Say we are able to try this tag system. Would there be any way to tell how many people target muskie each year, and how many were actually harvested? Say the tag was an extra $1. Everyone can afford a dollar. But for that extra dollar, people who wouldn't target muskies wouldn't buy it. Picture this: Bass/walleye guy goes to buy his fishing lisence and he is asked,"Do you need a muskie tag for $1?" He will say no, because he just isn't a muskie fisherman. $1 in our eyes is poo. But no one will spend it if they for sure KNOW they won't use it. Now, we take the amount of sold tags. 200,000 let's say. Of those 200,000, we'll assume 10,000 legal muskies were caught. Maybe now, we can say to the DNR,"If everyone took full advantages of their RIGHTS to keep a legal muskie, we would be short 10,000 adult fish every year. So why are we giving out rights that our lakes can't support?"
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
Say we are able to try this tag system. Would there be any way to tell how many people target muskie each year, and how many were actually harvested? Say the tag was an extra $1. Everyone can afford a dollar. But for that extra dollar, people who wouldn't target muskies wouldn't buy it. Picture this: Bass/walleye guy goes to buy his fishing lisence and he is asked,"Do you need a muskie tag for $1?" He will say no, because he just isn't a muskie fisherman. $1 in our eyes is poo. But no one will spend it if they for sure KNOW they won't use it. Now, we take the amount of sold tags. 200,000 let's say. Of those 200,000, we'll assume 10,000 legal muskies were caught. Maybe now, we can say to the DNR,"If everyone took full advantages of their RIGHTS to keep a legal muskie, we would be short 10,000 adult fish every year. So why are we giving out rights that our lakes can't support?"
Nope, it would have to be free. However, the DNR has used terminal/online sales to ask questions about how sportsmen use the resources.
Problem is, if it was free, everyone would just take one "cause it's free". There would be no way to get an accurate number of how many people are interested in muskies. When I'm at a restaurant and they say,"Would you like to add cheese to your hamburger for $.10?". I say,"No thanks". But if they would say,"You want to add cheese? It's Free!". Well, hot-dog! Of course! That's why I'm using the figure of a dollar. It's nothing for someone who fishes muskie, but no one just wants to give it out for nothing.
"Will Schultz" said:
…the problem is the ability for anyone to take more than one fish each year (license period).
"Will Schultz" said:
…The problem is they are allowed to take one fish per day.
"Will Schultz" said:
I see the same person with three adult muskies in the spearing photos from Austin, now imagine that he was only allowed one fish.
"hemichemi" said:
I like the idea of stamps, but I don't imagine issuing muskie stamps will be cost-free to the DNR. How do you envision they'll come up with the extra money needed to fund the program?
I need to find out exactly what the plastic licenses cost and then find out how many licenses are purchased at terminals and how many online. The online tags wouldn't cost the DNR anything. I also need to research associated expenses with putting something like this into the system. This all needs to be done before any proposal is made.
Guess I need to get to work…
Never been on the Darkhouse site. Is the forum (if they have it) like ours. If your are not a member can you get into the general site and not into the members site. If it is like ours has anybody gone under a different name and asked, has your organization raised funds or helped the DNR to raise more muskies to replace the ones taken, cause they don't re-produce well?
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Chasin50"][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?
Respectfully, I am not trying to hold anything over the DNR's head. I am thrilled with all that the DNR has done for the fishery. And I am proud to be a part of MMA and contribute to the improvements WE have made to the resource. But why should we sit back and let a bunch of folks who live in a defferent era do NOTHING (that i am aware of). What do they do to improve the resource?
This isn't about what we do, it's about what the otheres do not do. It shouldn't be a "we put", and "they take" fishery…
I totally agree with everybody on the effects of spearing for muskies and the fact that the only contrubution the spearers give is their license money. And sometimes I think thats whats more important to this state is easy money, like license fees. Okay one thing though this is similar to alot of arguments between sportsman like bird hunters vs. trappers, bowhunters vs. gun hunters, etc. Its hard to make everybody happy.
Well its 630pm sunday evening and I am sitting in the parking lot at Austin and we just had a guy walk by our truck with a Muskie sticking out of a garbage bag over his shoulder. When I asked what he got he said "a 42" Muskie, it scared the hell out of me but I got it. Well free fishing weekend is coming to a close-but i will be back next week".
This is rediculous.
"mskyprey" said:
Well its 630pm sunday evening and I am sitting in the parking lot at Austin and we just had a guy walk by our truck with a Muskie sticking out of a garbage bag over his shoulder. When I asked what he got he said "a 42" Muskie, it scared the hell out of me but I got it. Well free fishing weekend is coming to a close-but i will be back next week".This is rediculous.
Nice
Yeah this sort of thing pretty much blows. You do get a bit numb to it in time like John said…not that you approve or anything, but you just come to expect it as a nasty fact of life. Just pretend that you own a cabin on South Man Lake, or a few other northern waters, then by comparison nothing will be as frustrating!
When I first moved to Midland I was floored that single individuals were bragging about spearing 30+ fish in a season (most undersized)…but then word spread and supposedly the chain was 'patrolled' (if 1-2 trips by a CO per year qualifies) for a few years, not much, but I think it did get most folks to start obeying the laws. Even then, there are stretches during the winter when an astonishing number of legals are on the move and become very succeptable. Some blessed years, this happens when we have bad ice I think. Folks further north are not so lucky. Hopefully you guys make enough noise down there to get the DNR awareness where it should be. The problem is that when people broadcast their successes online (especially on MI Sportsman), spearers tend to flock…and believe me you don't want these middle-to-northern MI pitchforkers to come running down to your neck of woods! If they hear of clear, shallow water and real solid numbers of fish, they will come!
If everyone doesn't mind, a few extra emails to some bonus DNR folks wouldn't hurt, just to let them know what you've seen and heard. Although they aren't in the SW district, they fall into one or more of the following classes and could still contribute: 1) they are on the esocid committe and have shown an interest in hearing 'our side', 2) they need more data to convince them harvest is a legit limiting factor in with muskies, or 3) they are personally in favor of stricter regulations (i.e. increased size limits) and more ammo will help them with their cause. Just express your concern for this longlived, slow growing species and mention that, like all tagging/radio tracking data has shown and will continue to show, these fish are harvested at a rate that is limiting population density and maximum size. I almost never mention spearing in particular anymore BTW…just focus on increasing size limits due to the number of fish that get removed with our embarrasingly long harvest season. They've probably heard enough from the squeaky wheels up here over the years…a few new faces politely filling their inbox could be a good thing! Between all the fish that have been taken this year (Margrethe, Austin, Titt chain, South Man, other yoop lakes, etc), it would be a good time to get a united voice out there.
not a full list, but a decent start –
Kregg Smith – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Chuck Payment – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Donald Barnard – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jim Baker – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Mike Herman – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Tim Cwalinski – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Kathrin Schrouder – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steve Sendek – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Mark Mylchreest – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I didnt mention that he said he speared it, and was in too much of a hurry to show it off..
I realize that when the DNR sponsors stocking it stocks for harvest as a general rule of thumb. They also set limits and rules in effect to promote the fishery and maximize short term and long term opportunities for license holders and what I saw today this it will be shorter than longer.
They are spearing right over top of the few home range areas on the lake and as shallow as the lake is it wont be long a few years if that.
Thanks for the insight Pete, today was the first day I have had free time in weeks to relax and see what was going on..good advice on letter content as well and I will start with the DNR tomorrow.
"Chasin50" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"][quote="Chasin50"]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?
Respectfully, I am not trying to hold anything over the DNR's head. I am thrilled with all that the DNR has done for the fishery. And I am proud to be a part of MMA and contribute to the improvements WE have made to the resource. But why should we sit back and let a bunch of folks who live in a defferent era do NOTHING (that i am aware of). What do they do to improve the resource?
This isn't about what we do, it's about what the otheres do not do. It shouldn't be a "we put", and "they take" fishery…
Nothing, this is America… you know, the land of the free and the home of the entitled. The fish are there and it is everyones right to harvest what they want within the law until the species is gone. Then it is everyones right to complain that "someone" should do something about the lack of fish.
99% of people will never do anything to improve natural resources. It's up to 1% to work their butt off and spend the money to make things better for everyone.
"Corey K" said:
Okay one thing though this is similar to alot of arguments between sportsman like bird hunters vs. trappers, bowhunters vs. gun hunters, etc. Its hard to make everybody happy.
This is exactly like that if we let feelings about certain harvest types vs. another cloud what is truly the concern. The fishery is the concern and the only equitabe options are an increased size limit or a reduced bag limit for all anglers and spearers.
Aside from phone calls & writing members of the MI DNRE, can the MMA draft a proposal around increasing the size limit and/or reducing harvest with data supporting why this is important in protecting the Muskie fishery for all and present this to the DNR as an alliance with one voice. I'm sure our members have alot of data we could use and many have reached out to the DNR in the past and have been successful at creating the fishery we have today. I just think we could accomplish more as one united front and I would like to be a part of the 1% that is working toward positive changes.
144
28
1 Guest(s)