natural reproducing water but not lower pen. stocked lakes. The Antrim Chain needs to be catch and release only for at least 5 years maybe more. We need proof on how many musky killers we really have. My guess is far fewer then the rest of you seem to think. Mike
"jasonvkop" said:
[quote="vano397"]i figure the more the better. they will be able to use the data they get for dispersion maps, and enter it into statistical models and be able to predict angler participation in specific areas, and compare that to stocking efforts. then use that to show increased economic impact by adding new lakes to the stocking list. they can also judge, based on all that, a little more about harvest rates than they previously could.
You so smart
haaha, I just use big words that the guys at the hatchery taught me… That and I went to Hope [smilie=brows.gif]
Mike, like Jim/Will and others stated…you have to think of the DNR's budget like a corporation would use a budget. You put money into programs/products that will get you a return. In the case of our fisheries…the product is fish species and location of those fish. If you are stocking fish that no one wants to fish for or in regions that there is not active interest for that species; people's want to fish is lower with fewer licenses purchased. This tag, although serving the purpose of limiting harvest, gives the DNR feedback as to how many people are interested in this species. We should all be asking for the tag. Increased demand gives them feedback to where interest lies and predicts increased return on investment (more licenses…..and the other benefits to our tourism industry). It isn't just about how many anglers want to keep them. The DNR puts money into Salmon, Walleyes, etc, because they induce people to buy licenses to seek those species out. They get great return on their investment. Especially in the case of the trout stamp….if people want to fish salmon, they get the stamp, feeding data to the DNR regarding demand. You could argue what species is driving the demand, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out the top hitter/hitters in that category. It is just a shift in perspective of how the data gets perceived. We should all ask for the tag and never use it….shows interest and potential to grow "sales". Help the DNR be data driven with their approach to stocking in a round-about way. More supply for the demand should be the effect.
Tory, I don't see it that way in regards to a free tag. Its free so almost everyone who is asked if they want one will take one BECAUSE ITS FREE. Not because they want to fish for Muskies or ever plan on harvesting one. The D.N.R. Knows full well there are not 50,000 musky fishermen in this state much less 100,000 . What I want to see before we go off half cocked and close the early season is some proof that more than 1000 anglers are hell bent on killing a musky and hanging their tag on it. I don't believe it for a minute. The free tag is worthless as an information gathering tool. It just goes to show us people like things that are free. Like I said they asked me if I wanted one. I said no. The cashier said why not ? its free. My answer was because I will never kill one and no one else should either. Mike
I personally go out of my way to ask for a musky tag. The past 2 seasons it has not been offered to me. Both times I asked, and also encouraged everybody I know to ask for one. Not because I want to kill one, but because I want the DNR to know there is interest, and validating their investment in the muskellunge program.
Also, if I accidentally kill a state record someday (I know, fare fetches) I can harvest her, and let the DNR look her over and study her.
Mike – I think you're missing the point here, closing the season to winter harvest has nothing to do with tag sales. We have enough data to prove winter harvest easily exceeds the management goal of 5% exploitation. We need to eliminate muskellunge harvest during the winter because of:
– underperforming stocked waters (directly related to winter harvest)
– poor natural reproduction and limited suitable spawning habitat in natural waters
– new waters that will never get a spawning population established because of winter harvest
Tags issued and the interest in muskie angling has everything to do with the money going into the program. A number of stocked waters have been removed from stocking over the years because anglers were keeping their success to themselves. No participation, no success = no need for a muskie program.
I support closing the season from December to the current Opening days. May is not winter. If you want to close the chain to all harvest I am good with that. I will oppose closing the lower peninsula as a blanket deal to catch and release during the month of MAY . Now , how can we have any data at all on harvest rates when the new tag law has only been in effect for one year?????? Look people I am all for more protections on the Chain because it needs them. I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY SPRING COOL WATER CATCH AND RELEASE fishing. THE MONTH OF MAY HAS BEEN ONE OF MY FAVORITE TIMES . Leave that alone and we are fine. Other wise I have drafted my own letter to the D.N.R. . The problem with closing seasons is that the D.N.R. likes to make one law fit all and that is problem with Musky lakes. We all know what is good for one lake can hurt another. We should be expanding catch and release not cutting our own throats .
Mike,
I understand you don't want to give up fishing in May, you've made that abundantly clear in this thread and the other. Some of us would be willing to give up fishing in May for the betterment of the fishery as they have done in many states and provinces. The deal is, we're not making the decision. Angler input is part of the process as we saw with the tag regulation and as we just went through with the bass regulation. The discussions on this forum aren't going to change the season. This is nothing more than an opportunity for everyone to voice their opinion on what they would accept. I'm well aware of what you aren't willing to give up. Please understand that nothing is going to happen as a result of the discussions here other than those drafting the proposal will have a better idea of what MMA members are willing to accept. This is a long process and the proposal will have options that will be presented to the DNR. It will then go through the WRSC for review and eventually be presented to the public for comment.
For instance it could look something like this (not saying this is what they'll look like):
Option 1
Seasons stay the same.
Option 2
December 15 Closure on all waters.
Opening Day – Last Sat in April (LP), May 15 (UP), first Sat. in June LSC
Option 3
December 15 Closure on all waters
Opening Day – May 15 statewide
Option 4
December 15 Closure on all waters
Opening Day – First Sat in June statewide
Option 5
December 15 Closure on all waters
Opening Day – First Sat in June statewide (last Sat in April CIR in LP, May 15 CIR in UP)
This isn't about the Chain, this is about what it best for the future of the fishery – ALL WATERS. I certainly don't want to see Muskegon, White and Mona turn out like Hamlin. I really want to see Hamlin turn around and many others that have been held back because of winter harvest and allowing fishing for spawning fish. We have a new direction in the state with a new strain being stocked in many new waters. Regulations need to be set to allow this to be successful for the future.
I know that our discussions will not change law but what is in that letter you will draft is supposed to reflect our opinions. ALL of our opinions. I will support #2 or # 5. I didnt join this club or any other club to shorten my ( C.I.R.) season . I would support no harvest at all, or even two very short harvest windows one in February and one in say July. I would support a lottery on the tags at a cost of 15.00 per tag which would really cut down on the harvest. But I will not Compromise with the darkhouse group. I do not believe cir fishing will damage our new fishery because we know where and when to fish as we are educated about them, about proper release methods and the tools to perform them. If it is truly about limiting harvest then lets back limiting harvest. NOT C.I.R. opportunity. I like Option 5 as we end spring harvest and put the fish in the hands of men and women like you , Me , Michelle and the rest of us who have learned how to handle these fish.
Holmes will NEVER stop and you know it. He has pushed you to a position where you are ready to do anything to shut him up. That is not the right mindset to fight him. Yes he angers me as well. He is a moron and the D.N.R. knows it. You and I both know that once the season is changed we will never get it back. This is too soon and there is not enough data yet on the new tag system or the harvest numbers from the first year.
And again Ill remind all of you, long before we were here as a club the fishery was building. Lakes like Osterhout, Murray, Austin, Lower Crooked, Long, Bankson, Thorn and the list goes on GREW in numbers of big fish, small fish, etc. The fishery grew . Certain lakes have fallen by the wayside but still have fish in them. But prior to 1996 there were very few lakes to fish. Today the fishery is growing in leaps and bounds. I do not believe that it will be decimated by the few idiots who still think harvesting them is a good thing. I have said it over and over and over again that as a club we should now be spending our time and resources on educating the public as to why Alpha predators are important and why eating large predator fish is unhealthy. Walleye fishermen I have talked to are excited to hear that Finally there will be something to eat the giant Shad and Sheepshead that are competing with the walleye. I live minutes away from lakes with a lot of guys who spear. Very few and I mean one in 10 are looking forward to spearing muskies. Almost everyone of them are more worried that they wont be able to tell the difference when a musky comes in. To the guys who spear Pike on White lake the muskies just made their sport more complicated . They dont want to kill muskies they want Pike . I have only met one guy so far who is as stupid as Holmes and tells me he will use every tag he can get his hands on. I know ten times that number who want to learn how to catch them, release them and catch them again.
Austin lake is a very bad example of what happens when you have legal spearing in a gin clear lake that is under 10 feet deep. Try that on Hudson or thornapple. Nowhere near the success rates. So we cant go by what happened on Austin. ANYONE could spear a musky in Austin. If any lake should have a spearing ban or a annual quota by lottery it is Austin.
Now before anyone thinks Im for opening these lakes up think again. I want spearing of Muskies STOPPED , PERIOD. What I am trying to do is to cool the hysteria that seems to be sweeping through this club that we have to quick do something or the fishery is going to be wiped out. It is this very thing that Government does that has just about destroyed this entire country. ALWAYS THINKING THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. Most times done with poor data like the wolf stocking in Yellowstone.
So I think we need to take a breath, let the one tag per man per year show us what it will do. Make no concessions, no removal of any bans and put Austin back on the no spear list. My personal opinion based on all the evidence this club, the studies, and the D.N.R. have presented is that the CHAIN is in danger. I think all harvest should be suspended there for several years to allow some reproduction and we should urge the D.N.R. to take some eggs from that system and raise some fish for it. But state wide changes are not warranted , not yet. Mike
368
45
1 Guest(s)