"hemichemi" said:

When did I imply ownership?

What I was trying to point out is it's a tad hypocritical of them to criticise MMA for having an opinion when they do nothing to help restore the fishery they're impacting. Yes, we understand we impact the fishery too, but at least we try to do something about it.

You didn't. What I should have said is that we are all equal in this, their opinion counts as much as our opinion, regardless of how much help MMA provides to the DNR.

They don't criticise MMA until we attack their tradition of harvesting fish with a spear. They are concerned with the preservation and expansion of their method and we are concerned with preservation and expansion of the fish. Take a look at the MDAA website, I don't believe that preservation of the fishery is mentioned anywhere. None of us or them have any obligation to help the fishery we use. We (MMA) choose to help and that doesn't/shouldn't give us any more say in how another person should be allowed to harvest fish.

This whole discussion is really around social regulation management where feelings are more important than biology.

"Kingfisher" said:
Will ,Will Will, Wisconsin has 100 times as many muskies as we do. They can afford 1 per day. Ours are almost on the endangered species list ha ha ha . What do have, 40 lakes out of 5000 plus? .

I think the number is right around 95 managed waters out of 11,000. Which puts us on par with Minnesota, I think they have around 80 managed muskie waters.

"Kingfisher" said:
I dont think MMA should be sponsering the change anyway. It should be done by the D.N.R. for scientific reasons alone and to bring this fish back to the numbers needed to eat down trash fish numbers in every drowned rivermouth in Michigan. Muskies are needed badly in this state. reducing the harvest limit to one per year would not raise many eyebrows at all especilly if it came along with the promise of more and Bigger Muskies to choose from., Mike

If there's no push from a "special interest group" the regulations will be kept as is. The DNR can't make the change on their own, it has to be legislation. Therefore it would take an effort on the part of MMA and other interested sportsmen to get the Coolwater Regulations Steering Committee to bring this to the table for discussion. The support of MUCC would be very helpful as well. Before any suggested change goes to the legislature the NRC would have to give it their approval.

Probably the most important thing to consider is the catch and release ethic, among muskie anglers. This actually hinders the argument of reduced bag limits. You know the general rule that 90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the anglers – right? In muskie fishing that number swings even more, I would venture a guess in Michigan we're talking something in the range of 0.2% of anglers catch 99.99% of the fish. If that 0.2% of anglers is releasing 99% of the muskies they catch it will be very difficult to get support from MUCC, the NRC and legislators that the seasonal bag limit needs to be changed.