that Lake Erie DNR crew sure has a different way of doing things. Like last year, they gave each attendee stickers to be used to vote on the issues on posters they had set up. They made no presentation and did not take questions or comments in front of the group. But they were mingling with the crowd and talked one on one with anybody who wanted to for the whole night.
The muskie vote was “Do you support the MDAA proposal for a 1 week trial spearing season” My unofficial count was 7 ‘Yes’ and about 70 ‘No’. Based on the sign in sheet, there were 4 MDAA members in attendance, a handful who were only interested in walleye or perch, and the rest were muskie charter captains/crew or anglers.
They also provided sticky notes for people to write any justification/explanation of their vote or their views, and stick that to the voting board also. Nothing new or surprising in what was written there. I will say this format definitely avoided any potential fireworks that might have gone off from opposing views.
CIR was brought up on the sticky notes, of course. In fact, based on the number of “likes” the CIR sticky note comments got, Matty nailed his prediction of it being brought up 15 times or more.
I'd concur with Duke.
One individual from the MDAA attempted to intermingle and gain knowledge, the rest I did not see.
I saw on facebook that the final count was around 110-9.
Observations were:
-Not the best way for the DNR to have a conversation, though it was the most civil
-All but a couple people attempted to have an open mind
-Some of the info on the board about muskies was really cool, especially the graph that showed age distribution from pre-ban, post ban, and recent CIR social standard time frames. Spoiler, very few if any fish over 8 yrs old pre spearing ban…
-DNR readily admitted it was not their idea, but a proposal by a special interest group
-Approximately half of the 9 yes votes were old walleye fisherman, I am sure you can guess their mindset towards muskies
-None of the people involved in writing/submitting the proposal showed up
-St Clair anglers are pampered in their ignorance of what has gone on in muskie management in Michigan
-A fair amount of childish and premature/oblivious chest bumping taking place afterward
107 – NO
8 – YES
This is an interesting number since at last count (at about 7:15) the number of people signed in was 78.
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
"vano397" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]107 – NO
8 – YES
This is an interesting number since at last count (at about 7:15) the number of people signed in was 78.
on the other hand, the only thing more lackadaisical than the format of the meeting was the sign in procedure and distribution of the stickers…
I'm sure that format works for their normal C&C meetings that only have 10 +/- people.
Is the NRC going to vote on this? When?
If so, this C&C meeting may carry very little significance. It's great there was a strong turnout, and thank you to all who make the effort to go. But did it mean anything to the NRC? Their decision may well be based on "increased angler opportunity", rather than scientific data or public turnout to a meeting. Is there anyway we can be assured how this will play out?
"Fishead" said:
Is the NRC going to vote on this? When?
If so, this C&C meeting may carry very little significance. It's great there was a strong turnout, and thank you to all who make the effort to go. But did it mean anything to the NRC? Their decision may well be based on "increased angler opportunity", rather than scientific data or public turnout to a meeting. Is there anyway we can be assured how this will play out?
These meeting results/feedback and the recent survey aren't seen directly by the NRC, though they may be getting some general idea from chief Dexter. The only voting done by the NRC takes place when a regulation change comes to them in the form of a fisheries order, that may or may not happen with this proposal.
What happens now is that the fisheries division will compile all of the feedback collected from the public, in various forms, and deliver the data with a recommendation to the NRC (probably in June). At that point the NRC may choose to accept the fisheries division recommendation or may ask them to come back the next month after reviewing any NRC comments. I'm not going to make any statement of what I think will happen or what I've been told by anyone in the fisheries division (we all know how that worked out with CIR).
368
23
1 Guest(s)