"Mike Stinson" said:
Why does this 2 tag concept have to open up spearing on all waters in Michigan? Why can this not stand on its own?
Find me another compromise to consider if a two tag bag limit was taken to the table. MMA and the darkhouse group would need to work together to get something like this through the legislature. To put it simply, the spearing group is always looking for more "opportunity" and we're always looking for more restrictive harvest. If we're simply giving up the lakes on Fisheries Order 220 we would gain much more than we would loose. For instance here are the lakes currently on FO 220 many of these are old tiger lakes that don't need protection any longer:
County – Lake(s)
Allegan – Osterhout
Alpena – Fletcher Floodwaters
Barry – Fish
Cheboygan – Cornwall Impoundment, Tower Pond
Chippewa – Caribou
Clare – Budd
Clinton – Ovid
Delta – Dana
Iron – Brule, Cable, Chicagon, Chief Edwards, Emily, Paint, Paint Pd, Porter, Stanley, Violet
Kent – Campau, Murray
Keweenaw – Gratiot Lake
Lapeer – Nepessing
Livingston – Whitmore, Woodland
Mackinac – Brevort
Marquette – Fish
Montmorency – Fletcher Floodwaters, West Twin
Muskegon – Mona
Oakland – Heron, Tipsico
Otsego – Otsego
Ottawa – Lake Macatawa
St. Joseph – Long
Schoolcraft – Big Bass, Grassy, McKeever
Van Buren – Bankson, Brownwood, Round
Washtenaw – Whitmore
As with all of our current lakes this could be changed by "special regulation" for trophy water, broodstock, etc. Also keep in mind that the legislature has been giving up control with many of the new regulations. For instance on the recent spearing season change the new regulation gave the DNR control over the season. Meaning the legislature doesn't have control any longer and the regs can be changed by DNR directors order.
"Will Schultz" said:
the legislature doesn't have control any longer and the regs can be changed by DNR directors order.
Which has me then totally baffled why they don't restrict the harvest of muskies more. Jim Kelly (?) said himself at one of our meetings that he wishes all fishing clubs were as helpful as ours. He knows that the muskie research and stocking $$ are quickly falling down the crapper. Why would the DNR not keep the clubs happy that contribute the most to the fishery? What benefit does the DNR receive from the spearers? It seems all they do is pay their lowsy $18 or whatever it is, and take take take. Why can't they take pike? All we want is BIG fish. All they want is dinner on the table.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Larry Porter"]I think at this point I would just be in favor of a closed season from Dec. 1 or 15 to the last Saturday in April. The importance of muskies has exploded in the last ten years.
Back door elimination of spearing, eh? I've played that angle for years and it will never fly, it's way too obvious and they would have a fit. One good thing is that we (MMA) have a much better relationship with the DNR than the MI Darkhouse group. 
How can we eliminate overharvest with regulations appyling to all sportsmen using the resource? Personally, I'm just as concerned about the person that catches a few 45" fish while walleye fishing and keeping them as I am the guy that spears three 45" fish.
Would imposing a seasonal bag limit of two have the same impact as tags? Regardless of enforcement issues wouldn't the tag system emphasize the importance of the muskie fishery?
Agreed. Mike
I’m not trying to go against the grain on this but as I stated before I personally would like to see any statistical or scientific data that would show the benefit of doing this.
"Will Schultz" said:
If we're simply giving up the lakes on Fisheries Order 220 we would gain much more than we would loose.
Again for me without supporting facts this would only be an opinion, and you have always been the one to say that decisions should be made based on facts and not opinions.
"Will Schultz" said:
Meaning the legislature doesn't have control any longer and the regs can be changed by DNR directors order.
At this point I’m in the same boat as Jim and feeling a bit baffled about who’s making the decisions, Will could you explain to us why this would have to go to legislature, and not the DNR directors?
"Will Schultz" said:
Find me another compromise to consider if a two tag bag limit was taken to the table. MMA and the darkhouse group would need to work together to get something like this through the legislature.
I do not feel that opening up more opportunities for the spearing of Muskies is a compromise that the MMA should be willing to put on the table. Bottom line for me is simple, I will not support the spearing of Muskies, and working with the Darkhouse group to get this through legislature just doesn’t sit well for me. Something else that I’m also thinking about is that if these additional lakes are opened up to those people that have been geographically restricted to only spearing pike ie SW Mi, isn’t it feasible to think that the Darkhouse group would only grow stronger in the future?
Would imposing a seasonal bag limit of two have the same impact as tags? Regardless of enforcement issues wouldn't the tag system emphasize the importance of the muskie fishery?
Here’s my last thought on your questions: I would view these harvest tags as a negative in comparison to a seasonal bag limit. For everyone out there that hunts, a tag has always given us the right to kill something in order to control the population (buck, doe, bear, elk, turkey…). I feel that if you give each angler 2 harvest tags when they buy their fishing license it’s going to be harder for us as a group to convince people on and off the water of the importance of actually letting the fish go. I have a feeling that the mentality will shift to: well the DNR knows more than this guy otherwise they would not have given me these kill tags.
"Mike Stinson" said:
I’m not trying to go against the grain on this but as I stated before I personally would like to see any statistical or scientific data that would show the benefit of doing this.
I know and I'm not picking on you at all. I'm sure others have a similar opinion and I'm not saying that my opinion might not be the same as yours.
"Will Schultz" said:
If we're simply giving up the lakes on Fisheries Order 220 we would gain much more than we would loose.
"Mike Stinson" said:
Again for me without supporting facts this would only be an opinion, and you have always been the one to say that decisions should be made based on facts and not opinions.
Fact and opinion is much different than saying science or feelings. I know it sounds like semantics but it's not. Science is what should drive decisions and much of science, especially related to fisheries management, is based on opinion.
The facts that drive this opinion:
– Currently anyone (angler or spear) can harvest one muskie per day.
– If a harvest tag(s) were used that would limit the possible annual harvest as no angler or spearer would be allowed to harvest more than two muskies annually.
"Will Schultz" said:
Meaning the legislature doesn't have control any longer and the regs can be changed by DNR directors order.
"Mike Stinson" said:
At this point I’m in the same boat as Jim and feeling a bit baffled about who’s making the decisions, Will could you explain to us why this would have to go to legislature, and not the DNR directors?
That quote speaks specifically to the extension of the spearing season and to no other regulations. All other fishing regulations are still controlled and need to be voted in by the legislature. Meaning the spearing season can now be changed by an order from the director if the fisheries division decides an change is needed.
"Will Schultz" said:
Find me another compromise to consider if a two tag bag limit was taken to the table. MMA and the darkhouse group would need to work together to get something like this through the legislature.
"Mike Stinson" said:
I do not feel that opening up more opportunities for the spearing of Muskies is a compromise that the MMA should be willing to put on the table. Bottom line for me is simple, I will not support the spearing of Muskies, and working with the Darkhouse group to get this through legislature just doesn’t sit well for me. Something else that I’m also thinking about is that if these additional lakes are opened up to those people that have been geographically restricted to only spearing pike ie SW Mi, isn’t it feasible to think that the Darkhouse group would only grow stronger in the future?
Trust me, they're trying to get everything opened already and it's possible they'll succeed. Would MMA rather see all the lakes opened to spearing w/ one fish per day as the lilmit or a seasonal bag limit of two? Now we get into the "feelings" of this whole deal. Sportsmen have been fighting each other over methods for years… fly vs. bait, troller vs. caster, those who fish for fish on beds vs. those who don't, etc, etc.
How are we any better than someone else?
Would imposing a seasonal bag limit of two have the same impact as tags? Regardless of enforcement issues wouldn't the tag system emphasize the importance of the muskie fishery?
"Mike Stinson" said:
Here’s my last thought on your questions: I would view these harvest tags as a negative in comparison to a seasonal bag limit. For everyone out there that hunts, a tag has always given us the right to kill something in order to control the population (buck, doe, bear, elk, turkey…). I feel that if you give each angler 2 harvest tags when they buy their fishing license it’s going to be harder for us as a group to convince people on and off the water of the importance of actually letting the fish go. I have a feeling that the mentality will shift to: well the DNR knows more than this guy otherwise they would not have given me these kill tags.
That is a legitimate concern that has been expressed each time this has been talked about. Would people view those tags as someting they needed to fill or that they should fill? For this reason I would prefer to see this tag given upon request. When someone buys a license the person asks if they would like the tag(s) which must be in their possesion to fish for muskies (the tags are free). This would allow some data to be collected as well.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]the legislature doesn't have control any longer and the regs can be changed by DNR directors order.
Which has me then totally baffled why they don't restrict the harvest of muskies more. Jim Kelly (?) said himself at one of our meetings that he wishes all fishing clubs were as helpful as ours. He knows that the muskie research and stocking $$ are quickly falling down the crapper. Why would the DNR not keep the clubs happy that contribute the most to the fishery? What benefit does the DNR receive from the spearers? It seems all they do is pay their lowsy $18 or whatever it is, and take take take. Why can't they take pike? All we want is BIG fish. All they want is dinner on the table.
The DNR doesn't have the ability to change the bag limit regs without going through the legislature. They now have the ability to change the spearing season because it was written into the change when the legislature approved the new season.
However, Kelley Smith wasn't saying that we deserved special treatment for our committment to the fishery.
How are we any better than someone else? Does making an effort to improve the resource give us rights that others shouldn't have? Could we actually look at ourselves in the mirror and say because they spear that they don't deserve to use the resource? That scares me on so many levels. What if they came back and said "angling is limiting their spearing opportunity and should be eliminated". Why? Any fish that dies from being C&R'd is a waste of the resource. At least when they spear a fish it is being used and not wasted.
Boy… Tough Question… I don't think any of us have all of the data or scientific understanding to be able to assess who would fare better as far as the Open vs. Hard water anglers. Perhaps not even the DNR??? The question is, as a whole, would the Muskie benefit as a population. Some lakes may be hurt, some lakes may be helped…. But would the population as a whole benefit? Can this be answered? Is there enough data to even speculate?
Without reams of data and a lot of analysis, I think this gets more political than anything, and we are probably talking about the perception of who gets what more than what is necessarily factual.
I am with most of you in understanding we will likely not see an outright ban, nor even drastic change in spearing regs in one fell swoop. Any “improvement” will have to be incremental and carried out over time. As long as we are moving toward regs that decrease winter harvest, harvest of undersize fish, and harvest of incidental catches, I am on board.
Is this a short term "loss" (perceived expanded spearing regs) that positions us to "horse trade" in the future to "get something back", or get something we would like to see changed in the policy? Could we tie to this, or petition later for changes such as more designated trophy water, higher size limits, spearing removed from natural lakes, etc?
I would really like to see this handled as Will described where people would be asked if they would like a tag, not just given one automatically. I would think this would reduce incidental catch and keep…
I think a change like this could do a couple things…
– It would draw attention to the importance of the Muskie (balance in ecosystem and importance to economy?)
– I personally think it would help reduce spearing harvest.
– I do not think it would draw attention to, and create an increase in spear fisherman.
– If a guy was a spearing and open water fisherman, it could cause him to think twice about the spear if he was thinking of targeting and keeping open water caught fish.
– I think it would be on the surface sending a puzzling signal to the rest of the Muskie world… Michigan is expanding spearing regs? (Perception)
In the end, I feel like we need to understand how the muskie would benefit with supporting data or science, OR understand the thinking behind how MMA and the open water C&R community would benefit from this change.
If we support this, are we positioning for reg changes in the near future that will truly address the kind of change we need?
"Chasin50" said:
Boy… Tough Question… I don't think any of us have all of the data or scientific understanding to be able to assess who would fare better as far as the Open vs. Hard water anglers. Perhaps not even the DNR??? The question is, as a whole, would the Muskie benefit as a population. Some lakes may be hurt, some lakes may be helped…. But would the population as a whole benefit? Can this be answered? Is there enough data to even speculate?
I think this comes down to very simple math and not lots of data collection. As Ross Perot would say "If you see a snake, just kill it – don't appoint a committee on snakes." If we have 750,000 fishing license holders they can potentially harvest 300+ muskies each/annually for a total of 225,000,000+. If each of those people were allowed two harvest tags (or the bag limit was changed to 2/season) the possible harvest is reduced to 1,500,000 a reduction of more than 223.5 million.
"Chasin50" said:
In the end, I feel like we need to understand how the muskie would benefit with supporting data or science, OR understand the thinking behind how MMA and the open water C&R community would benefit from this change.
See above.
"Chasin50" said:
If we support this, are we positioning for reg changes in the near future that will truly address the kind of change we need?
What kind of changes do we truly need?
I can honestly say that I don't have my finger on the pulse of MMA. For nine years I've done what I think MMA members would support but I don't know what MMA members really want out of the muskie fishery in Michigan.
I think you have been representing the population just dandy. This is a journey though…
What do we want? Utopia Willburr….
Fishable populations within a reasonble driving distance from our home – wink wink…
Increeased trophy potential within the state
Increased stocking numbers and lakes
No spearing (or at the least spearing on P&T lakes only)
Higher size limits
Other means of protecting natural fisheries
I like the idea of offering the tags to people when purchasing the licenses. One thing that scares me is people feeling they need to fill the tags, possibly creating more people to intentionally harvest fish.
Will, I feel you do a great job representing MMA. This is a big subject, and not surprisingly peoples views will be different.
I have been reading all these post's and know this is a can of worms, so here I go and I'm not the greatest at this. We all have a passion for catching and protecting these fish. We all worry when we catch one to do the right things as fast as possible and get them back on there way. You always wonder are they o.k. or did they go somewhere and die. If you use a spear there is no going back, it's over!
You don't hear this in MN. & WI., people complaing about muskies are eating all are pan fish and walleye. Here they do and what is really happening is the people taking over there limit every day. How many fish a day does a musky eat 1, maybe 2. Fisherman 25 to 50 or more. How do you change there attitude's about muskies?
Pike seem to re-produce alot better than muskies. Why not let them spear pike and no spearing of muskie, they don't let them go nuts on spearing sturgeon, in fact it's a lottery. If you want to catch a muskie do it on a tip-up and if it is to small you can get it back and going again. Which leads me back to a can of worms, you can't get them back in and I don't know what the right answer is, so I'm back to square one!
"Will Schultz" said:
That is a legitimate concern that has been expressed each time this has been talked about. Would people view those tags as someting they needed to fill or that they should fill? For this reason I would prefer to see this tag given upon request. When someone buys a license the person asks if they would like the tag(s) which must be in their possesion to fish for muskies (the tags are free). This would allow some data to be collected as well.
Here's a question: Let's say we stock approximately 50,000 fish/year. 5% of those fish survive to reach 42". That's 2,500 fish per year. (This is just a guess on my part) Why not let out a percentage of that 2,500 as tags that may be filled? Of course all of you can see where I'm going with this "limited amount of tags" idea…..
As much as I hate to say it, we probably need the spears. At least thier voices that is. Muskie fishing of any kind is a small group and with the state's economy the muskie program could be cut at any time. The more "voices" there are, the more the program might survive.
I believe the spears are on the same highway we are. More and bigger muskies! Maybe we all need to work together?? I believe education for all types of muskie fishing will be the best tool for a brighter future. [smilie=2c.gif]
"Chasin50" said:
I feel like there is "more to the story"… Will, is the more to this? Is there a broader agenda? Or, is this question pertaining to a stand alone scenario?
No, this is just as stated. The only back story is (to my surprise) that this is something that would be considered by the DNR as a management tool. There are two things that are major hurdles though:
– associated costs with any change
– would the spearing community be in favor (this is where the give and take comes in… would they give up one per day and support two per season if allowed to spear more waters) the DNR would like to see both user groups work together, so much so that it even made it into the management plan
I'm going fishing.
"kid coulson" said:
I believe the spears are on the same highway we are. More and bigger muskies! Maybe we all need to work together?? I believe education for all types of muskie fishing will be the best tool for a brighter future. [smilie=2c.gif]
This is a good point here Kid, but I gotta say my problem with most spearers is that they are selfish. They don't practice conservation at all. There are a lot of them up here that just spear anything close to legal and wouldn't let one go for the other guy or so they could possibly get it when it's bigger. I only know a couple guys that let legal size fish swim occasionally… so maybe they have some of the same wants as us, but they need to be able to give something up to get better fisheries.
I think our club is ready to work with them but are they ready to work with us? As far as I can see they just want to take, take, take. We fund the stocking and the research and they ask for less restrictive reg's.
Would there be any correlation to the number of fish planted-to tag numbers or special restrictions for lakes that rely on stocking? I know what I am inferring relates mainly to stocked lakes.
If lake X has not received fish for Y number of years, it would seem reasonable to restrict harvest by all means for a given time period, given an average growth rate. I know this is sounding kind of Canadian slot like but… I am sure Hemi could have it figured out in a matter of minutes. Different lakes might have different angling opportunities and strategies so the number allowed may vary lake to lake.
The decisions that I can see need to be made are those that determine if MI wants a quality fishery, or a esox fishery designed to feed hungry mouths. Stock and invest accordingly.
I support WI and MN rules, my MN relatives spear pike and avoid the Muskie lakes all together.
Just my 2 cents.
"Chasin50" said:
I think you have been representing the population just dandy. This is a journey though…What do we want? Utopia Willburr….
Fishable populations within a reasonble driving distance from our home – wink wink…
Increeased trophy potential within the state
Increased stocking numbers and lakes
No spearing (or at the least spearing on P&T lakes only)
Higher size limits
Other means of protecting natural fisheries
Well spoken Chad.
"mskyprey" said:
Would there be any correlation to the number of fish planted-to tag numbers or special restrictions for lakes that rely on stocking? I know what I am inferring relates mainly to stocked lakes.If lake X has not received fish for Y number of years, it would seem reasonable to restrict harvest by all means for a given time period, given an average growth rate. I know this is sounding kind of Canadian slot like but… I am sure Hemi could have it figured out in a matter of minutes. Different lakes might have different angling opportunities and strategies so the number allowed may vary lake to lake.
No, this would need to be statewide. I see where you want to go with this but in all honesty there is no scientific reason to have a size limit higher than it is now on the stocked waters. Size limits on stocked waters are socially driven and have little to do with science. Unfortunately that size limit is not protecting many natural waters.
368
16
1 Guest(s)