I dont know about you guys but Im getting about ready to return to the petition Idea. Get 10 thousand signatures on one and send it in. I dont know its so sad to see that little fat kid standing there with dead Muskie and no doubt it was the greatest day in his life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dad prolly going way to go boy!!!! Thats like shooting an eagle in my book. I sometimes wonder why we even bother to fight them. Mike
do you guys think it would help to get out of state musky guys to try to help drive home the point? Maybe post something on Muskies 1st or something to try to get some more people involved. I know I sent an email out when Minnesota was going through the whole Cass Lake spearing debate, maybe some of them will return the favor. I bet a lot of the MN and WI musky guys don't even know how poorly our state manages our muskies.
"Smada962" said:
On a more serious note, do you guys think it would help to get out of state musky guys to try to help drive home the point? Maybe post something on Muskies 1st or something to try to get some more people involved. I know I sent an email out when Minnesota was going through the whole Cass Lake spearing debate, maybe some of them will return the favor. I bet a lot of the MN and WI musky guys don't even know how poorly our state manages our muskies.
Yes, I think that's a great idea. Whenever MN had problems in years past, they always put up a link to an online petition. Anything is better than nothing.
It's unfortunate to see the pictures every year of speared muskie and perhaps in the relatively near future we can have regulation changes that will help to greatly reduce this harvest. I agree with what Tom said regarding the trout-salmon-walleye emphasis in our state and I think it is also one of the factors that makes it difficult to compare Michigan to other muskie states regarding muskie regulations. Our DNR does have different goals and financial means. I am sure there is an avid salmon fisherman in Minnesota wishing he had the access to the Great Lakes and the rivers in our state that we have. Although I recognize we can't have everything, I tried to emphasize in my email to the DNR that people that abuse their priveledges and illegally harvest fish in our state should be punished. I found it interesting in a few of the fisheries status reports that I have read that stated, "There may be minor conflicts that rise from illegal spearing of muskellunge (anglers thinking they were pike), but this is common and expected. This does not warrant establishment of a spearing ban." I agree that it is common on some waters, however, I strongly disagree that it should be expected. With only 111 lakes and low densities of muskies across the state, spending a weekend day out on one of these lakes during the winter handing out a few tickets sure wouldn't hurt. Ignorance/stupidity should never be a good defense. In fact, we should put something on our KTD signs that read, "If you illegally harvest a muskellunge, you are a stupid f*#@-stick." Nobody likes to be called a stupid f*#@-stick!
"robhj" said:
In fact, we should put something on our KTD signs that read, "If you illegally harvest a muskellunge, you are a stupid f*#@-stick." Nobody likes to be called a stupid f*#@-stick!
"><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … oflmao.gif">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … oflmao.gif">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
You can put your new MUCC powers to use. MMA has the right to submit MUCC resolutions to promote the goals of the organization. That could include a resolution to eliminate muskie spearing statewide and/or any degree of restrictions you wish. Two lines will form at a pro-microphone and a con-microphone where every club can speak including a MUCC staffer and the fishery committee that has received a review from the DNR. MUCC usually comments if there are previous resolutions on spearing and if super majority is needed (for law changes). Fishery committee usually follows DNR wishes on the topic and in this case that would clear up exactly where the DNR stands on spearing pro or con. The darkhouse representative will surely be at the con-mic and MMA at the pro-mic, with all the other clubs up for grabs. I'm guessing the Darkhouse and MMA may have equal votes based on number of members statewide, but I don't know. Many of us speaking at the mic and/or voting are carrying multiple votes based on size of the organization, and may be carrying the votes of other clubs not present. That's what I did last year supporting other clubs. It is getting very late to submit resolutions for the June 2011 convention, but there is provision as emergency resolution at discretion of the MUCC board. You can check with MUCC on what I've just said, and they will help you through the process. The important point is if you can get a MUCC resolution on your side, then you are a big step toward a no-spearing law in the regulations. Previous MUCC resolutions have been overturned as attitudes change over the years. I say go for it.
"hemichemi" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]Cynical me says this…The muskie fishery simply isn't important enough to cause any concern here in Michigan.
…
And it never will be, if that's truly the DNR's attitude. But MI could be so much better than it is, and compete with WI & MN if their salmon-steelhead-walleye-centric vision changed.
No, this is the statewide angler attitude, not the DNR position.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
I'm just sayin' that maybe the thought process is this – the muskie program isn't hurting THAT bad, so we don't have to protect the species as much.
If your neighbor was always paying your electrical bill out of the kindness of his heart, then you will never think about those 3 lights you just left on down in the basement even though nobody is down there. But, if you were unempoyed, and paying all the bills out of your own pocket, you would be conscious of any waste happening around your home.
Are you saying that MMA should not provide any more funding to the DNR if we don't get what we want?
"Will Schultz" said:
Are you saying that MMA should not provide any more funding to the DNR if we don't get what we want?
No, but merely prod them a little harder. And maybe reminding them of our "giving" attitude vs the spearers "taking" attitude. Obviously what we've done in the past (flooded them with emails, phone calls, etc) has not worked to our advantage. I'm simply suggesting we try a different approach.
Although… we could try saving up our funds over a 4yr period and use that as the carrot in front of the mule.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]
Are you saying that MMA should not provide any more funding to the DNR if we don't get what we want?
No, but merely prod them a little harder. And maybe reminding them of our "giving" attitude vs the spearers "taking" attitude. Obviously what we've done in the past (flooded them with emails, phone calls, etc) has not worked to our advantage. I'm simply suggesting we try a different approach.
Although… we could try saving up our funds over a 4yr period and use that as the carrot in front of the mule.
I would argue that there is not a more respected conservation group within the fisheries division than MMA. The reason for this is that we have never suggested that our support is based on getting what we want. That said, MMA has been on the receiving end because of the support provided.
For example; The only reason there has been any muskie stocking in the last eight years is because of the partnership MMA formed with the DNR. Without this show of support there is absolutely no question the muskie program would have been cut. If that had happened there would be no management plan, there would be no regulations review happening, there would be no GL muskie program starting.
Just a thought on why some of these spearer's are not caught. They don't always spear out of "permanent shanties", the large flipovers are plenty big enough and tall enough to spear out of, and they can set up with a good auger and ice saw in about 15mins, and leave just as quick. Access to the ice on Sanford is very limited though and that is the problem, most people spearing on that lake probably know someone that lives on the lake to get access, so as far as DNR checking people at an access site is not very promising. And Wixom is large enough, and usually gets enough ice to to drive vehicles on, it is going to be difficult to catch poachers, and when the Bay gets going there are too many easy tickets to issue for weekend warriors like, no helmets, no orv stickers, and undersize/over limit's.
"Steve S" said:
O.K O.K. so how do we get to be like WI. & MN. and no spearing muskies. Will we know you are the best spokesman for muskies. You went up aganist darkhouse before and that was like a B-52 vs. a pop gun. If we can't get them to stop spearing, how about a state wide 55" size limit!!
The first step is to have regulations in place that make sense. 46" and one tag makes the most sense to me but there are even some opponents to that within muskie circles/clubs. 46" and 1+1 is supported by everyone (except the darkhouse spearers).
"Steve S" said:
If we can't get them to stop spearing, how about a state wide 55" size limit!!
As much as the DNR wants to help MMA and the muskie program, they cannot be 100% bias, because the DNR is legally charged with the responsibility to serve all of the users of the state (including some food harvesters). The DNR will support a reasonable harvest based on sound fishery science that will also protect the growth of the muskie program. Special interest politicians may try to interfere with the process, but the DNR has to follow orders doing the best they can with the policy and financing they have at the moment. I was at a fishery workshop last Saturday and can say from conversations with DNR that they are very excited to 'finally' get the GLS program moving forward again. MMA is doing fine with DNR. Just keep doing what you've done very well the last few years and the DNR will try and keep up with you.
I don't think the Darkhouse people will ever be happy with anything less than complete de-regulation…
But I'm optimistic that regulation change, and the Darkhouse group's day in the sun (er, day in the dark?) is waning, now that Fred Trost is dead and they don't have that pulpit anymore, and also based on Will's report of how their counter-conservation, selfish standpoint was negatively received at the last Clearwater Steering Comittee meeting, when MMA's new reg suggestions were presented.
What I'm not so optimistic about is whether ANY regulation change will have any effect on the Darkhouse group's behavior, at least in the short term, because unfortunately there's not enough money for proper enforcement.
I wonder if Holmes knows that some of his cronies are spearing sub-legal fish. Who knows… maybe writing Holmes and letting him know about the illegal actions of members of his group will get him involved. We know that a couple members of a group don't represent the organization as a whole, but Holmes could put a stop to it (or at least warn his members) if he's worried about an even more negative attitude towards the spearing community.
Anti-muskie group behavior actions will always be present by some uneducated fishers for all other special fish interest. MMA will grow pass those groups by staying on the education/legal course. Toughest opposition may be from within MUCC. That can be overcome by eventually educating enough member organizations to eventually support a pro-muskie resolution supporting the DNR fishery plans and future regulation changes needed. Instant gratification may not happen for MMA, but I believe time is on the side of MMA, especially after the GLS program starts to take hold and we gain a wide new memberships from the new muskie lakes created.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
I wonder if Holmes knows that some of his cronies are spearing sub-legal fish. Who knows… maybe writing Holmes and letting him know about the illegal actions of members of his group…
We can't do anything like this without ironclad proof of the violations, which we will never have.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
I wonder if Holmes knows that some of his cronies are spearing sub-legal fish. Who knows… maybe writing Holmes and letting him know about the illegal actions of members of his group will get him involved. We know that a couple members of a group don't represent the organization as a whole, but Holmes could put a stop to it (or at least warn his members) if he's worried about an even more negative attitude towards the spearing community.
I think that is a great idea. Mike Holmes – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
368
16