"ron berry" said:
i hate spearing as much as the next guy,and it really sucks when it happens in your area,but thats the problem it only gets noticed if its in your back yard?
Depends on who "your" is… For most people that's true, it must not be happening if it isn't happening to them. Since MMA has been in place I've written and made phone calls concerning lakes in the UP, lakes in N. Michigan, lakes in NW Michigan, lakes in Central Michigan a lake in SW Michigan and I've even had to communicate how absurd it would be if the spearing community got their way and St Clair was opened to muskie spearing.
I wish the DNR could make informed decisions but the problem is there's no good data/research on spearing. It seems so blantantly obvious when all we have to do is look at St Clair to see exactly what natural reproduction can support when angler harvest is limited and there is no spearing.
The problem isn't the spearing, the problem is the harvest.
As much as I hate to see people setting fishing rules that have no business making that type of decision. Maybe it's time to go over the DNR and straight to the legislature to reduce the harvest of muskellunge. There's no reason this species shouldn't be protected like sturgeon. These aren't trout, salmon or walleye and people just don't understand.
It has been so hard for me to read this… What more can we do? Even though I completely disagree with spearing, I understand that it has been long standing heritage in the state of Michigan but why can't people understand that soon our resources will be nil! Do that many people really just don't get it or don't care? Being fairly new to a dedicated muskie fisherman gives me this feeling of getting into the sport too late and over time the fishing will only get worse on stocked lakes with no spearing ban. It's really so upsetting! What more can be done? Doesn't the DNR get it?
Guys, believe me, I know how you feel. But our donating $$ to the DNR, and our helping them in our myriad other ways, doesn't give us any more rights to the fish than the spearers have, even if they do nothing to help the DNR. Legitimate spearing is their privilege according to the DNR regs, assuming they aren't breaking rules by taking more than 1 a day or harvesting from disallowed waters.
Our beef has to be with DNR policy concerning muskie spearing, not with the spearers. We all need to keep that in mind. We need to focus on changing the policy, and not start throwing brickbats at the spearers.
"Chasin50" said:
[quote="Chris Barton"]WOW, that really sucks.Anyone know how much money MMA has donated to the Michigan DNR since MMA was formed back in 2000?
And what does the spearing community give to the resource??? My suspicion is NOTHING!!!!
MMA has given tens of thousands to the DNR. I knew it was eventually going to come to these types of questions so I have to ask…
Do we support the DNR to make the fishery better or do we support the DNR because we want to hold it over their head?
Man! This has got to change! The 2 areas that I think we should be focusing on are 1) Change of current spearing regs and 2) Education
I certainly don't think that we as a club can change all of the current spearers mindset but if we can change the way they see and think about musky in a new way and how really fragile of a resource they are then we may be able to sway some. Most important though are changing the current spearing regs.
I personally don't agree with the mindset that since the current fishing regs. say it's ok to kill a musky per day or keep 50 perch per day that we automatically need to. I make a concious descision to release all musky that are over the 42" size limit. I also may choose to keep less than a full limit if gills when ice fishing or open water fishing if I know the lake I'm fishing can't handle it. And believe me, I've witnessed several smaller lakes that have been severly decimated by over harvest of big gills. This is where the education comes in.
The DNR fishing regs. should be a dynamic set of rules that is constantly being monitored and changes made were need be.
Again, the problem isn't spearing the problem is the ability for anyone to take more than one fish each year (license period).
Trying to change spearing regs would only result in a fight between user groups. Been there, done that… didn't get a t-shirt but got dragged through the mud on television.
Any change needs to impact all user groups equally. The only way I can see this working goes back to something we've been talking about for more than ten years – a muskie tag. Just like the sturgeon tag it must be in your possession if you are fishing for muskies. It also can't cost anything extra with the normal license.
"Will Schultz" said:
Maybe it's time to go over the DNR and straight to the legislature to reduce the harvest of muskellunge.
[smilie=woot.gif] What if an online proposal was written up where anyone could sign it? You see these all the time on 1st. Strength in numbers.
"Bomba" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]MMAs given tens of thousands to the DNR. I knew it was eventually going to come to these types of questions so I have to ask…Do we support the DNR to make the fishery better or do we support the DNR because we want to hold it over their head?
BOTH!!!!!!!!
Agreed. We don't support them only to hold it over their heads, but you would think we would have SOME leverage. It's not even split fairly right now. They get to spear over 50% of the lakes. How does THAT work? [smilie=eek7.gif]
Will, I disagree! If the problem didn't revolve around spearing then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. The problem does revolve around the spearing of musky and how open water anglers have the ability to release a fish where as the speared fish doesn't do as well when released. It also involves how fragile of a resourse the musky is and what should the musky catch and keep limit be per angler per year be?
A change in number of fish kept per outing, per year, etc.. is indeed a fish regulation change. I think most agree that the changes that need to be made are either a musky spearing ban on more of the musky waters or a tag system where one can spear a noted amount, 1 or 2 per year come to mind. The increased ban on musky spearing will be a long and uphill battle. The musky tag system is the way to go.
So how does the MMA go about proposing this and making it happen is the question.
"TimD" said:
Will, I disagree! If the problem didn't revolve around spearing then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
Tim, I'm not saying spearing is going to become my favorite method of catching muskies but let me ask a couple questions:
Do you really think that a spearing ban will have a huge impact on harvest numbers?
Doesn't all the open water harvest have an impact on the fishery?
How about the guy that killed 9 muskies one summer on Six Mile in Antrim County? That wasn't using a spear and a spearing ban on that water wouldn't have helped lessen the damage done on that water. We can't blame the method of harvest.
This conversation surrounds spearing because that started the topic. I wish I had the data to back this up but I don't so I'll have to state this as opinion; There are more muskies harvested each year by open water anglers than there are by spearing. I'm not talking delayed mortality, I'm talking harvest.
The problem I see in this thread isn't that someone is allowed to take a fish using a spear. The problem is they are allowed to take one fish per day. I see the same person with three adult muskies in the spearing photos from Austin, now imagine that he was only allowed one fish.
Spearing could be opened statewide (with some exceptions like brood or research waters) if everyone (anglers and spearers) were limited to one or two fish annually.
"Will Schultz" said:
There's no reason this species shouldn't be protected like sturgeon. These aren't trout, salmon or walleye…
"Will Schultz" said:
The only way I can see this working goes back to something we've been talking about for more than ten years – a muskie tag. Just like the sturgeon tag…
Right on… Right on… Right on…
144
31
1 Guest(s)