"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.
Sorry guys, I know this is an old topic.
However, I didn't see this comment get addressed by anyone. And I agree 1,000%
"LonLB" said:
[quote="Mike Stinson"]
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.
Sorry guys, I know this is an old topic.
However, I didn't see this comment get addressed by anyone. And I agree 1,000%
I understand the opinion but I don't think anyone working on our regulations proposal thought this was an issue at all.
Again, one tag only , no size limit. Stop the spearing and sticking back down the hole of sub legals. One fish per angler and that angler has to be the one shooting. No wife and 5 kids tags. Must have license to get tag 16 or older. If we cant get a one tag then I say ban spearing altogether or close the season dec 15 th till May 1st. Mike
I realize this is an old topic but I never commented the first time around. Personally I believe sacrifising our lakes currently with a spearing ban would be a huge mistake. I'll use Murray as an example. People all over the state have heard of the muskies in this lake and if the ban is lifted a few spear chuckers are bound to show up. In a lake this size if even just a few extra big fish are harvested each year it will dramatically change the fishing. I keep going to murray not because I know I'll see a bunch of a 36-42 inch fish but because I know that I"ll be fishing to multiple 44-50 inch fish. If a bunch of those fish are taken out I doubt I would want to go as much. We've seen what happens when a spearing ban is lifted at Austin and that once the word is out people will come and the fishery will be changed for the worse. On a smaller lake like murray where theplaces to spear are limited and obvious it could be much worse.
As muskie culture continues to change across the US and Canada its becoming more and more apparent that spearing has no place in muskie management and rather than trying to compromise I think we really need to take a stand on the issue and push for more spearing ban lakes and no spearing of muskies period. We have science on our side and surely there are those in the DNR that realize this and would support us. The darkhouse guys from a biological standpoint have no case and we shouldn't be willing to allow them more oppurtunities even if it does result in a tag system.
The tag system will be abused just like the deer tag system. People will spear fish on other peoples tags, reuse tags, etc. Short fish will continue to be speared on purpose or by accident. I kinda doubt many guys are taking more that 2 fish on average anyways but even a dozen guys taking one big female each is far too many fish killed for many lakes to handle stocked or not.
Almost everyone here would LOVE to magically end all muskie spearing. We know that science and logical management are on our side, but we also know that's impossible right now.
No system will ever be perfect – there will always be abusers, no matter what the regulations may be – but the potential implementation of a tag system would be an AMAZING step amidst a long and slow process. Politics are reality.
I support the tags!
One thing I would like to see….If there was some sort of harvest tag system, I would like to see penalties increased for abusing the use of those tags.
I assume killing a deer with no tag is a major penalty. So should killing a musky with no tag.
Speaking of deer….There are more deer, by thousands, they easily reproduce, and the opportunity FAR outweigh those to catch muskies, and yet you can currently harvest nearly 150 times as many Muskies in a season as you can deer.
I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't support the tag system or thought tags were a bad Idea. Anything that might reduce harvest is good and tags would be a step in the right direction. The original question, however, was would I support sacrifising our lakes with a spearing ban if it meant getting the tag system and the answer for me at least is NO.
As far as it being "impossible" to further regulate spearing due to politics I guess I have no idea why that is or should be the case. Every other midwestern state has made tighter muskie regulation a reality and their fisheries have improved. I would be emberassed to be a policy maker in Michigan and have to ignore this trend and have to defend a tradition that is not biologically sound. It is not like we only want it for social reasons, the science overwhelmingly supports it.
I never understood how Michigan as a state can be so different from other states in that it is so hard to and even said to be "impossible" to further regulate or ban muskie spearing due to politics yet there are other states that have no problems at all getting stricter regulations on muskie harvest. Hell, some states even regulate harvest of northerns with the simple goal of creating trophy pike fisheries…how can Michigan be so different?
"MattG_braith" said:
I never understood how Michigan as a state can be so different from other states in that it is so hard to and even said to be "impossible" to further regulate or ban muskie spearing due to politics yet there are other states that have no problems at all getting stricter regulations on muskie harvest. Hell, some states even regulate harvest of northerns with the simple goal of creating trophy pike fisheries…how can Michigan be so different?
Thats always been my biggest question also. And suprise suprise, these other states that implement these stricter regulations have considerably better fishing opportunities.
"MattG_braith" said:
I never understood how Michigan as a state can be so different from other states in that it is so hard to and even said to be "impossible" to further regulate or ban muskie spearing due to politics yet there are other states that have no problems at all getting stricter regulations on muskie harvest. Hell, some states even regulate harvest of northerns with the simple goal of creating trophy pike fisheries…how can Michigan be so different?
…And I think you're getting to the heart of Duke's suggestion for how you/we could speak to the public comment period for muskellunge and northern pike.
I apologize for the dumb questions but….
What is the "Blackhorse Group"? (I think I saw some of you mention in in this thread)
Who makes the decision to change the regulations?
What politics? Is there really "politics" in the DNR?
I just can't get my head around the fact that they are willing to stock Musky in lakes, are working to create new fishing opportunities, but then they have regulations in place that are counterproductive to their management efforts.
I know a couple members of the Darkhouse Association who are avid pike spearfisherman who do it for food but are also 100% against spearing muskie. Im not sure how rare these people are compared to the majority of the spearing community but would it be worth trying to get thru to this Darkhouse Association to get them to support our cause? Or do you guys think this would mostly be a lost cause and that most of them would disagree with us?
"MattG_braith" said:
I know a couple members of the Darkhouse Association who are avid pike spearfisherman who do it for food but are also 100% against spearing muskie. Im not sure how rare these people are compared to the majority of the spearing community but would it be worth trying to get thru to this Darkhouse Association to get them to support our cause? Or do you guys think this would mostly be a lost cause and that most of them would disagree with us?
The problem is their leader and his refusal to work with anyone. I'll bet there are a number of members that don't spear muskies and don't think it should be allowed or at least tightly regulated.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="MattG_braith"]I know a couple members of the Darkhouse Association who are avid pike spearfisherman who do it for food but are also 100% against spearing muskie. Im not sure how rare these people are compared to the majority of the spearing community but would it be worth trying to get thru to this Darkhouse Association to get them to support our cause? Or do you guys think this would mostly be a lost cause and that most of them would disagree with us?
The problem is their leader and his refusal to work with anyone. I'll bet there are a number of members that don't spear muskies and don't think it should be allowed or at least tightly regulated.
How could a spearing advocate group have some sort of political pull within the DNR when it's obvious that spearing should NOT be taking place.
"LonLB" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"][quote="MattG_braith"]I know a couple members of the Darkhouse Association who are avid pike spearfisherman who do it for food but are also 100% against spearing muskie. Im not sure how rare these people are compared to the majority of the spearing community but would it be worth trying to get thru to this Darkhouse Association to get them to support our cause? Or do you guys think this would mostly be a lost cause and that most of them would disagree with us?
The problem is their leader and his refusal to work with anyone. I'll bet there are a number of members that don't spear muskies and don't think it should be allowed or at least tightly regulated.
How could a spearing advocate group have some sort of political pull within the DNR when it's obvious that spearing should NOT be taking place.
I'm not sure that is a fair statement. It is their right to defend their opinion – right?
326
10