"robhj" said:
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.
I agree 100% and that has been the idea of MMA all along (the A is for alliance after all). Making contact once in a while individually is a good idea but doesn't have the same impact as when it comes as an official communication from MMA and all of the members. Lots of individual contact can also have the opposite impact we would desire as some people think dealing w/ a bunch of e-mail is more difficult than dealing with one e-mail from an organization. I've always pushed for all contact concerning the fishery to go through the MMA president (not because it's me but whoever the president happens to be in the future). It should then be up to the president to call on the members when the time is right to drop an e-mail/phone call storm.
Anyone that is interested in helping to build a case for reduced harvest, through a tag system, just needs to contact me.
"Steve S" said:
I take it a tag system is going to be the hardest thing to do, but the best. Would a state wide 50" size limit be easier to do, might not have the same results as the tag system, but it wouldn't hurt!
50" limit would be much more difficult. It was a battle getting a 50" limit on Thornapple and that's a broodstock lake.
I personally think having one or two meetings per year that are focused 100% on changing fishing regulations, size limit increase, tag system, education, etc. would be great. The meeting would be used to brainstorm ideas and come up with the possible solutions for the MMA. The meetings could even be seperate from our monthly meetings if need be.
I enjoy our regular monthly meetings but would be much more interested in helping to try and improve the musky fishery in the state of Michigan.
I should of also stated that alot of the time on these issues it seems like the least deserving party wins. How many bowhunters go into the field unprepared, tons, how many orange coats sight their guns in the day before the opener, how many duck hunters don't even know what a hen widgeon looks like, alot. Being on the ice everyday shows you what kind of sportsmen are in Michigan, empty beer cans, empty propane bottles, wrappers, etc, its sickening. We need more DNR period, where is all the money going from the increases in licenses? They probably sold a million doe permits this year, more archery licenses with the new crossbow crap, a million turkey permits, anyone can get a turkey permit over the counter pretty much, but yet they still offer these hunts for a drawing costing you 4 bucks, but the thing about our DNR is they are lazy IMO, they want to wait in parking lots, docks, not all of them but most. About Dnr doing on ice checks, forget it they are all at popular access sites on the bay writing tickets for no helmets and orv stickers, and trying to pin somebody for a fish 1/4in short. I know all of this isn't really on target with this dilema but I already typed it, we need tags similar to sturgeon spearing, a drawing, hey for money to go for stockings.
Good idea there Tim. Talk of outings and other business is very good, but these days I think most musky nuts in the state realize that the path to a better fishing future means demanding an ear from the DNR and pushing them to move at a pace that they aren't accustom too. Some will welcome it, most of the 'status quo' old timers probably will not.
Can you believe that 2 different folks who are members on the Esocid committee in the past year actually independantly said to me something to the effect of "…I'm surprised that your musky group isn't bugging us for an increase in size limits…"?!?! Maybe I've/we've been too quiet/cautious about that? Maybe we are underestimating some of them? Granted these are two of the most knowledgable musky guys on the committee, but still…makes me personally think that this is a good time to push them more than we have in the past, either individually, or as a group. Some of them will respond better to 20 different independent comments/concerns from all across the state…others may want a more formal 'MMA's stand' on the topic. For now, I say bombard them with both! With the 'surprisingly high mortality' (their words, not mine) observed from the tracking study, I think their minds are more open to new reg's than they were in the past, which may be why talk of higher size limits ever came up in our casual conversations. I honestly believe that if they were made aware of every musky removed from the state in a given year, by any means, they would be even more ready for change!
"Pete" said:
I honestly believe that if they were made aware of every musky removed from the state in a given year, by any means, they would be even more ready for change!
The tag system could give us this data couldn't it? I'm not sure how deer or sturgeon tags work but maybe the musky tag could incorporate an information section that the angler can fill out and send to the DNR. The info section could include where the fish was caught, how big the fish was, what time of the year it was caught, etc. I know there will be people who wouldn't send this in or people who will keep muskies after filling his/her musky tag but this would give the DNR at least some information.
144
9
1 Guest(s)