Anyone have a rough estimate to how many fisherman in Michigan there are??I`m not talking Clyde I and II.goin out for some muskies for dinner or the wall(mainly bass,panfishers,catfisherman,etcc),but people that pursue esox 95 % of the time….just curious..Example..if there are 150 members,MMA/INC……..do you think it`s double??Opening day at thornapple last year made me think of that..Out of the 20-30 some boats.I only recognized a handful of people.If 20 or so people frequenting this site and paying there dues,and say those same folks are hitting a murray,austin on any given day…..do you think it is double(40)the amount of people fishin it???
Dave
Thornapple and Hudson are huge on opening day. Most of those people are never seen again. It's likely they are "multi-species" anglers that wanted to see what this "muskie thing" is all about.
I've been looking at this over the last few years when on the water, keeping track (in my head not on paper). Over that time I've seen 8-10 boats on the water that I didn't know (excluding St Clair). In a few instances some of these boats have stopped to say "hi" and it turns out they are members. Others I've talked to and they have eventually become members so those can get thrown out of the mix. Which basically brings the number down to 2-4 boats over three years.
How much of the market does MMA have? My guess is that we've had or have had 2/3 of the "inland" muskie anglers as members (roughly 200 households over 5 years). This includes dropped members combined with the current members. Are there another 200 muskie angler households out there? I honestly don't think so, not based on what I've seen. The UP is where I don't have a good handle, there are a decent number of muskie anglers up there but my guess is that it doesn't hold a candle to the number in the LP.
Which, in turn, brings up another thing that I've been considering for the last few years. Though the budget for muskie rearing is small here in Michigan, the DNR is actually spending more money per angler than any angling group. It also means that we're giving back more per angler than any other angling group.
Now the feel good part…
Because MMA members are so generous and because MMA has done so much for/with the DNR, WE (MMA) are the reason the muskie program didn't get cut completely last year and WE (MMA) are the reason it isn't going to get cut this year.
If you were at the banquet Martha and Kregg both stressed how important MMA has been over the last five years.
Boy, if the total number of Muskie fishermen in Michigan is that small there is very little room for growth of the club. It's amazing that MMA has gotten as much attention from the DNR given Will's estimate of the number of anglers.
Are there more in Ohio? I sat in a seminar with over 100 muskie anglers at the Ohio show a couple of weeks ago. I assume only a small percentage of the Ohio Muskie anglers made it to the show. That would indicate sevral hundred Muskie anglers live in Ohio. I guess I never thought of Ohio as a "Muskie State".
There is room for muskie fraternity growth spurts as soon as there are more opportunities for local areas to experience muskie fishing. Right now we are blessed with fishing diversity from pan fish to walleye and salmonids. Joe Public has plenty of fishing opportunities and isn't excited yet about muskies he hasn't experienced yet. That will slowly change as more lakes come online within $3 gas driving range.
"Heavyhound" said:
That would indicate sevral hundred Muskie anglers live in Ohio. I guess I never thought of Ohio as a "Muskie State".
Ohio has thousands of serious muskie anglers, there are seven Muskies, Inc. chapters in Ohio (eight if you include the Penn-Ohio chapter). That is nearly as many chapters as the "premier" states of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Hamilton's thoughts got me thinking about the tiger days… With so many lakes containing these fish it seemed everyone and their brother was a muskie angler. Then as the tiger program was stopped, the tigers eventually all died off all those anglers stopped muskie fishing.
If given the opportunity again will these anglers come back?
I think alot of tiger muskie anglers would come back.I am suprised how many people dont know that almost all of the tiger populations are man made,and dont reproduce.
Their favorite lakes soon became crappy muskie fishing.They may have
blamed it on over harvesting,too much presure,or too many spear chucks.
In actuallity,their beloved tigers were dying.So they move on to something else,and remember the "good old days".I know there is some truth to this because my friend at my old place of work was one of those guys.He had no idea who MMA is,had no idea that tigers dont produce,
just always wonderd why?In steps kid coulson.Now he knows.I even got him to stop chuckin out at Gun (along with seeing no fish that is).
We all have ran across(every season) people who just dont know.When Mike and I caught that muskie a few weeks ago,the old timer who watched us said "ohhhh nice tiger"!!Mike-e-Mike took the time to explain things to him.
We must continue the good fight,and have our facts about us,hence the
"E" in PRE.I cant tell you how many people Ive inlightend over the couple
years Ive been in MMA.I believe alot of them think Im telling fish stories
even though I give them the web address,names,and places.I just hope one day the lesson will sink in and they will say "O ya,I heard about this"
and hopefully become a positive member to the muskie fishery.
AMEN,!!brother coulson is tired of typing now.
I would have to agree with Will. Not as many Miciganders as it sometimes appears. I found a lot of information on the Muskies inc lunge log records. I found that there are a lot of guys from Border states that fish our waters. Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois. When I have been in the upper peninsula I have seen more Wisconsin boats than Michigan boats on the west end. Lots of Ill. guys fish Round and Bankson. Quite a few Ohio guys fish Hudson. We are the great white north to a guy from southern Ohio. The numbers of Musky fishermen is climbing though. As Hamlin and Winya start putting up numbers of fish over 30 inches word will spread. We really need an education drive on Hamlin and Margarethe. Mike and Michelle
Quite a few Ohio guys fish Hudson. We are the great white north to a guy from southern Ohio.
I'd agree with that. My cousin from southern Ohio is a frequent fishing partner of mine. I introduced him to Hudson lake and since then he has bumped into several guys from southern Ohio that also fish it. He also comes up for ice fishing each year and acts if he's in Alaska.
Southern Ohio just started a new Muskie inc chapter lead by Tom Dietz. (Chap 57 maybe?) They focus a lot of Caesar Creek.
Should we get as many people as we know to join the MMA regardless of whether they are into the whole "muskie" thing or not? I got one guy to do that, and now he's hooked. Actually I bought his membership, and just him reading the news letters and visiting the website turned him into a fanatic. Is this a good thing to do with such a limited resource? Just curious because I am sure I could recruit 5-10 more people in the next year or so. Or could it be a bad idea because they will tell all thier beer drinking "non-conservationist" friends and it would destroy the fishery?
Adam
I have struggled with this over the years, torn between telling everyone and no one. It took many heated debates with many of the people in this club that I now consider friends before I arrived at this conclusion. Action requires numbers and numbers means telling people and bringing them in. We can save more fish by educating people than through abstinence from fishing for them. More people equals more demand equals more attention equals more funding equals more fish. The salmon program should be all the proof we need. Even if the Musky density was five per acre in every lake we would still all be after that ONE fish, plus they wont grow in all states so over saturation in not an issue (# of lakes available).
So the short answer? Recruit em' if you can we desperately need the numbers
Kevin
57
5