# Chumming the final outcome?



## Robert Holmes

Don't give your ideas to HSUS they will be out there collecting fish petitions soon.


----------



## Fishndude

Thanks for championing the cause, Ray; and for helping make sure that decisions of this type are made for the right reasons. 

FWIW, I have chummed, and will probably do it again. I don't always chum, and I catch fish with and without chumming. Sometimes it seems to make a difference. Sometimes I swear it makes fish more skittish, and less likely to bite. I have seen times when Steelhead swarmed a handful of loose eggs tossed into a river, but wouldn't touch tied spawnbags, or artificial single eggs. 

Chumming loose Salmon eggs for Steelhead is not new. Not even close. I know of guides who did it 25 - 30 years ago. And fishing was amazing back then. Who complains about having fought too many Steelhead in a day? 

Maybe we should start a petition to ban multiple separate hooks being fished in rivers? You know, 2-fly rigs. I don't know anyone who fishes with two spawnbags on separate hooks on their line (although I have often thought about it). I don't see "tandem" spinner rigs being used. A 2-fly rig is a fantastic snagging rig for anyone who has half a clue about getting a hook into a fish that is spawning in shallow fast water. How many times does "the other fly" get stuck in a fish somewhere they shouldn't be hooked, during the fight? Who can tell which hook hit paydirt first? We need to get rid of that nasty trick. :evilsmile


----------



## samsteel

REG said:


> Split, I want to thank you, also Don, the Steves (Mondrella and Hutchins) and Joe for sacrificing your time and efforts in being involved on the CWSC. As you pointed out, this issue likely would have passed through unchecked in the recent past.


 x2...thanks fellas.


----------



## TSS Caddis

mechanical head said:


> Thanks for the update Ray.. I don't want to be on the fence on this subject so I will admit, I have chummed, hunted over bait, shot grouse off a stump (with dogs on point) and fished gravel..... Bedding bluegills of course but hey anyone that knows me knows I like easy................


Is that the reason for the mask in your avatar?


----------



## TSS Caddis

Splitshot said:


> (MRGA) Our state is a destination for river fishers and we should begin managing it to protect our resources.


By destinatation they must mean Jethro driving up from Illinois to fish at Tippy in the fall cuz by my def. Michigan is hardly a destination fishery. Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, yes, Michigan, hardly unless you count the Indiana and Illinois slobs that come up to rip salmon every fall.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

TSS Caddis said:


> By destinatation they must mean Jethro driving up from Illinois to fish at Tippy in the fall cuz by my def. Michigan is hardly a destination fishery. Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, yes, Michigan, hardly unless you count the Indiana and Illinois slobs that come up to rip salmon every fall.


How is Michigan not considered a destination fishery? The sheer variety and access to so many options alone would interest people. Do Michigan anglers actually fish or just come on the internet to constantly rip our state? Some of you guys seem to be unhappy unless you get to whine about something.

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado have exactly what that we don't have?


----------



## TSS Caddis

Here is the test. When you fly into each of the states I listed you see people walking through the airport with rods because they traveled there to fish. When you see that in a Michigan airport it is people leaving to fish.

Michigan fishing is good, but it is a rare person that wakes up and says they dream of fishing Michigan one day.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shoeman

I would have to agree with Caddis

Even an 8 hour drive south provides a better fishery. Add all the BS about regs, reduced plants at a much smaller size compared to years past and what do you have? 

Guys working gravel for nasty kings and steelhead and 9" trout with the ocassional fish over 12". I miss it, but won't drive the 4+ hours for that!

In my eyes our trout program has been destroyed with the plant small and 
let them grow mentality. Seems like a waste, since many are removed before they even hit 12".

Add the proposed increase in license fees... It might help, but unless the DNR makes changes with the stocking programs it will be a marginal fishery at best. 

The Lakes can't seem to support the fish out there, yet a good portion of funds are directed toward them with rivers taking the hit. 

That whole mindset just bows me away... Oh, and I cut my teeth in the 70's.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The reason that people don't catch fish in Michigan is that they do not know how to catch fish in Michigan. I have seen it time and time again people would rather get up at 9:00 am and go out for coffee and breakfast before hitting the water at 11:00 am. If I am going to go fishing I am out there on the water well before the sun comes up. I don't travel for hours to get there either. Most of my fishing is done within a 15 minute drive from where I live. I have lived in various parts of the state and have done well everywhere that I have lived. If you take the time to learn how to fish the waters around your home wherever you live you will have quality fishing. When I grew up in West Branch I learned a few streams very well. Catching 20+ inch brown trout was not an uncommon thing for me. I live in St Ignace now and catching 20+ pound salmon and 12+ pound steelhead is pretty common. Michigan has alot to offer that other states do not have. In many states a 10 pound rainbow would be a state record. Where can you go and catch 5 species of salmon and 5 species of trout in the same lake?


----------



## Robert Holmes

I think those who are using the tandem fly rig are snagging. I have seen it before but rarely in the UP. I am not a big fan of guys that go out and rake spawning fish off from beds either. When a fish is kicking up gravel in a foot of water there is too much temptation to foul hook it. If you disagree that is fine any UP Conservation Officer will tell you different. Every fall the Conservation Officers write books of tickets to people who have to snag the pink salmon off from the beds. In the spring it is steelhead snaggers that they write tickets too.


----------



## wintrrun

TSS Caddis said:


> Here is the test. When you fly into each of the states I listed you see people walking through the airport with rods because they traveled there to fish. When you see that in a Michigan airport it is people leaving to fish.
> 
> Michigan fishing is good, but it is a rare person that wakes up and says they dream of fishing Michigan one day.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


 

Any data to support your claims?
I know plenty of people coming from out of state on airplanes, toting fishing rods thru the airport on either guided or self guided weeks or weekends.
I know of more people coming from out of state who leave there rod tubes and either guide up or come to visit friends who provide there rods for them
Then theres the biggest influx of people coming to michigan by vehicle so i highly doubt that will you be able to use your test run theory on them.
Parking lot surveys for the NW rivers and streams always reveal travelers and some weekends or weeks they can make up a majority of the total numbers fishing.
I am sure even the Holy Waters area sees visitors.

Gauging what good fishing is on the very limited time you spend at airports looking for people carrying rod tubes is a pointless and very speculative argument.

Unless of course you and a group of friends just spend all your free time hanging out covering all the Michigan airports looking for incoming fisherman as a hobby.


----------



## toto

Why not find out how many out of state licenses each state sells in relation to overall license sales, that would probably give you an idea of who's right or wrong. I would suspect there is some validity to both arguments, and I would also assume that the bulk of Michigans out of state sales are in the fall for salmon and steelhead. Don't have the stats to back it up, but then again, I don't really care.


----------



## Shoeman

Robert Holmes said:


> I think those who are using the tandem fly rig are snagging. I have seen it before but rarely in the UP. I am not a big fan of guys that go out and rake spawning fish off from beds either. When a fish is kicking up gravel in a foot of water there is too much temptation to foul hook it. If you disagree that is fine any UP Conservation Officer will tell you different. Every fall the Conservation Officers write books of tickets to people who have to snag the pink salmon off from the beds. In the spring it is steelhead snaggers that they write tickets too.


And your brilliance is based on what?

Been using tungsten nymphs with an emerger/soft hackle dropper and caught thousands of trout without snagging them. so I'm a snagger? 

Your comments are why less and less frequent our waters, or these forums!

Just post your comments elsewhere! Smearing flyfisherman just goes beyond what this forum is based on and has nothing to do with chumming. Basically you sir are just driving a wedge into legitimate fishermen with your off-base comments!

Sometimes we wonder why quality membership is on the downside, yet the downside is on the rise. I see which side you propose... ( no smilies for a butt hole... Too bad!)


----------



## wintrrun

Shoeman said:


> And your brilliance is based on what?
> 
> Been using tungsten nymphs with an emerger/soft hackle dropper and caught thousands of trout without snagging them. so I'm a snagger?
> 
> Your comments are why less and less frequent our waters, or these forums!
> 
> Just post your comments elsewhere! Smearing flyfisherman just goes beyond what this forum is based on and has nothing to do with chumming. Basically you sir are just driving a wedge into legitimate fishermen with your off-base comments!
> 
> Sometimes we wonder why quality membership is on the downside, yet the downside is on the rise. I see which side you propose... ( no smilies for a butt hole... Too bad!)


 

I think he was refering to guy peering over gravel looking for his next lake run, in the process of spawning, victim.
I don't think you'll find anyone against running droppers and tandems for trout.
I do exactly as you described.



Interesting.
Fishndude had brought up that he did not know of anyone running 2 spawn bags at a time on 2 single hooks.
I have, and know of others who have used it from time to time, and if fished properly at the right pod of migrating fish you'll be pleasantly surprised to come back on the rod to the daily double.
I usually run one bait at a time because i like to control my presentation but who cannot resist the chance of hooking a double when it presents itself.:lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis

wintrrun said:


> Any data to support your claims?
> I know plenty of people coming from out of state on airplanes, toting fishing rods thru the airport on either guided or self guided weeks or weekends.
> I know of more people coming from out of state who leave there rod tubes and either guide up or come to visit friends who provide there rods for them
> Then theres the biggest influx of people coming to michigan by vehicle so i highly doubt that will you be able to use your test run theory on them.
> Parking lot surveys for the NW rivers and streams always reveal travelers and some weekends or weeks they can make up a majority of the total numbers fishing.
> I am sure even the Holy Waters area sees visitors.
> 
> Gauging what good fishing is on the very limited time you spend at airports looking for people carrying rod tubes is a pointless and very speculative argument.
> 
> Unless of course you and a group of friends just spend all your free time hanging out covering all the Michigan airports looking for incoming fisherman as a hobby.


Do you travel to Cabo, Montana, Wyoming, etc... to fish often? I'm assuming no because you can not spend 5 minutes in any of those airports and not see rod tubes. How many fishing lodges in those states vs Michigan? Not trying to be a dick but I'd guess if you traveled much we would not be having this conversation. Not even remotely comparable. Ask someone in the country their dream fishing destinations and I bet Michigan would not make top 10. 

IMO, for a state to be a 'destination' fishing state you need large numbers of people from non bordering state to be making the trip and that's not happening anywhere close to Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Florida, Alaska, etc... Those are destination states. IMO, just like the guides want to convince us the Mo is a blue ribbon trout water, they want us to think Michigan is a premier destination, purely spin to try to sell their position.

Illannoy's and Indianiot's traveling here to rip salmon really doesn't count.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ranger Ray

Not sure how you compare Montana and the west to Michigan, they are very different fisheries. The wide open rivers of the west are a fly fisherman's dream. Michigan has twice the number of fisherman than Montana and brings in double the money. Montana beats Michigan in non resident licenses though, to the tune of around 100,000.

Michigan makes a top 10 fishing destination in many a list.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Ranger Ray said:


> Not sure how you compare Montana and the west to Michigan, they are very different fisheries. The wide open rivers of the west are a fly fisherman's dream. Michigan has twice the number of fisherman than Montana and brings in double the money. Montana beats Michigan in non resident licenses though, to the tune of around 100,000.
> 
> Michigan makes a top 10 fishing destination in many a list.


Not comparing Montana's fishery to Michigans. Using Montana as an example of a destination fishery. 




Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## wintrrun

TSS Caddis said:


> Do you travel to Cabo, Montana, Wyoming, etc... to fish often? I'm assuming no because you can not spend 5 minutes in any of those airports and not see rod tubes. How many fishing lodges in those states vs Michigan? Not trying to be a dick but I'd guess if you traveled much we would not be having this conversation. Not even remotely comparable. Ask someone in the country their dream fishing destinations and I bet Michigan would not make top 10.
> 
> IMO, for a state to be a 'destination' fishing state you need large numbers of people from non bordering state to be making the trip and that's not happening anywhere close to Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Florida, Alaska, etc... Those are destination states. IMO, just like the guides want to convince us the Mo is a blue ribbon trout water, they want us to think Michigan is a premier destination, purely spin to try to sell their position.
> 
> Illannoy's and Indianiot's traveling here to rip salmon really doesn't count.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


 

Yes my resume for traveling to fish is not light at all.
So what michigans not the destination fishery montana, wyoming or colorado is.
Are we managing now in where we rank on the destination dik measuring stik?
Michigan will never have rivers that compare to the Green River in Utah, The San Juan in New Mexico. It will never have brook trout fishing that remotely compares to the Sutton in Ontario or The Canoe Reach on the B.C. / Alberta line. It will never have a King fishery like that of the Kenai or a rainbow fishery like the Upper Kenai. The steelhead fishing pound for pound will never compare to any of the river systems off the Skeena river system in B.C and the LRB will never compare to the Sea Runs down in South America.
Why? 
These are just some of the places i have had a chance to fish and experience and there is no way michigan could possibly come up with a management plan to even come close to these world class fisheries.
Should i be crying because Michigan does not manage for world class fisheries when what it does offer me is very good fishing and a great diversity?
Get over it.
You may be dealing with all the illinois and indy boys down that way but up here in the north the license plates reflect a more diverse tourism industry. We see license plates from far and wide wether its trout fishing or steelhead/salmon. We get our fair share of hacks but we also get alot of out of staters who look forward to there trip to Michigan because of the opportunity it affords them.
Michigan will most likely never live up to your high standards of fishing exellence and for obvious reasons. Get used to it because no matter how hard ya clench your teeth Michigan will always be Michigan.


----------



## REG

Ray- Montana's non-res is 70.00

Caddis, I would reckon you don't see many people getting off the plane with rod cases in tow in the state compared to some of the other places mentioned (MT, AK, WY, FL, etc), but then again, how many people flying into Detroit or GR are coming as tourists compared to some of the states you mentioned?


----------



## tannhd

Shoeman said:


> And your brilliance is based on what?
> 
> Been using tungsten nymphs with an emerger/soft hackle dropper and caught thousands of trout without snagging them. so I'm a snagger?
> 
> Your comments are why less and less frequent our waters, or these forums!
> 
> Just post your comments elsewhere! Smearing flyfisherman just goes beyond what this forum is based on and has nothing to do with chumming. Basically you sir are just driving a wedge into legitimate fishermen with your off-base comments!
> 
> Sometimes we wonder why quality membership is on the downside, yet the downside is on the rise. I see which side you propose... ( no smilies for a butt hole... Too bad!)



Anti bait, fly only fishermen have plenty of media to lay their blanket statements about bait guys. It happens in the press, committees, through govt channels, etc. I don't see the problem with Robert passing on some of his observances and opinions on this forum. He didn't single anyone out. The wedge is already there, driven deeper by fly only fishermen. Attend one single TU local chapter meeting, and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Boozer

mille553 said:


> Native is not the correct description I meant resident trout. I know many think it is just a jealousy thing I can only say in my case it is not. From the last post I can see where this may be heading, but thanks for the discussion.


I don't believe it's a jealousy thing, I feel it's your opinion it should be limited and nothing more which is fine...

The thing is, who is going to enforce this restriction on amount of eggs? I have hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of days on the rivers in West Michigan, only been checked for a fishing license one time in my entire life and my boat has never once been checked/searched...

It would boil down to one guide getting the CO's called on him day after day after day as every time other guides seen him chum, they would call out of spite just hoping he had more chum on his boat than he should have...

Plus, what about guys who walk skein, would they be limited as to how much skein they can have on board, what about large charter boats which typically have 3-5 people fishing at once, they require a lot of bait on board so would possibly be over the "limit" with the amount of bait they need...

You need to look at the big picture...


----------



## TSS Caddis

I absolutely believe if fly fisherman believed that the number of fish they hook was not hampered by chumming we would not be having this conversation. 


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Splitshot

mille,

You have a lot in common with some members of the Michigan river Guides Association when you raise questions or concerns with no facts to support them.

Most of your theory is based on what you call Macro Chumming and you only define it as someone using more than a gallon a day. You use the term Macro Chumming as a pejorative without any facts to support your contentions. 

You used the same logic in our phone conservation. You started a web-site and a petition to ban chumming. You did this based on speculation and used propaganda to garner support. You stated that you would be at the meeting with lots of support, but no one showed up at the meeting. Based on your comments, you are still trying to make a case against chumming with nothing.

A couple of points, gear restrictions and commercial guide issues are totally different issues. What you call gear regulations we call bait restrictions and banning fish eggs is a bait restriction.

I made this statement; The facts are, the guide service in question seldom keeps fish but if one of their clients wants to take fish home, they try to take only males and never more then the law allows. They dont always use chum but when they do it is almost always in small amounts of less then 2 liters in a day. All of their fish eggs this guide service uses are certified by the MDNR as disease free and purchased legally in Michigan. They do not kill hens for eggs nor do they milk hens or buy eggs from out of state.



mille553 said:


> How could you possibly know this? That is one of the major problems. This has been taken as a one guy problem and the facts are this is not true. There are many fisherman macro-chumming on the Mo and in my opinion more this fall winter then ever before. I cannot say many things for sure, but I can say it is not just one guy because I have seen it personally. Also I disagree with the two liters statement. Again I cannot say for sure, but seeing the amount of chum that has been thrown out into a run it would only take a couple of runs or holes to get to a liter easy. These guys fish all day. Even if it is as you say a half of gallon a day by many commercial guides October through April that is a lot of roe.


I know it because I the guide service in question consists of several guides and that is what the owner told me. I also discussed this with a very good friend who sometimes guides for this guide service and he confirmed what the owner told me. I also talked with a state official who again confirmed that same owner purchased certified eggs from the company who purchases the by products of the LMR weir.

Like you continue to say, you dont know for sure but you disagree with their statements and again you have no data to support your statements and you have no facts or science to support your contentions even if you were correct. Thousands of salmon spawn in the river and some years thousands more spawn than the previous year. Thousands of salmon are taken by anglers including their eggs. How do you reconcile those facts in your scenario?

Maybe you should be concerned with the no kill section of the PM where no salmon can be kept so all those salmon spawn and they all die and stink up the river. If your so concerned with to many eggs in the river, there is a better place to start.



mille553 said:


> I was not at the meeting, but unless there were multiple guide services giving testimony about there chumming practices there could not have been a conclusive answer on this. Science is not taking one guides word on this issue when he has a huge financial stake on the line depending on how the issue is decided.


Look Pete, you havent used one fact to support any of your contentions so when you say; Science is not taking one guides word on this issue when he has a huge financial stake on the line depending on how the issue is decided. it makes your statements seem very hollow. The MDNR wasnt making a decision based on science. They agreed to look at an issue they already concluded had no merit based on science and read and listened to both sides and saw no reason to revisit the issue again.



mille553 said:


> I personally would like to see a ban or at a minimum some regulation of the macro chumming. I agree that there are many unanswered questions out there surrounding this issue. Some of which made by Splitshot I believe valid.


This is exactly why we support decisions based on science not unanswered questions.

Finally I made this statement; It may seem incoherent to some that some fishing rules could be change based on the kind of arguments proposed by The Michigan River Guides Association, but that is exactly how the current bait restrictions became law. Every member of the Coldwater Resources Steering Committee supported bait restrictions based on similar logic and those known to have differing views were denied membership on the committee until about 2 years ago.



mille553 said:


> Again there is a long on going feud fueled by both side fly fisherman versus bait.


If the rights of bait fishermen are being threatened and they decided to speak out against the injustice of the fly fishing groups and individuals trying to exclude them from public waters. That defense should not be construed as contentious when their defense is justifiable. Bait fishermen have no problem sharing our public waters with fly fishermen so if your looking for someone to blame for the division that now exists, look elsewhere.



TSS Caddis said:


> I absolutely believe if fly fisherman believed that the number of fish they hook was not hampered by chumming we would not be having this conversation.


Gene,

Could not be more obvious!


----------



## wintrrun

TSS Caddis said:


> I absolutely believe if fly fisherman believed that the number of fish they hook was not hampered by chumming we would not be having this conversation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk


 

Abso- Mofo'in-lutely.


----------



## holechopper

The always present undercurrent of money has to be considered when addressing any issue where money can be made or lost. If your client is paying a couple hundred bucks to catch a steelhead on a fly rod and someone else is "catching all the fish" by another means; then one has to consider the money aspect. Priorities are different at the same time. One guy is fishing to catch and probably eat the fish he catches. The other guy is making a living putting fish on for a paying client. (Just consider) Your activity is hurting my livelihood and if I don't do something about it I will continue to suffer financially. "Who do I know who is in the same profession as me and who do we know in a position of influence?" How much will it cost to get it done and what could the financial returns be in the long run if we are successful? Now we all know that the dnr and members of the legal system only look out for the overall good of the wildlife and fisheries in Michigan. Further, we all know that they only pass good laws and regulations and that the above scenario is absolutely ridiculous. I want to apologize for posting something like a conspiracy theory or even the possibility or consideration or even a passing thought down those lines. It seems that in many instances, however, that emotions, influence and money make most of the decisions, oh but not in this instance we all know better than that.


----------



## REG

holechopper said:


> The always present undercurrent of money has to be considered when addressing any issue where money can be made or lost. If your client is paying a couple hundred bucks to catch a steelhead on a fly rod and someone else is "catching all the fish" by another means; then one has to consider the money aspect. Priorities are different at the same time. One guy is fishing to catch and probably eat the fish he catches. The other guy is making a living putting fish on for a paying client. (Just consider) Your activity is hurting my livelihood and if I don't do something about it I will continue to suffer financially. "Who do I know who is in the same profession as me and who do we know in a position of influence?" How much will it cost to get it done and what could the financial returns be in the long run if we are successful? Now we all know that the dnr and members of the legal system only look out for the overall good of the wildlife and fisheries in Michigan. Further, we all know that they only pass good laws and regulations and that the above scenario is absolutely ridiculous. I want to apologize for posting something like a conspiracy theory or even the possibility or consideration or even a passing thought down those lines. It seems that in many instances, however, that emotions, influence and money make most of the decisions, oh but not in this instance we all know better than that.


I wonder how in the world did fly guides ever become successful and flourish before chumming was banned the first time? There is an obvious answer to this question- They didn't make a big issue out of it. Perhaps the stated loss of clients may, at least in part, be due to unintended consequences of anti-chumming guides attempt to garner support of their clients in trying to force a ban?

Here's a question that I have. How can so many of the anti-chumming guides on their websites post fishing reports about the wonderful success they and their clients are having, yet complain how chumming is literally choking off any chances of them hooking any fish at all?? Which scenario is it?


----------



## Boozer

Must say this Winter was a real eye opener to me regarding chumming as I honestly think it has began to get out of hand...

Just a few things I have noticed...

1) This is NOT about one guide service, not even close...

2) Chumming is being done in amounts that absolutely blow my mind, I would guess roughly 75% of boats I am seeing, are chumming and they are doing it a LOT...

3) I fish all methods so this is not just a fly fisherman rant here, I fully back peoples right to ethically fish bait, do so myself...

The real problem with chumming is this, lets take mile markers 3-6 on the Muskegon last few days as an example....

The big deep pools clearly being the prime Winter holding water in this section, many of these pools would have multiple boats on them and there was a near constant supply of eggs being tossed into them by guides and anglers alike, as soon as one boat would exit a hole, another would jump in there and immediately juice the hole with eggs, I bet the majority of these holes are being chummed 25+ times a day and we aren't talking with just a few eggs here...

There is no way this is not effecting the bite for anyone who does not wish to fish eggs in some manner, whether it be flies or the real thing. So this is not just a bait guys versus fly guys thing what so ever. 

It's more so a domino effect taking place, it started small, was effective so now it has grown to a much larger scale and there is no way it is not effecting the bite for others...

I was swinging flies, could not buy a bite on anything that did not have a egg head, now did it ruin my experience, no, but it was very obvious it made a difference in what one needed to fish to get bit...

To me, it's no different than "flies only" being enforced when MDNR says it makes no difference, you are to some degree excluding others from being able to experience a public resource in the manner they wish to ethically do so...

Like anything, done in small amounts, the effect is minimal, but when it goes too far and moderation goes out the window, there is at least some impact. Is it killing the fish, no, but does it have an impact on the minority of anglers who don't wish to fish eggs, I believe it does...

I don't see how we can argue flies only increases are unfair when MDNR biologists say there is no need and then at the same time say chumming is just fine as they are very similar issues...

Just a thought, regardless, it was outstanding to have some nice weather and the amount of wildlife out was stellar, was great to see so many people out enjoying the resource and was really cool to see how everyone was so cheerful and in short, nothing could have ruined that, even chumming, but to say it has no impact on other anglers is certainly not accurate anymore. I honestly can see why there is legitimate reasons for people to want chumming banned again...

Something to think about, it is not a black & white issue as many would like it portrayed to be...


----------



## Boozer

ausable_steelhead said:


> Wow, that bad eh? Must be how the hero numbers that everyone is obsessed with are had. Sounds pretty lame.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet, there are plenty of fly boats running egg patterns or beads in those pools as well...


I am sure there are guys running egg flies/beads, but that was not the point at all...

The point is, that much chumming darn near forces a guy to fish eggs of some sort or in some manner and to me, it is no different than forcing a guy to fish flies in flies only water...

Like anything, when not done in moderation, it can be detrimental to some degree, just because it doesn't hurt the fish, doesn't make it right...

Think of it as if there was fish feeders set up along the river and every 30 minutes pellets were being dumped in, it is going to begin to "train" those fish to look for a certain thing and therefore is not really fair, based on the exact same logic being used by those whom oppose flies only...

Basically, it was a real eye opener, it is very clear chumming is being done to a much much larger extent than it ever was before or at least a much larger extent than I had ever seen it before, seemed somewhat greedy to me but not looking to start a flame war or even bash those who chum persay, was simply some food for thought...


----------



## Shoeman

I bet many never even considered chumming until it was banned.


----------



## Boozer

Shoeman said:


> I bet many never even considered chumming until it was banned.


I believe that 100%, all the hooblah about chumming over the past few years most certainly brought more attention to it and no doubt proved how effective it can be to many whom never thought about it.

It has been portrayed as a very black & white issue here and I personally at this point do not believe it should be. Am I going to start a petition, go to the cold water committee and complain, no, but I do feel that there should be a closer look taken at it as the use increases, certainly.

It allows fish to be caught that would not normally feed, it creates a false environment, biologically speaking that is not totally innocent even though it does not harm the fish persay, it does toy with their environment, their feeding habits and may indeed be detrimental to younger fish as instead of hunting for prey to survive, they are being hand fed thus giving them less experience surviving as they would naturally. You are also introducing a food source into a watershed that would not normally be there at times, you are messing with the balance of nature in some ways in that regard. The same logic would go for all predators...

Many have used the example it's a group of guides against one guide, not true at all, many many guides chum, not just Chad, however when chumming was banned, Chad chummed with corn, which is definitely bad for the resource and an example of how much that one guide does care about the resource...

Like I said, simply food for thought...


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Must say this Winter was a real eye opener to me regarding chumming as I honestly think it has began to get out of hand...
> 
> Just a few things I have noticed...
> 
> 1) This is NOT about one guide service, not even close...
> 
> 2) Chumming is being done in amounts that absolutely blow my mind, I would guess roughly 75% of boats I am seeing, are chumming and they are doing it a LOT...
> 
> 3) I fish all methods so this is not just a fly fisherman rant here, I fully back peoples right to ethically fish bait, do so myself...
> 
> The real problem with chumming is this, lets take mile markers 3-6 on the Muskegon last few days as an example....
> 
> The big deep pools clearly being the prime Winter holding water in this section, many of these pools would have multiple boats on them and there was a near constant supply of eggs being tossed into them by guides and anglers alike, as soon as one boat would exit a hole, another would jump in there and immediately juice the hole with eggs, I bet the majority of these holes are being chummed 25+ times a day and we aren't talking with just a few eggs here...
> 
> There is no way this is not effecting the bite for anyone who does not wish to fish eggs in some manner, whether it be flies or the real thing. So this is not just a bait guys versus fly guys thing what so ever.
> 
> It's more so a domino effect taking place, it started small, was effective so now it has grown to a much larger scale and there is no way it is not effecting the bite for others...
> 
> I was swinging flies, could not buy a bite on anything that did not have a egg head, now did it ruin my experience, no, but it was very obvious it made a difference in what one needed to fish to get bit...
> 
> To me, it's no different than "flies only" being enforced when MDNR says it makes no difference, you are to some degree excluding others from being able to experience a public resource in the manner they wish to ethically do so...
> 
> Like anything, done in small amounts, the effect is minimal, but when it goes too far and moderation goes out the window, there is at least some impact. Is it killing the fish, no, but does it have an impact on the minority of anglers who don't wish to fish eggs, I believe it does...
> 
> I don't see how we can argue flies only increases are unfair when MDNR biologists say there is no need and then at the same time say chumming is just fine as they are very similar issues...
> 
> Just a thought, regardless, it was outstanding to have some nice weather and the amount of wildlife out was stellar, was great to see so many people out enjoying the resource and was really cool to see how everyone was so cheerful and in short, nothing could have ruined that, even chumming, but to say it has no impact on other anglers is certainly not accurate anymore. I honestly can see why there is legitimate reasons for people to want chumming banned again...
> 
> Something to think about, it is not a black & white issue as many would like it portrayed to be...


About another 3 months-smallmouth season!:coolgleam


----------



## Shoeman

then you'll get the opposition to say that's why creel limits are placed for such a Put and Take fishery. 

I hear ya! 

Then I wonder what type of poison some used to cure that roe.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> About another 3 months-smallmouth season!:coolgleam



No offense, but what does that have to do with anything? Other than detracting from the points made?


----------



## Boozer

Shoeman said:


> then you'll get the opposition to say that's why creel limits are placed for such a Put and Take fishery.
> 
> I hear ya!
> 
> Then I wonder what type of poison some used to cure that roe.


There will always be opposition on both sides, I look at it as Republicans versus Democrats, neither side has it all figured out and if they worked together, something good may actually come of it...

Native fish are not put & take though, if you mess with their feeding habits there is a chance at a negative impact...

It is only being looked at from a steelhead anglers point of view, nothing else. Messing with nature should always be done with extreme caution...

If you asked to install a electronic feeder on the edge of a river, feeding fish daily, you would be told you cannot do so, what is the difference in that and the same holes being chummed daily by hand?


----------



## Boozer

What would be really cool is if a MDNR biologist could chime in on this, to me it seems all the wrong points were brought up by the MRGA when it was last heard by the steering committee...

Just my thoughts, nothing more, nothing less...


----------



## Fishndude

I was fishing in the FL Keys a few weeks ago, and our guide chummed constantly. He literally used 4 - 5 gallon buckets of frozen ground-up fish during a half-day charter, and threw handfuls of other chum into the water as well. We pounded Yellowtail Snapper until we had our limits, with numerous other fish caught as well. We absolutely would not have caught any limits if he hadn't been chumming. It was great fun, and the fish were/are very tasty. 

I can see where very aggressive chumming with Salmon eggs might cause problems for someone who only wants to hook Steelhead fishing Streamers, or Nymph patterns. So, part of fly fishing is "matching the hatch," or at least it was when I spent more time doing it. In winter we ran nymphs. In summer we threw dries. Streamers were always fun, and productive year-round. When eggs are rolling in the fall, egg patterns always ruled. So, if other anglers are chumming, throw some sort of egg pattern. I always loved "Egg Sucking Leech" flies. I have never seen a Leech suck on an egg. But the flies surely can produce. Hey, newsflash: When everything in the river is brown, black, or green, anything with any other colors will attract fish looking for something to eat. Or even fish who are just curious about that thing that doesn't fit into their environment. White is rare in the water, and gets bit a lot. 

I sometimes toss eggs for chum, and frequently don't. I get fish both ways. I think lots of fish in rivers probably benefit from the eggs tossed into rivers. I don't think chumming with eggs should be banned, and I don't know how to regulate the amount of eggs someone can chuck into any particular hole, or run. I also don't have any false illusions that chumming has only been done with eggs in Michigan rivers fairly recently. I know guides who did it 30 years ago, and did it most of the time.


----------



## Boozer

Fishndude said:


> I was fishing in the FL Keys a few weeks ago, and our guide chummed constantly. He literally used 4 - 5 gallon buckets of frozen ground-up fish during a half-day charter, and threw handfuls of other chum into the water as well. We pounded Yellowtail Snapper until we had our limits, with numerous other fish caught as well. We absolutely would not have caught any limits if he hadn't been chumming. It was great fun, and the fish were/are very tasty.
> 
> I can see where very aggressive chumming with Salmon eggs might cause problems for someone who only wants to hook Steelhead fishing Streamers, or Nymph patterns. So, part of fly fishing is "matching the hatch," or at least it was when I spent more time doing it. In winter we ran nymphs. In summer we threw dries. Streamers were always fun, and productive year-round. When eggs are rolling in the fall, egg patterns always ruled. So, if other anglers are chumming, throw some sort of egg pattern. I always loved "Egg Sucking Leech" flies. I have never seen a Leech suck on an egg. But the flies surely can produce. Hey, newsflash: When everything in the river is brown, black, or green, anything with any other colors will attract fish looking for something to eat. Or even fish who are just curious about that thing that doesn't fit into their environment. White is rare in the water, and gets bit a lot.
> 
> I sometimes toss eggs for chum, and frequently don't. I get fish both ways. I think lots of fish in rivers probably benefit from the eggs tossed into rivers. I don't think chumming with eggs should be banned, and I don't know how to regulate the amount of eggs someone can chuck into any particular hole, or run. I also don't have any false illusions that chumming has only been done with eggs in Michigan rivers fairly recently. I know guides who did it 30 years ago, and did it most of the time.


You miss the entire point, you are against flies only as it forces some to fish differently than they choose, chumming does the same thing does it not? Specifically when eggs are not being dumped into the watershed naturally.

You also miss the point that "some" did it 30 years ago, but anyone who spends any real time on the river will tell you it has increased a lot, bait and fly fisherman alike. What if it continues to increase????

You speak total opinions based on nothing, I have brought about legitimate scientific reasoning as to why it COULD pose a problem, can you address any of those concerns? That is the real point of all this, level headed discussion regarding things I have seen no mention of and to be honest, never really thought of til recently.

I could care less if people chum for the most part, I really am very unbiased in that regard, what I do care about is, if it had a negative impact on the ecosystem, nobody has looked at it from that point of view that I have seen.

If feeding fish is not an issue, why would the MDNR not allow electronic feeders to be set up along rivers?

We already know it changes the feeding habits of fish, if it didn't, nobody would do it, that is an impact on the fish "not just the steelhead" and it is an impact on those that do not wish to fish eggs of some sort. That goes against the same argument everyone uses against flies only water, does it not?


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> No offense, but what does that have to do with anything? Other than detracting from the points made?


You're right, sorry for the light hearted comment. Seems to me that a bit before you were talking about how you were sick of steelhead fishing, but again that's not pertinent here. Lesson learned.

However, back on point, how is it you can chastise Fishndude for his speculation that it may benefit fish, yet you likewise speculate that there is potential harm and call it legitimate scientific reasoning??


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> You're right, sorry for the light hearted comment. Seems to me that a bit before you were talking about how you were sick of steelhead fishing, but again that's not pertinent here. Lesson learned.
> 
> However, back on point, how is it you can chastise Fishndude for his speculation that it may benefit fish, yet you likewise speculate that there is potential harm and call it legitimate scientific reasoning??


How can something not natural benefit fish IN THE LONG RUN?

If that logic was true, it would be considered a good thing to feed wild animals, would it not?

Anytime you change circumstances for a species which evolved to survive in different circumstances, you run the risk of a negative impact. The more change you bring about, the larger the impact, therefore the more the practice of chumming increases, the larger the risk of negative impact, correct?

And I never chastised him, I hold no ill will for anyone expressing their opinion and have no ill will towards fishndude he seems to be a nice guy, I simply stated what has been said over and over and over, requesting more than just opinion....


----------



## wyandot

I'm not a biologist, so this is only my opinion. Guys use it on my homewater, I don't. I could see it being annoying to some people, but can't see it harming the resource. This is a rather long thread, I haven't read it entirely. With all due respect, what is the negative impact you've witnessed on the resource itself?


----------



## Steelheadfred

Boozer said:


> REG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beating around the bush...
> 
> That's cool!
> 
> How much you fish is a huge factor, most of these guys commenting on this stuff likely don't even spend 30 days a year on the water, so how much do you really know regarding what is going on?
> 
> 
> 
> So if you fish 30 days a year your opinion takes a back seat to someone who fishes 60 days? It's that simple? No respect for past experience, education, life balance?? Give me a break.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
Click to expand...


----------



## Boozer

Steelheadfred said:


> Boozer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you fish 30 days a year your opinion takes a back seat to someone who fishes 60 days? It's that simple? No respect for past experience, education, life balance?? Give me a break.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> This post makes my point perfectly!!!!
> 
> You actually are dead wrong about what I was stating, as I stated, it means you have observed less in recent times, since this is an ever evolving "issue" if you will, recent observations are HUGE, are they not?
> 
> It doesn't mean your opinion does not count, it means it may not be based on the same observations as others and had you observed the same as they have, your opinion may be different.
> 
> Had you observed more recent posts, you would have known that
> 
> Let me make this very clear, I believe in equality for ALL stakeholders of our PUBLIC resources, I am against elitism, greed and behavior that effects other stakeholders for no real reason though.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boozer

METTLEFISH said:


> From the "it is unlawful" to page of the current Fishing Guide:
> 
> 
> Deposit litter, fish, offal or any foreign matter in any waters of the state or any lands, private.
> 
> With the dereliction of duty we see at Tippy does anyone think it would be enforced if it were made even more Illegal?


Chumming of eggs does not fall under that law per the MDNR...


----------



## Steelheadfred

Boozer said:


> It is what it is, I simply see a strong possibility for negative effects to occur in extreme chumming circumstances, I strongly feel we should make as small a footprint as possible so the next guy can enjoy it in the same manner, respect for one another seems to be lost in many aspects of modern society, anglers of all types should rise above that. I am not preaching flies only or even catch and release only, simply against greed and selfishness which in many ways, chumming is a product of, in my opinion...
> 
> The domino effect is real and it will continue to expand, the more some do it, the more others will be compelled to do it, either to level the playing field out of necessity or to stroke their own ego's with large numbers at the expense of other stakeholders of a public resource.
> 
> You run a risk of effecting the natural balance of things, whether that occurs by feeding fish and thus effecting natural selection, weakening the gene pool of the inhabitants of the river, damaging the gene pool by removing a much larger amount of female fish from the population to feed the extra demand for eggs or effecting another stakeholders ability to catch fish because of behavioral conditioning or simply stuffing the fish full removing their urge to eat. There is nothing completely safe about chumming when considering the grand scheme of things...


Well said, you cover how I feel about it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## syonker

METTLEFISH said:


> From the "it is unlawful" to page of the current Fishing Guide:
> 
> 
> Deposit litter, fish, offal or any foreign matter in any waters of the state or any lands, private.


New to this thread.

Looking for some clarification. Are you suggesting that eggs/roe are offal or is this a comment on the poor enforcement/prosecution of those who take the eggs & don't dispose of the carcass properly?


----------



## Boozer

Steelheadfred said:


> Well said, you cover how I feel about it.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Thank you, it is very tough to portray emotions in printed words, but I am glad you seem to now understand where I am coming from. Equal use of all public resources for its stakeholders.

While you can never get that "perfect" there is certainly room for improvement.

I enjoy seeing others enjoy our resources as much as I enjoy utilizing them myself.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> Chumming of eggs does not fall under that law per the MDNR...


If it were again challenged it could and should be. Equal enforcement under the law. The MDNR does not establish law. The State legislature does.

Truthfully I don't really care if one chums. It shows their weakness as Anglers. I relish being able to fish the same "depleted" waters and catch fish.

P.S. I just went through the entire fishing guide and saw nothing that refuted the Law quoted above. Could you provide a link to this exception!


----------



## METTLEFISH

syonker said:


> New to this thread.
> 
> Looking for some clarification. Are you suggesting that eggs/roe are offal or is this a comment on the poor enforcement/prosecution of those who take the eggs & don't dispose of the carcass properly?


By definition: Yes.


----------



## toto

METTLEFISH said:


> If it were again challenged it could and should be. Equal enforcement under the law. The MDNR does not establish law. The State legislature does.
> 
> And that right there is the major problem. Why is it the legislature is making the rules and laws for the DNR? What knowledge do they have on these issues? It's rules and regulations such as this that should be made by the DNR "experts" not someone sitting in an office who probably really knows nothing about it, other than what others are telling him, and we all know that legislators can be swayed by different groups.


----------



## METTLEFISH

toto said:


> METTLEFISH said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were again challenged it could and should be. Equal enforcement under the law. The MDNR does not establish law. The State legislature does.
> 
> And that right there is the major problem. Why is it the legislature is making the rules and laws for the DNR? What knowledge do they have on these issues? It's rules and regulations such as this that should be made by the DNR "experts" not someone sitting in an office who probably really knows nothing about it, other than what others are telling him, and we all know that legislators can be swayed by different groups.
> 
> 
> 
> Because thats why/ how a Democracy works. Dont be confused and think the legislature willy-nilly makes laws. They adopt recomendations from other Govt. bodies if a majority vote in favor of the recomendation occurs. The MDNR has no authority to declare any portion of any law void. Only a recension of the law can void it.
Click to expand...


----------



## toto

Really? Would you like to discuss the infamous worm bill from a few years ago? Yes I understand that the DNR or any other agency cannot change a law, that's fact, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about making new law that makes no sense. For the record, when in Michigan I don't chum, no need to in my mind. This law, and some others, aren't about what makes sense from a biological standpoint, it's about what group has the best lobbyist.


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> If it were again challenged it could and should be. Equal enforcement under the law. The MDNR does not establish law. The State legislature does.


Of course the Legislature makes laws but it doesn't enforce them. Enforcement is left up to the appropriate departments in the Executive Branch until a court is asked to interpret how the law is being applied. Chumming has been an accepted practice for decades, rather like baiting deer but not like baiting turkey. It's another one of those socially driven regulations that are based on long tradition. The rule books are full of them. The DNR also has been given specific powers by the Legislature to interpret the broad laws it operates under and it does so with Fisheries Orders. All quite proper and above board. It is possible that the increased popularity of chumming might make Fisheries re-examine the practice, because the greater volume may have consequences that were not previously an issue, as Boozer suggests. I have no idea if that is the case but I do know that I didn't see anyone chumming on the Kalamazoo today. Didn't see a lot of fish caught either.:sad:


----------



## METTLEFISH

As I said above, where is it stated as allowed? I do see where it states you may not place/put ANY foreign matter in the waters of the state. Is the spawn they are using cured? Worse yet! and again not legal under the written portion of the guide. Without written exception adopted by the legislature non enforcement is Dereliction of duty. IMO.


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> As I said above, where is it stated as allowed? I do see where it states you may not place/put ANY foreign matter in the waters of the state. Is the spawn they are using cured? Worse yet! and again not legal under the written portion of the guide. Without written exception adopted by the legislature non enforcement is Dereliction of duty. IMO.


General Provision 17. If you are looking in the fishing guide you'll have to dig a little deeper; the guide doesn't include everything, it's an overview. Here's a quote from Jim Dexter at the time the 2007 restrictions went into place.


> "We carefully crafted the wording in General Provision 17 to ensure chumming was not banned," said Jim Dexter, the DNR's Lake Michigan Basin coordinator.
> 
> "An angler may continue to fish using various baits and fish eggs as attractants if they are not on the official Prohibited Species List that is maintained on the DNR Web site," he said.


You also seem to be a little confused about the possible meanings of the word "unlawful". From the Oxford dictionary (emphasis mine)


> unlawful
> Syllabification: un·law·ful
> Pronunciation: /&#716;&#601;n&#712;lôf&#601;l /
> ADJECTIVE
> not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law *or rules*:
> the use of unlawful violence
> they claimed the ban was unlawful


----------



## METTLEFISH

So you admit it is not legal. When you throw eggs into the water without a hook attached.....you are not fishing. As per Regs. For VHS you are only allowed to use those eggs when attached to a hook.


----------



## kzoofisher

METTLEFISH said:


> So you admit it is not legal. When you throw eggs into the water without a hook attached.....you are not fishing. As per Regs. For VHS you are only allowed to use those eggs when attached to a hook.


Goodness, let's try reading Dexter's statement again and this time I'll highlight the important part for you. Read slowly and sound out the words if you have to.


> "We carefully crafted the wording in General Provision 17 *to ensure chumming was not banned," said Jim Dexter*


Chumming is using roe or corn or what have you as an attractant separate from using it as a bait on a hook. It is clearly not considered offal or other undesirable matter deposited in the water. The DNR has made an exception for a long standing practice; just the sort of social exception I approve of. Goes to show how important and beneficial it can be for the DNR to take the social into consideration.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> just the sort of social exception I approve of. Goes to show how important and beneficial it can be for the DNR to take the social into consideration.


Ah, yeah right, that's why they made it illegal. Read real slow now:


> Ban on chumming is rescinded by the DNR
> BY HOWARD MEYERSON CONTRIBUTING WRITER
> Posted on March 16, 2012
> Grand Rapids, Mich.  Fishing with loose salmon or steelhead eggs will again become legal April 1, the start of Michigans 2012 fishing season. State fish managers have reversed the 2007 decision to prohibit the practice. They now say there is little reason to keep the rule on the books. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a fish disease that causes massive die-offs, did not become the problem everyone feared.


----------



## kzoofisher

They never made chumming illegal, Silly. They temporarily banned the use of roe in trout streams because they feared VHS might spread. Chumming was still perfectly legal in other waters with other materials. Of course, if that didn't effect you, you may not have been aware of it. Acting pro-actively in the face of a threat is standard operating procedure, just like the closure of some streams due to extreme low water recently. When the threat was determined to be less than feared they reinstituted the practice because of it's long tradition in the state. As far as I know chumming with fish parts is not allowed for crayfish trapping though you can bait the trap itself, you can't bait turkey but you can bait deer*, mechanical decoys for some species but not others, electronic calls and so on. These are examples where accepted standards of "fair chase" dictate rules rather than biology. Social limits on the behavior of sportsmen in the state, the regs are full of them.

Boozer has raised the issue that unlimited chumming may affect fish behavior in a way that is biologically unsound or possibly unfair to other anglers. This echos some of the arguments I have heard about limits on deer bait. I'll say again that I haven't followed the issue closely and have no basis for forming an opinion on those issues. I may look into it if it seems interesting enough.


* except the TB zone, of course


----------



## wintrrun

kzoofisher said:


> Boozer has raised the issue that unlimited chumming may affect fish behavior in a way that is biologically unsound or possibly unfair to other anglers. This echos some of the arguments I have heard about limits on deer bait. I'll say again that I haven't followed the issue closely and have no basis for forming an opinion on those issues. I may look into it if it seems interesting enough.
> 
> 
> * except the TB zone, of course



Latest and greatest fad so it seems.
I tried it years back and came to the assumption in the end it was a perfectly good waste of product that I could be using to fish with.
I have witnessed it in varying degrees of use, over the years and cannot personally say wether it's unfair or fair practice because I usually do not participate much in areas where it is going on.
After 35+ years of chasing salmon and steelhead here on Great Lakes rivers, streams and tribs one thing stands out. 
Its a lot easier to blame a day of bad fishing on someone or something else than to just blame ourselves in our inability to catch fish, in a given day of fishing.


----------



## Boozer

wintrrun said:


> After 35+ years of chasing salmon and steelhead here on Great Lakes rivers, streams and tribs one thing stands out.
> Its a lot easier to blame a day of bad fishing on someone or something else than to just blame ourselves in our inability to catch fish, in a given day of fishing.


I would whole heartedly agree, but I assure you that is not my motivation what so ever...

The fact is, if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done by those whom are on the water every single day...

I am all for guys finding new ways to increase their odds of catching fish, but not at the expense of a public resource and it's stakeholders...

However, you don't see me starting petitions, asking to be heard by committees or anything of the sort either, simply offered input on a subject that was being portrayed as totally harmless which may not be in extreme circumstances...


----------



## wintrrun

Boozer said:


> I would whole heartedly agree, but I assure you that is not my motivation what so ever...
> 
> The fact is, if it didn't work, it wouldn't be done by those whom are on the water every single day...
> 
> I am all for guys finding new ways to increase their odds of catching fish, but not at the expense of a public resource and it's stakeholders...
> 
> However, you don't see me starting petitions, asking to be heard by committees or anything of the sort either, simply offered input on a subject that was being portrayed as totally harmless which may not be in extreme circumstances...


I understand why and where you stood on this matter when you revisited this thread. I don't feel an obligation to point any fingers.
It is an interesting topic that may gain funding for study in the near future.


----------



## Boozer

wintrrun said:


> It is an interesting topic that may gain funding for study in the near future.


Definitely, albeit, likely more important issues that would be more beneficial to study before chumming, such as keeping more invasives out!


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> Goodness, let's try reading Dexter's statement again and this time I'll highlight the important part for you. Read slowly and sound out the words if you have to.
> 
> 
> Chumming is using roe or corn or what have you as an attractant separate from using it as a bait on a hook. It is clearly not considered offal or other undesirable matter deposited in the water. The DNR has made an exception for a long standing practice; just the sort of social exception I approve of. Goes to show how important and beneficial it can be for the DNR to take the social into consideration.



Again you can not choose which or what exception to allow. The law is clear as stated in the guide: you may not place "ANY FOREIGN MATTER"in any waters of the State. Plain and simple by written Law/Rule.


----------



## Boozer

METTLEFISH said:


> Again you can not choose which or what exception to allow. The law is clear as stated in the guide: you may not place "ANY FOREIGN MATTER"in any waters of the State. Plain and simple by written Law/Rule.


I once witnessed a Conservation Officer write a ticket to an individual below Berrien Springs Dam for throwing rocks into the river off a rip rap bank by the Fishermans Haven access, the ticket was for littering...

So based on that, you may be correct, however, I too have been told by Jim Dexter that chumming does not apply to these rules...


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> Goodness, let's try reading Dexter's statement again and this time I'll highlight the important part for you. Read slowly and sound out the words if you have to.
> 
> 
> Chumming is using roe or corn or what have you as an attractant separate from using it as a bait on a hook. It is clearly not considered offal or other undesirable matter deposited in the water. The DNR has made an exception for a long standing practice; just the sort of social exception I approve of. Goes to show how important and beneficial it can be for the DNR to take the social into consideration.



Again you can not choose which or what exception to allow. The law is clear as stated in the guide: you may not place "ANY FOREIGN MATTER"in any waters of the State. Plain and simple by written Law/Rule.


----------



## Boozer

METTLEFISH said:


> Again you can not choose which or what exception to allow. The law is clear as stated in the guide: you may not place "ANY FOREIGN MATTER"in any waters of the State. Plain and simple by written Law/Rule.


Wouldn't a boat be foreign matter? What about a fishing lure? What about us wading! LOL


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> I once witnessed a Conservation Officer write a ticket to an individual below Berrien Springs Dam for throwing rocks into the river off a rip rap bank by the Fishermans Haven access, the ticket was for littering...
> 
> So based on that, you may be correct, however, I too have been told by Jim Dexter that chumming does not apply to these rules...


C
Just were in the State Constitution does it allow Mr. Dexter to pick and choose what to enforce? Pretty upsetting actually. Picture this: A friend or family member of Mr.Dexter gets ticketed for a Fisheries violation. Mr. Dexter simply makes a statement temporarily changing the law to allow it? S--- like that is how so many plants "accidentally" end up in the Creek behind his house....


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> I once witnessed a Conservation Officer write a ticket to an individual below Berrien Springs Dam for throwing rocks into the river off a rip rap bank by the Fishermans Haven access, the ticket was for littering...
> 
> So based on that, you may be correct, however, I too have been told by Jim Dexter that chumming does not apply to these rules...


Just were in the State Constitution does it allow Mr. Dexter to pick and choose what to enforce? Pretty upsetting actually. Picture this: A friend or family member of Mr.Dexter gets ticketed for a Fisheries violation. Mr. Dexter simply makes a statement temporarily changing the law to allow it? S--- like that is how so many plants "accidentally" end up in the Creek behind his house....

Given that exception it does not allow for "cured" eggs or is there an exception there as well?

I know of a case where a C/O wrote a ticket for pollution. The recipient salted a launch in Saginaw to help a truck that couldn't make it up the ramp. A minuscule amount of salt made it yo the waters edge and in.


----------



## GuppyII

You guys come from the deer hunting regulations forum??? I thought they were a bunch of whiney bi#!hes.


----------



## TSS Caddis

Boozer said:


> Really? I know you don't fish much, but really???
> 
> Comparing chumming to reefs or stream habitat? That is laughable!!!
> 
> It is an undeniable fact that creating a false food source has an impact on the feeding habits of these fish, how can I prove that? If it didn't, there would be no point to chumming!
> 
> So talking about double standards...
> 
> I know I am repeating myself here, but...
> 
> You guys want to rant and rave about increased gear restrictions, yet you are fine with chumming when they are essentially the same thing, both exclude people from fishing how they want, the only difference, one you can get a ticket for, the other you just have to change the way you fish, but both have the same effect on the average Joe, you have to change the way you fish...
> 
> Feeding birds is a great example, I am actually quite happy you brought that up, it is a prime example of changing feeding habits of a wild animal. It is also documented to effect their breeding cycles and a whole slew of other things, look it up...
> 
> If feeding fish was a non-issue, it wouldn't be illegal to set up electronic feeders on streams, which it is. Obviously whether fed by hand or by mechanical device, there is no difference...


If I ate at the same Mexican place every meal for a week, I'd hardly starve if the Mexican place closed. It's not like I'd forget what other food looks like. 

Trout are smart enough to turn off nymphs in the summer and key on eggs the second you start to chum. I'd wager as soon as you move on the trout are right back on nymphs.


----------



## Boozer

TSS Caddis said:


> If I ate at the same Mexican place every mean for a week, I'd hardly starve if the Mexican place closed. It's not like I'd forget what other food looks like.
> 
> Trout are smart enough to turn off nymphs in the summer and key on eggs the second you start to chum. I'd wager as soon as you move on the trout are right back on nymphs.


As soon as you move on MAY be a stretch... Especially during Winter when metabolism is low... Which is the main part of the year where I would forsee the biggest impact of chumming. Spring and Fall, obviously wouldn't have much of an effect at all as eggs are flying all over anyway...

However, that doesn't address the numerous other possible effects, especially when you consider the same few miles of river being chummed over and over and over and over...

The fact is this, you are tampering with the natural balance of things and you could be acting in a manner that would be detrimental to the next guy, on a public resource that everyone is entitled to, that could be considered wrong...

Comparing this to Deer is a stretch considering such a small percentage of a river will hold the majority of the fish, especially in Winter. Deer have freedom to move about much more than fish do all things being equal...

I agree and disagree so to speak...

I think if you ate mexican food everyday for every meal, the place closing would be the least of your worries lol


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> As soon as you move on MAY be a stretch... Especially during Winter when metabolism is low... Which is the main part of the year where I would forsee the biggest impact of chumming. Spring and Fall, obviously wouldn't have much of an effect at all as eggs are flying all over anyway...
> 
> However, that doesn't address the numerous other possible effects, especially when you consider the same few miles of river being chummed over and over and over and over...
> 
> The fact is this, you are tampering with the natural balance of things and you could be acting in a manner that would be detrimental to the next guy, on a public resource that everyone is entitled to, that could be considered wrong...
> 
> Comparing this to Deer is a stretch considering such a small percentage of a river will hold the majority of the fish, especially in Winter. Deer have freedom to move about much more than fish do all things being equal...
> 
> I agree and disagree so to speak...
> 
> I think if you ate mexican food everyday for every meal, the place closing would be the least of your worries lol[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Not attacking you or your beliefs however there is nothing natural about Trout and Salmon eggs by the Ton-literally being in "our" Streams. Ever witness Smallies vacating the river when the Kings show up! These fish are hear for one reason....TO BE CAUGHT. I would not want to be a client of any guide that needs to resort to Chumming. I compare that to bragging about visiting a Brothel!


----------



## RML

Did the guy get laied at the Brothel. He must be one smooth talker..

I'm going to start hand throwing trout pellets out back and stocking Trout...Why Not... All you guys better have brownish/green yarn flies, you aint gona catch crap without the secret pellet fly.


----------



## toto

I've read this thread and I'm a little confused, is this about the health of the fish, or is it about the fly guys having to use flies that look like eggs? I don't use chum myself, but from what it appears to be it's a bunch of fly guys doing most of the whining.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I am more concerned about the ability of one person to at his spoken word change Law without any change within current Laws. The possibility of "his/their" view point of gear restrictions being of social importance becomes a scary thought. Why bother with the people when you have a pen and phone!....


----------



## Robert Holmes

When chumming is allowed with a broad definition people who are chumming can throw anything into the water and call it chum. In this case some of the items thrown in the water for chum could be unnatural or harmful to the fish. The DNR should lay down the law on what can be used and what cannot be used. The DNR should also specify how much chum a "guide" of fisherman can have in their possession. I for one would not want someone to throw a couple of coffee cans full of eggs in one of the holes that I fish. The eggs could remain in the area for a long period of time and when the food is free why would the fish bite on the spawn bag.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> I've read this thread and I'm a little confused, is this about the health of the fish, or is it about the fly guys having to use flies that look like eggs? I don't use chum myself, but from what it appears to be it's a bunch of fly guys doing most of the whining.


To make this a fly guys versus bait guys ordeal is ignorant at best...

I know more bait fisherman whom despise this practice than I do fly fisherman...

In fact the last 3 guys to post to this thread that they do not like chumming, not including myself, all fish bait, as do I... 

Don't you live in Florida?


----------



## toto

Hey Boozer, first of all I only asked a question as it seems to me that was who orginally brought this up. Secondly, so what if I live in Florida, what's your point? If I own property in Michigan so therefore since I pay taxes, I would think I'd have a stake in this, at least to some degree. Frankly, to not look at all the reasons for this and not see that it was the fly guys who instituted it is blantantly ignorant at best....


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> Hey Boozer, first of all I only asked a question as it seems to me that was who orginally brought this up. Secondly, so what if I live in Florida, what's your point? If I own property in Michigan so therefore since I pay taxes, I would think I'd have a stake in this, at least to some degree. Frankly, to not look at all the reasons for this and not see that it was the fly guys who instituted it is blantantly ignorant at best....


Ummmm, I too only asked a question...

Just because the MRGA is whom asked to be heard by the steering committee, does not mean they started anything, it does not mean fly fisherman are the main ones who want chumming banned either...

The reason I asked where you reside has nothing to do with your right to have an opinion...

I would be careful trying to make this into a fly fisherman vs. bait fisherman debate as it is not an accurate assessment. If it was, that would mean no fly fisherman chum, which is false... and all bait fisherman are OK with chumming being legal, also false...

I would have never even gave your post a second look or felt inclined to even comment, except you seem dead set on making this a fly fisherman vs. bait fisherman ordeal and that is not an accurate portrayal, perhaps if you lived here, you would have observed that? That was the reason why I asked you where you lived and frankly, my belief is, all American's would be stake holders here since it is a public resource, so as far as that goes, your opinion is just as worthy as mine, all things being equal...


----------



## TSS Caddis

Boozer said:


> The fact is this, you are tampering with the natural balance of things and you could be acting in a manner that would be detrimental to the next guy, on a public resource that everyone is entitled to, that could be considered wrong...


IMO, that is really what this all comes down to, people feeling they were slighted by someone chumming. Hell, that could be someone in front of me dumping 5 gallons in, hooking a few, moving on and then I stand less of a chance, understandable.

It's not as much about the biology of this as it is about impacting others. I'd just assume no one be allowed to chum, but tend to sway the other direction when it turns into a fly fishing guide whining because their sports now have less of a chance. The same guides used to whine that bait guys were roping hen's. Someone taking a stance because it impacts their enjoyment of the sport is one thing, but I take exception to the people making money off the resource that deem everything that diminishes their chances as being wrong.


----------



## the rapids

I would place chumming far below these other issues affecting Michigan's trout streams:


dams
road crossings
altered hydrology
contamination
people
capitalism
us fisherman hooking fish
invasive species
potential threats (disease, new invasive species, etc)
etc.


those were in no particular order.


if chumming is a problem that we need to put our effort toward ending, then I guess we took care of all the above already?


----------



## Tron322

toto said:


> I've read this thread and I'm a little confused, is this about the health of the fish, or is it about the fly guys having to use flies that look like eggs? I don't use chum myself, but from what it appears to be it's a bunch of fly guys doing most of the whining.




it is about so called sportsman ruining the sport by trying to take methods away from others just because they believe that it effects their fishing. a lot of divisions in conflict in the deer hunting side of things too.


in the end it is just killing these outdoor activities by dividing us. 


I just don't get it, as long as someone isn't using dynamite, keeping 10 times the limit, etc. (seriously we can all think of 100's if not thousands of serious violations) I don't care how guys get their fish, after all they are all just fish.


as for the fish I find those hard to reach streams, most are the green colored squiggles on the old trout guide. never see anyone else there. the pressure and volume of people get so bad for you guys on the big rivers go find a green squiggle stream and stop complaining. 


trust me there are more fish there.


----------



## Trout King

Apparently this chumming issue has gotten so bad guys are ripping tight winter skeins out of hens in the pm flies water and using them for chum! Damn those spinning rod and pinners! The fisheru is surely in ruins!


----------



## kzoofisher

Who is turning this in to a "fly guy" vs "bait guy" issue? As I page back through the last 40 or 50 posts it seems to be "bait guys" disagreeing. Those are the facts we have in evidence here, an honest disagreement between fisherman about the possible effects of a practice. The only evidence I see offered that this is a fly vs bait issue is some people claiming that they know what the other guys are really thinking, no matter what the other guys are actually saying. And those other guys aren't posting here, we're just getting vague reports about them and their, clearly loathsome, personalities. Spinning this into an us vs them issue is only creating more divisiveness and I have to wonder who is best served by stirring that pot.

As far as I can tell chumming has not been looked at scientifically for its affects on streams or fish. The DNR looked at the possibility of VHS being spread by chumming and concluded that was not an issue; that was all they concluded. In the absence of any scientific studies on small and large scale chumming and with the increase in popularity of the practice, some sort of study might be worthwhile. Without any biological science the issue can only be debated on the social level. Maybe the DNR can be talked into doing one but it is a pretty minor issue at present so I doubt it. Maybe an interested party like the GLFSA can fund a study. Both GVSU and Ferris State are conveniently located for studying a couple of rivers and finding grad students to conduct research isn't hard at all. The question to ask is pretty simple, too. What is/are the result(s) of large and small scale chumming on game and non-game fish species as well as on stream ecology in general? Very open ended and worthy of some basic research. Bet you could get a preliminary answer for under $50k, too. 

It would give us something to talk about other than arguing over whether when some guy says dog he really means cat.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> I've read this thread and I'm a little confused, is this about the health of the fish, or is it about the fly guys having to use flies that look like eggs? * I don't use chum myself, but from what it appears to be it's a bunch of fly guys doing most of the whining.*





kzoofisher said:


> Who is turning this in to a "fly guy" vs "bait guy" issue? As I page back through the last 40 or 50 posts it seems to be "bait guys" disagreeing. Those are the facts we have in evidence here, an honest disagreement between fisherman about the possible effects of a practice. The only evidence I see offered that this is a fly vs bait issue is some people claiming that they know what the other guys are really thinking, no matter what the other guys are actually saying. And those other guys aren't posting here, we're just getting vague reports about them and their, clearly loathsome, personalities. Spinning this into an us vs them issue is only creating more divisiveness and I have to wonder who is best served by stirring that pot.
> 
> As far as I can tell chumming has not been looked at scientifically for its affects on streams or fish. The DNR looked at the possibility of VHS being spread by chumming and concluded that was not an issue; that was all they concluded. In the absence of any scientific studies on small and large scale chumming and with the increase in popularity of the practice, some sort of study might be worthwhile. Without any biological science the issue can only be debated on the social level. Maybe the DNR can be talked into doing one but it is a pretty minor issue at present so I doubt it. Maybe an interested party like the GLFSA can fund a study. Both GVSU and Ferris State are conveniently located for studying a couple of rivers and finding grad students to conduct research isn't hard at all. The question to ask is pretty simple, too. What is/are the result(s) of large and small scale chumming on game and non-game fish species as well as on stream ecology in general? Very open ended and worthy of some basic research. Bet you could get a preliminary answer for under $50k, too.
> 
> It would give us something to talk about other than arguing over whether when some guy says dog he really means cat.


Yet another post backing my statements regarding the importance of recent observations, thanks kzoo...


----------



## Boozer

Trout King said:


> Apparently this chumming issue has gotten so bad guys are ripping tight winter skeins out of hens in the pm flies water and using them for chum! Damn those spinning rod and pinners! The fisheru is surely in ruins!


Yeah, that blog post could have been written much better! LOL

I guess common sense would say the guy intends on using said spawn on something other than a fly rod, but does not mean he caught those fish on spinning or centrepin gear...

ALL sportsman should be ticked off about that issue though, waste is ridiculous, especially in that manner...


----------



## Boozer

the rapids said:


> I would place chumming far below these other issues affecting Michigan's trout streams:
> 
> 
> dams
> road crossings
> altered hydrology
> contamination
> people
> capitalism
> us fisherman hooking fish
> invasive species
> potential threats (disease, new invasive species, etc)
> etc.
> 
> 
> those were in no particular order.
> 
> 
> if chumming is a problem that we need to put our effort toward ending, then I guess we took care of all the above already?



What if that lesser dangerous practice divides anglers even more, thus effecting their abilities to work together on the major issues which hinder their abilities to get anything done?


----------



## kzoofisher

Boozer said:


> Yeah, that blog post could have been written much better! LOL
> 
> I guess common sense would say the guy intends on using said spawn on something other than a fly rod, but does not mean he caught those fish on spinning or centrepin gear...
> 
> ALL sportsman should be ticked off about that issue though, waste is ridiculous, especially in that manner...


Which blog?


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> What if that lesser dangerous practice divides anglers even more, thus effecting their abilities to work together on the major issues which hin.weroder their abilities to get anything done?


It is even more dangerous to allow laws to be changed from a viewpoint of an individual(s) belief(s). I see many-many more miles of Gear Restricted waters in our future.... If the director is allowed without constrain to do as he sees.


----------



## toto

I wasn't trying to turn this into a us vs them deal here, I was only pointing out that in the beginning it was fishing guides who instigated this. I can't remember who now, and I can't find the original post, but I seem to remember it that way. The bottom line is, it just didn't make sense to have this anti chumming rule when you think about it. You can't use fish roe for chumming as it MAY cause VHS, but you can use it in a spawn bag on a hook? Never quite understood that one. 

I'd be more than happy to have a study done on the fishery in Michigan, but I don't see that as necessary, all you have to do is look up DNR biologist studies already in place. Everyone of them will tell you what you want to know, but be prepared to be disappointed in what you find.


----------



## toto

METTLEFISH said:


> It is even more dangerous to allow laws to be changed from a viewpoint of an individual(s) belief(s). I see many-many more miles of Gear Restricted waters in our future.... If the director is allowed without constrain to do as he sees.


That statement right there is something I can definitely agree with.


----------



## Boozer

kzoofisher said:


> Which blog?


Red Moose Lodge in Baldwin

The basics of the post were right on, it is terrible to catch a fish, strip it of its eggs and toss it on the bank, but it may have been a bit of a knee jerk reaction to state the anglers are using spinning or centrepin reels UNLESS he knows more than we do, which is possible obviously.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> I wasn't trying to turn this into a us vs them deal here, I was only pointing out that in the beginning it was fishing guides who instigated this. I can't remember who now, and I can't find the original post, but I seem to remember it that way. The bottom line is, it just didn't make sense to have this anti chumming rule when you think about it. You can't use fish roe for chumming as it MAY cause VHS, but you can use it in a spawn bag on a hook? Never quite understood that one.
> 
> I'd be more than happy to have a study done on the fishery in Michigan, but I don't see that as necessary, all you have to do is look up DNR biologist studies already in place. Everyone of them will tell you what you want to know, but be prepared to be disappointed in what you find.


There are no MDNR studies regarding the effects of chumming.

At least none that I am aware of, can you share links to them?

Forgive me if I misunderstood what you are saying there, but seemed like you are saying they have studied it.


----------



## Trout King

Boozer said:


> Red Moose Lodge in Baldwin
> 
> The basics of the post were right on, it is terrible to catch a fish, strip it of its eggs and toss it on the bank, but it may have been a bit of a knee jerk reaction to state the anglers are using spinning or centrepin reels UNLESS he knows more than we do, which is possible obviously.


There is more social media coverage of the situation where some fly fishing advocates blames this on chumming. That was part of my jest.
Either way it is terrible that anyone would do that to a fish and leave it.

The chumming issue is not a us vs them issue. It is a us vs us issue as are most devisive issues.


----------



## troutguy26

Boozer said:


> Red Moose Lodge in Baldwin
> 
> The basics of the post were right on, it is terrible to catch a fish, strip it of its eggs and toss it on the bank, but it may have been a bit of a knee jerk reaction to state the anglers are using spinning or centrepin reels UNLESS he knows more than we do, which is possible obviously.




I think some people know a lot more about this event that took place.... 


I highly dought there is some rogue hilljack running loose in the fly water stripping fish. 


It does seem like a great way for some people to bring attention to their fight tho... 


Just my opinion since there has been no one caught in the act yet.


----------



## riverman

troutguy26 said:


> I think some people know a lot more about this event that took place....
> 
> 
> I highly dought there is some rogue hilljack running loose in the fly water stripping fish.
> 
> 
> It does seem like a great way for some people to bring attention to their fight tho...
> 
> 
> Just my opinion since there has been no one caught in the act yet.


...............:idea:


----------



## Trout King

troutguy26 said:


> I think some people know a lot more about this event that took place....
> 
> 
> I highly dought there is some rogue hilljack running loose in the fly water stripping fish.
> 
> 
> It does seem like a great way for some people to bring attention to their fight tho...
> 
> 
> Just my opinion since there has been no one caught in the act yet.


So you are saying that steelhead was just a martyr? With as radical as some folks get in defending their stance it is not unbelievable.


----------



## Boozer

troutguy26 said:


> I think some people know a lot more about this event that took place....
> 
> 
> I highly dought there is some rogue hilljack running loose in the fly water stripping fish.
> 
> 
> It does seem like a great way for some people to bring attention to their fight tho...
> 
> 
> Just my opinion since there has been no one caught in the act yet.


That would be insane for someone to do and I for one would never make that assumption, but it is always possible!

If a guide was caught doing that, he would never book a trip again, anglers of all sides would destroy his credibility...

I know one of the guys who found one of those fish and I would bet my life he would never do anything like that, but always possible someone else did it...


----------



## wintrrun

Trout King said:


> Apparently this chumming issue has gotten so bad guys are ripping tight winter skeins out of hens in the pm flies water and using them for chum! Damn those spinning rod and pinners! The fisheru is surely in ruins!


No a singular person is wanted in connection with the blog
http://redmooselodge.blogspot.com
The rest is merely the authors "personal speculation" pointing fingers at two minority groups of anglers currently using the waters legally while safeguarding another minority.:yikes:
Shock, awe, and drama sells.

To keep in topic though, I do hope that the poacher / violator is caught and charged, wether it turns out to be a fly fisherman, drift fisherman or centre pin angler.


----------



## DUCK LAB JAKE

amen to that
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> You do know that was the reasoning for having chumming outlawed in the first place, right boozer? You can google it and find articles about it. They were using chumming as an excuse for banning chumming as it may be a vector for vhs, but it was okay to use a spawn bag on a hook but that wasn't a problem?? Weird. The argument has changed to using it as an unfair advantage for some. I don't chum so it makes no difference unless of course there is zipping going on, in which case that's a terrible thing to do. I'm pretty sure it happens, can't say as I've ever seen it personally, but I'm sure it happens.


Yes, I know exactly why it was outlawed before bud, however that has nothing to do with the current conversation. You need to stop living in the past and get on with it...

Again, recent observations...

The only reason I re-visited the thread was with new possibilities as to why in extreme circumstances it COULD pose a threat as well as pointing out it is not a group of guides against one guide or even fly fisherman against bait fisherman as was insinuated previously in this thread. 

What many forget or do not know, the one guide everyone keeps eluding to, began chumming to increase the odds of clients hooking fish with flies and bait, most that were chumming years and years ago were fly fishing guides, not bait guides. A lot of guides chum in Michigan and a growing number of average Joe anglers seem to be doing it as well, if it continues to increase, who knows what the repercussions could be...


----------



## Trout King

Boozer said:


> Yes, I know exactly why it was outlawed before bud, however that has nothing to do with the current conversation. You need to stop living in the past and get on with it...
> 
> Again, recent observations...
> 
> The only reason I re-visited the thread was with new possibilities as to why in extreme circumstances it COULD pose a threat as well as pointing out it is not a group of guides against one guide or even fly fisherman against bait fisherman as was insinuated previously in this thread.
> 
> What many forget or do not know, the one guide everyone keeps eluding to, began chumming to increase the odds of clients hooking fish with flies and bait, most that were chumming years and years ago were fly fishing guides, not bait guides. A lot of guides chum in Michigan and a growing number of average Joe anglers seem to be doing it as well, if it continues to increase, who knows what the repercussions could be...


I am goingg to go out on the limb and say more fish will be caught and more fisherman will have a better experience on our non native steelhead and trout. While I believe it is not necessary to chum to catch fish it is a useful tool on slow days or tryng to get buddies into fish on days the bite is null.


----------



## Trout King

Flyfisher said:


> :lol:
> 
> Sorry, just catching up on this thread but this post made me chuckle. First off, there are so many salmon being produced naturally that the DNR cut stockings to avoid a baitfish crash like the one that occurred in Lake Huron. Limits were also increased to 5 fish per person. The result? Look at the size of the king salmon last fall. And they still returned in good numbers to repopulate the rivers and streams with their "babies".
> 
> People are getting salmon eggs from cleaning stations to chum, not slitting open the guts of steelhead to chum with tight skein.
> 
> Can you back your facts that "millions and billions" of baby salmon and steelhead are being lost? I don't think so.
> 
> And if we are so concerned about the health and numbers of spawning fish, why do we continue to allow the practice of fishing to actively spawning salmon and steelhead in the fertile waters of the "flies only" stretch of the Pere Marquette River? Those fish are vulnerable and surely abort eggs during the battle, subsequent landing, and photograph session. If the steelhead on the PM were so imperiled, perhaps the DNR should consider closing it to fishing altogether during certain times of the year?
> 
> My point is that nonsensical rants like the one you made do nothing to bring the fishing community together. We should be more concerned about water quality, forage bases, streamside habitat, and Asian carp than is Joe Schmo tosses a handful of eggs in a run before fishing it.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> *Someone that fishes with a flyrod, flies, and does NOT chum.*
> 
> _p.s. spellcheck is your friend _


Flyfisher, don't you know emotional "biology" is much more sound than real biology?


----------



## Trout King

Better yet boozer, maybe so many people will start chumming that fish will be condiojed to the soilund of chum raining on the surface that it will eliminate the need for eggs and gravel can be used as chum, lol.


----------



## Boozer

Trout King said:


> Better yet boozer, maybe so many people will start chumming that fish will be condiojed to the soilund of chum raining on the surface that it will eliminate the need for eggs and gravel can be used as chum, lol.


Bring a whole new meaning to fish biting better in the rain!!! LOL


----------



## Boozer

Trout King said:


> I am goingg to go out on the limb and say more fish will be caught and more fisherman will have a better experience on our non native steelhead and trout. While I believe it is not necessary to chum to catch fish it is a useful tool on slow days or tryng to get buddies into fish on days the bite is null.


More fisherman will that choose to fish eggs of some sort or choose to chum.

That is the concerning part for me, the domino effect...

Is it fair to increase one guys experience by decreasing from anothers on a public resource?

How can we be so against flies only, but be pro-chumming? In many ways they do the same thing.


----------



## TSS Caddis

kzoofisher said:


> Thanks for the link to the blog. A few thoughts.
> 
> This is the sort of story I would immediately dismiss as too outrageous to be true, but Boozer says he knows one of the people who actually found a carcass so that makes it a hell of a lot more credible. That leads to the question of why someone would do such a thing. Several possibilities but none of them are very likely and some of them are very unlikely. That the fish were stripped and left behind makes a tiny bit of sense because it is a no-kill stretch and hiding roe is easier than hiding a whole fish. Still doesnt answer why you would do it at all.
> 
> 1.	Somebody wanted to create a narrative to show that chumming is a bad thing that leads to abuses and they thought this was a good way to do it. Very unlikely and anyone who would consider such a plan is seriously unbalanced.
> 2.	Somebody wanted to show the C&R people that they cant take away his freedom. Very unlikely and anyone who would consider such a plan is seriously unbalanced.
> 3.	Somebody had clients and was out of eggs for chumming. They felt that chumming greatly increased their chances of success and a nice tip. Money is tight, they were desperate and took a giant risk because of it. Less unlikely but still pretty farfetched. People do get crazy when their backs are to the wall, still it would make more sense to get a couple of fish below the no-kill stretch and you could eat those fish, too.
> 4.	Somebody was desperate for money and knew of some people who would buy eggs if he could come up with some. Again, desperate people do desperate things. They chose that stretch because there are several places where you can get in and out without being seen, especially if you dont mind trespassing, and there are good trails with easy walking from the Baldwin all the way to the Green Cottage. Also less unlikely but still pretty farfetched.
> 
> The only reason for doing this that any of us would understand, but still not condone, is somebody who had hungry kids and the wolf at the door. Money is the least unlikely reason for such behavior except for what I think is the most likely reason: the person who did this is a nut.


If you were going to poach a fish in the no-kill stretch for any reason, no one would leave the evidence on the bank, period.

Used for chum? Absurd. Anyone that fishes bait or uses chum knows that 99% of the fish right now are not loose and would not waste their time.

Used to get some skein to fish? Absurd. You would not leave evidence on the bank, plus there are way better fisheries to go stock up.

Used for propaganda? Most likely. Boozers guy finding a carcass doesn't change that someone else could have left the fish and his friend found it.


----------



## Flyfisher

Boozer said:


> A lot of guides chum in Michigan and a growing number of average Joe anglers seem to be doing it as well, if it continues to increase, *who knows what the repercussions could be*...


Exactly, who knows what the repercussion will be, if there are indeed any repercussions at all. Although there are plenty of people willing to offer up baseless assumptions.

Seriously, these "concerned angler groups" (consisting primarily of flyfishing guides and outfitters) must have a lot of time on their hands to create petition drives and continue to fight to outlaw chumming. 

What these groups don't realize is that they really created a lot of animosity towards themselves with the gear regulation debacle and that people are super vigilant and sensitive now. I could care less if people can chum or not but until they can provide a valid scientific reason why people shouldn't, I am opposed to it. And some half-wit, brainwashed had the audacity to suggest on Facebook that issues like chumming is simple justification for more gear restricted water.


----------



## toto

Who's living in the past? The fact that chumming was stopped due to VHS is relevant, that was the excuse given then. What new "stuff" did you think would come up?? The fact that it isn't fair to those that don't chum?? Hardly relevant in my opinion. I've caught lots of steelhead without chumming, and if someone wants to chum let em have at it. I can remember fishing a river in Michigan and a guy up stream was chumming and it helped me out quite a bit. Never saw him catch a thing but the chum drifted down to my area and bam, fish on. Unless there is a scientific reason to not do so, I don't see the harm. As a matter of fact, if there is no evidence it is harming the fish, perhaps it's making them healthier by supplying an easier meal. The only petition I ever saw was on a guides website, and that particular guide was primarily a fly guy, won't mention names here but most know who I'm referencing.


----------



## Boozer

Flyfisher said:


> Exactly, who knows what the repercussion will be, if there are indeed any repercussions at all. Although there are plenty of people willing to offer up baseless assumptions.
> 
> Seriously, these "concerned angler groups" (consisting primarily of flyfishing guides and outfitters) must have a lot of time on their hands to create petition drives and continue to fight to outlaw chumming.
> 
> What these groups don't realize is that they really created a lot of animosity towards themselves with the gear regulation debacle and that people are super vigilant and sensitive now. I could care less if people can chum or not but until they can provide a valid scientific reason why people shouldn't, I am opposed to it. And some half-wit, brainwashed had the audacity to suggest on Facebook that issues like chumming is simple justification for more gear restricted water.


I try not to make judgments regarding our natural resources based on the actions of human beings.

If chumming was not effective, it would not be used and if it is effective it must have an impact, it does not take a "study" to prove that is why I choose to use caution and not chum myself, but as long as it is legal, I respect others rights to do so...

That is what I am trying to get at here, everyone here whom has spoken out against it, is not a member of those groups, so why do we keep mentioning those groups? It seems that everyone wants to join the chumming debate with the recent increases in artificial only regulations and I don't see the connection considering so many whom oppose the increases, also oppose chumming. The only connection I see is that both scenarios have the ability to force anglers to adhere to certain tactics.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> Who's living in the past? The fact that chumming was stopped due to VHS is relevant, that was the excuse given then. What new "stuff" did you think would come up?? The fact that it isn't fair to those that don't chum?? Hardly relevant in my opinion. I've caught lots of steelhead without chumming, and if someone wants to chum let em have at it. I can remember fishing a river in Michigan and a guy up stream was chumming and it helped me out quite a bit. Never saw him catch a thing but the chum drifted down to my area and bam, fish on. Unless there is a scientific reason to not do so, I don't see the harm. As a matter of fact, if there is no evidence it is harming the fish, perhaps it's making them healthier by supplying an easier meal. The only petition I ever saw was on a guides website, and that particular guide was primarily a fly guy, won't mention names here but most know who I'm referencing.


The fact it was ever stopped is totally irrelevant to whether or not it possesses the ability to have any impact on the ecosystem.

There are no studies to say, only the fact that it does impact the bite...

When he was chumming and you were hooking up, were you fishing spawn?

The petition is also a moot point, who cares they have a petition? What does that have to do with the fact that it may or may not have a negative impact?


----------



## toto

Negative impact on what, your opinion of fair play? Maybe if you read this very closely you can decide for yourself what the truth is.

To:	Natural Resources Commission
Re:	Proposed NRC Policy Against Chumming of Gamefish

I am here to again ask you to adopt a policy against the chumming of gamefish, chumming being the feeding or baiting of fish to artificially stimulate feeding activity. It is a policy that will help protect trout and salmon from the spread of existing diseases and from the introduction of exotic diseases such as Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). It is a policy that will protect game fish from excessive and rapid harvest by a few individuals at the expense of the majority. It is a policy that will uphold the best principles of sportsmanship and fair play. And it is a policy that will be welcomed by the sportsmen of this state.

As you will hear from others here today, chumming of steelhead and trout is becoming a hindrance to conventional fishing on some of our premier trout and salmon streams. It is a practice that is already tarnishing the sport and the reputation of these fine streams.

Chumming also poses an unwanted and unnecessary disease risk. Each chumming boat often uses gallons of salmon and trout eggs, eggs that may carry disease from anywherefrom other watersheds, from other Great Lakes, or from the East or West Coast. Department of Natural Resources Director Humphreys, in a recent newspaper article titled Deadly Seaway Virus Doomsday for Great Lakes Fish? was quoted as follows: The continuing march of VHS through the waters of the Great Lakes is a major challenge to our agency and our management options. These new discoveries are extremely unfortunate and further highlight the problems created by the constant introductions of new diseases from outside of the Great Lakes region, the speed with which they can spread, and the threat that such pathogens pose to our natural resources. Fisheries Chief Kelley Smith added: In the continued battle to slow the spread of VHS throughout the Great Lakes, we must remain vigilant, take every precaution, and implement all options available to us. Listed among the options available was a prohibition on the transfer of live fish from the states waters of the Great Lakes.

It seems prudent to extend that concern to the disease threat posed by the chumming with fish eggs, a threat that has been brought before you repeatedly over the past seven years. Concerns over chumming were first brought to your attention in September, 2000 by the Pere Marquette Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and the Michigan Resource Stewards.

The Michigan Resource Stewards have long been opposed to chumming as have MUCC and the Michigan River Guides. The Isaac Walton League added their opposition to chumming just this week.

While trout and salmon are the species now most threatened by the practice, innovation being what it is, the NRCs policy should oppose chumming for all species except, perhaps, for whitefish and carp. You may want to allow some chumming to continue for whitefish in certain lakes, because whitefish are largely a commercial species that are difficult to harvest with hook and line, and carp because they are both a commercial species and a species of nuisance abundance whose harvest should be encouraged.

Yesterday, at the Conservation Summit, Director Rebecca Humphries shared her list of the most important challenges facing the Department of Natural Resources. First on her list was the proliferation of disease and non-native species; second was conflicting uses of public lands.

These are days of tight money. Here is an opportunity to protect the resource from the proliferation of disease and the sport from conflicting uses with a single stroke of the pen. There are many of us that hope you will take advantage of it.

Thank you.

David P. Borgeson, President
Michigan Resources Stewards


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> Negative impact on what, your opinion of fair play? Maybe if you read this very closely you can decide for yourself what the truth is.
> 
> To:	Natural Resources Commission
> Re:	Proposed NRC Policy Against Chumming of Gamefish
> 
> I am here to again ask you to adopt a policy against the chumming of gamefish, chumming being the feeding or baiting of fish to artificially stimulate feeding activity. It is a policy that will help protect trout and salmon from the spread of existing diseases and from the introduction of exotic diseases such as Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). It is a policy that will protect game fish from excessive and rapid harvest by a few individuals at the expense of the majority. It is a policy that will uphold the best principles of sportsmanship and fair play. And it is a policy that will be welcomed by the sportsmen of this state.
> 
> As you will hear from others here today, chumming of steelhead and trout is becoming a hindrance to conventional fishing on some of our premier trout and salmon streams. It is a practice that is already tarnishing the sport and the reputation of these fine streams.
> 
> Chumming also poses an unwanted and unnecessary disease risk. Each chumming boat often uses gallons of salmon and trout eggs, eggs that may carry disease from anywherefrom other watersheds, from other Great Lakes, or from the East or West Coast. Department of Natural Resources Director Humphreys, in a recent newspaper article titled Deadly Seaway Virus Doomsday for Great Lakes Fish? was quoted as follows: The continuing march of VHS through the waters of the Great Lakes is a major challenge to our agency and our management options. These new discoveries are extremely unfortunate and further highlight the problems created by the constant introductions of new diseases from outside of the Great Lakes region, the speed with which they can spread, and the threat that such pathogens pose to our natural resources. Fisheries Chief Kelley Smith added: In the continued battle to slow the spread of VHS throughout the Great Lakes, we must remain vigilant, take every precaution, and implement all options available to us. Listed among the options available was a prohibition on the transfer of live fish from the states waters of the Great Lakes.
> 
> It seems prudent to extend that concern to the disease threat posed by the chumming with fish eggs, a threat that has been brought before you repeatedly over the past seven years. Concerns over chumming were first brought to your attention in September, 2000 by the Pere Marquette Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, and the Michigan Resource Stewards.
> 
> The Michigan Resource Stewards have long been opposed to chumming as have MUCC and the Michigan River Guides. The Isaac Walton League added their opposition to chumming just this week.
> 
> While trout and salmon are the species now most threatened by the practice, innovation being what it is, the NRCs policy should oppose chumming for all species except, perhaps, for whitefish and carp. You may want to allow some chumming to continue for whitefish in certain lakes, because whitefish are largely a commercial species that are difficult to harvest with hook and line, and carp because they are both a commercial species and a species of nuisance abundance whose harvest should be encouraged.
> 
> Yesterday, at the Conservation Summit, Director Rebecca Humphries shared her list of the most important challenges facing the Department of Natural Resources. First on her list was the proliferation of disease and non-native species; second was conflicting uses of public lands.
> 
> These are days of tight money. Here is an opportunity to protect the resource from the proliferation of disease and the sport from conflicting uses with a single stroke of the pen. There are many of us that hope you will take advantage of it.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> David P. Borgeson, President
> Michigan Resources Stewards


Again, where is the relevance to any recent discussions here regarding this topic?


----------



## Boozer

Also, can someone direct me to the statement by the MDNR stating that chumming poses NO RISK to the spread of VHS?

Last I knew, chumming was only reinstated as it was figured, if the fish can dump the eggs themselves, why cant people, but it was never stated they could not spread VHS...

How does that address chumming in watersheds which do not naturally have these eggs or fish present? Regarding chumming in Winter when eggs are not typically available naturally, does that not increase the risk of spreading the disease?

What if chum was dropped on the ground and something which would not normally be exposed to the virus in natural conditions was then exposed to it?

What I am getting at here is, ignore the holier than thou people, ignore what people have done to limit fishing opportunities in the past, ignore people all together and take a moment and really look at the situation, if none of those things had been done in the past by people, how then would you feel about chumming?

That is all I am going to say, my only reasoning for posting any of the things I have was food for thought from a different perspective than I had seen before, like it, love it or hate it, I do not care, but don't allow actions of humans in the past to dictate how you look at it.


----------



## wintrrun

Boozer said:


> More fisherman will that choose to fish eggs of some sort or choose to chum.
> 
> That is the concerning part for me, the domino effect...
> 
> Is it fair to increase one guys experience by decreasing from anothers on a public resource?


I don't know. 
I increase my odds by not participating in the normal river carnivals.
I think most people handicap themselves by going to these places where constant fishing pressure is applied. Your already at a disadvantage.
Add chumming to the mix and I got another reason to point my finger at something other than my inability to go catch fish.
The greatest trend I have seen over time is that as the sport became more popular and real estate was at a premium everyone developed an opinion of what was wrong with our fishery.
Then the dnr /NRC really went and screwed up and said your opinion matters.:lol:
I hope they revisit it soon. Maybe a nice feel good restriction like limiting how much you can possess on the river in a given day might be the answer.
It won't make everyone happy but let's face it. There's a lot of people who ya just can't make happy.
Just my .02 cents, again


----------



## toto

If we are talking about this thread in it's entirety, than my posts do have relevance. Just go back and read the first post. Banning chummng was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction at best, and was based on recommendations of TU and otheres. Wonder why that is? Everytime I read something that TU does that reduces the use of bait, I have to have a slanted view of it.


----------



## Boozer

wintrrun said:


> I don't know.
> I increase my odds by not participating in the normal river carnivals.
> I think most people handicap themselves by going to these places where constant fishing pressure is applied. Your already at a disadvantage.
> Add chumming to the mix and I got another reason to point my finger at something other than my inability to go catch fish.
> The greatest trend I have seen over time is that as the sport became more popular and real estate was at a premium everyone developed an opinion of what was wrong with our fishery.
> Then the dnr /NRC really went and screwed up and said your opinion matters.:lol:
> I hope they revisit it soon. Maybe a nice feel good restriction like limiting how much you can possess on the river in a given day might be the answer.
> It won't make everyone happy but let's face it. There's a lot of people who ya just can't make happy.
> Just my .02 cents, again


I agree with all of that for the most part, the domino effect is not just happening with people being more apt to chum, it also is effecting peoples decisions on it, many who are for or against it, really have no idea why they are except some guy said so and I want to jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> If we are talking about this thread in it's entirety, than my posts do have relevance. Just go back and read the first post. Banning chummng was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction at best, and was based on recommendations of TU and otheres. Wonder why that is? Everytime I read something that TU does that reduces the use of bait, I have to have a slanted view of it.


OK, now I see where we are confused.

I am basically only looking at it from when I basically brought the thread back to life with the exception, I did address some assumptions made previously which I disagreed with.

I should have been more clear.

You are on my crap list anyway though, seeing as you are sitting somewhere warm and I am sitting in the midst of the latest polar vortex


----------



## toto

Well finally we can agree on something that I was responding to the orginal thought of this thread, as for warm, well what can I say?? I mean it's on 75 today, and cloudy, sucks doesn't it?? Carry on, but curious why did you bring this thread back up anyways? I think you understand I have no stance one way or the other on chumming, if they could PROVE there is a scientific reason to ban it, then I would be all over it, but since they can't and it just appears to be another "we want this or that" than I have a problem with it, only from that standpoint.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> Well finally we can agree on something that I was responding to the orginal thought of this thread, as for warm, well what can I say?? I mean it's on 75 today, and cloudy, sucks doesn't it?? Carry on, but curious why did you bring this thread back up anyways? I think you understand I have no stance one way or the other on chumming, if they could PROVE there is a scientific reason to ban it, then I would be all over it, but since they can't and it just appears to be another "we want this or that" than I have a problem with it, only from that standpoint.


I brought it back to life simply as food for thought as it seemed to me very one sided on many levels. Some I used to agree with and now don't, some I never agreed with and some I still do agree with...

In a nutshell to provoke civil, yet educated discussion, nothing more really...


----------



## Steelheadfred

Boozer said:


> I guess more than anything, I would feel guilty about messing with another stakeholders experience on a resource we have equal rights to...


This is so well written, great quote and it's why I am in favor of just being done with it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## METTLEFISH

So Kzoo, how can it be that people are ticketed for throwing rocks from within the banks of the river into the river and utilizing salt that State, County and City municipalities also place into the waters of the State. 

Then you have audacity to attack some one utilizing your own words and quotes. Perhaps Echinacea would be beneficial in your diet.


----------



## kzoofisher

Mettle,
Go look up the law, I'm sure you will find that a distinction is made between depositing trash in the water and using lures or attractants for fish. That is the social distinction I'm referring to. You brought up the law, I'm not going to dig it out for you. You can throw a lure in the water. You can't throw a bag of potato chips in the water. Most rational people can see the distinction.

As for the other examples posted, one was a person dismantling a rip rap erosion control and throwing it in the river, possibly in an effort to spook fish and harrass anglers. The CO wrote a ticket for an enforceable offence. Good. The other was someone using what the CO clearly considered an excess of salt, exactly the same thing that has gotten Road Commissions sued. We don't have the details of course, but if the person was dumping a couple hundred pounds of salt to clear an impassable access that would definitely be harmful to the river. The officer acted properly as far as I'm concerned. Somtimes the weather keeps you from fishing.

You have made an absurd, indefensible, irresponsible and unsupported accusation of wrong doing by the DNR and as usual you refuse to let it go. It's a pet peeve of mine when people do that in these threads and I tend to jump on them for it. Want to accuse somebody of a crime or malfeasance? Go ahead, but if all you have to back it up is the sound of the wind in the trees don't be surprised if someone takes you to task.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Speaking of task. You spoke of the action as of "Social importance"did you not! He spoke of the "tradition"'of chumming as being of "Social Importance" as has that term been included in the take over of miles of Streams for the ever so "Socially Important" "Gear Restricted" waters that the Angling challenged few have been begging for.

You spoke of "Fisheries Orders" as being utilized for issues of great importance for the health if the fishery such as the closure of drowned river mouths and such. In fact you spoke of the "orders" as possibly being of social importance.
As you have learned the masses could give a hoot about the social aspects of the few that want to take the rights of Anglers away from a select group and give to another.

So, if you do not see the potential for that "'power" being abused it does not surprise me. If the potential is not alarming to you it does not surprise me. You back the taking of public waters for the exclusive use of a few Anglers that perceive their technique as being "Sacred" or of "Social Importance" if you believe I do not fear a group or person that has such beliefs your wrong. 

Municipalities that are sued for salt are done so only when utilizing a permit that sets forth allowable discharge from waste water plants that has been or is in violation of that permit. Your attempted deception is perceived by me and hopefully others.

Bulk storage issues are not the same as "some" salt pellets going directly into the water. Please link to the allowable amount as described by Law. The ramp was free of snow. Trailers dripping caused an icing of the ramp. Two shovels full were applied FYI.


----------



## kzoofisher

The power is not being abused. The Legislature has given the DNR the power to set regulations for the management of fish and game and has explicitly mentioned the social good of those activities in its legislation. Your first complaint was that the law forbids placing "any foreign matter" in the water. I say that is nonsense because it clearly does not include lures, baits, traps, decoys etc. etc. etc., and challenge you to back it up. You haven't been able to and have gone off on some wild tangent. You misinterpreted the fishing guide, why not admit your mistake and move on?

If you want to start a new thread on the place of social considerations in DNR policy, feel free. The last time we had that discussion in this forum I got the "no social considerations" crowd to admit that those considerations are both inevitable and necessary. Maybe in the next round they'll move further towards the dark side.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The last time we had that discussion in this forum I got the "no social considerations" crowd to admit that those considerations are both inevitable and necessary. Maybe in the next round they'll move further towards the dark side.


Sure you did.  Everyone knows game is managed for the people, how can there be no social in that? You didn't understood the argument and once you did, you think you got someone to admit something.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> The power is not being abused. The Legislature has given the DNR the power to set regulations for the management of fish and game and has explicitly mentioned the social good of those activities in its legislation. Your first complaint was that the law forbids placing "any foreign matter" in the water. I say that is nonsense because it clearly does not include lures, baits, traps, decoys etc. etc. etc., and challenge you to back it up. You haven't been able to and have gone off on some wild tangent. You misinterpreted the fishing guide, why not admit your mistake and move on?


No it prohibits "deposit" of such items. Next time you are down at a launch with a CO next to you, start throwing lures or say decoys in the river unattached to anything, see what happens.


----------



## Steelheadfred

You know we are all anglers of this great state, and surrounding yourself with people that always share your same views prohibits learning and growth. Dine of my good friends are avid chummers, even though I'd like to outlaw it, they are still my friends and if it's not illegal there is nothing I can do about it. 

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as we come together at the right time and do what's best for the resource, and it's diverse group of users.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## irishmanusa

Steelheadfred said:


> There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as we come together at the right time and *do what's best for the resource*, and it's diverse group of users.


There's the problem Fred, no one can "agree" on what's best...to many opinions. Good thought though!


----------



## Steelheadfred

irishmanusa said:


> There's the problem Fred, no one can "agree" on what's best...to many opinions. Good thought though!


Then do what's best for all license holding users, that's too ban chumming.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> Sure you did.  Everyone knows game is managed for the people, how can there be no social in that? You didn't understood the argument and once you did, you think you got someone to admit something.


Ray you used to say that regulations should be made using biological criteria only, not social criteria. I have always maintained that that is nonsense because it is impossible. Here are a few of your quotes.



> March 2011-Boy is this thread a study in the psychology of "social regulations." I think we have a DNR that thinks "social regulation" and bringing groups together is going to result in us getting along. Nothing can be further from the truth. Not because I say so, LOOK AT ALL THESE THREADS. HELLO! We will never all get along and see things the same. We never have been this divided because we weren't involved in the decisions, the DNR made them. Look at QDM and the deer issue, trappers and houndsmen. Now the spearing and fishing groups. What do all these contentious issues have in common, the introduction of "social regulations." I have been a member 8 years and I never would have in my wildest dreams thought I would see Whit and Shoeman at odds with each other over trout fishing. This is the danger of "social regulation." Is all I can do is repeat myself for the 100th time, stop it now, stop it before its to late. We will all be at each others throats before its over, mark my word. Go back to biology. You know, where "if its biological we wont even ask you." That gets no argument from me. Imagine that, no argument.


This next one starts with a question I asked, the response of another poster and your response to that. Admitting now that you can't get social aspects out of regulations doesn't get you off the hook for calling for the impossible. You used that sort of inflammatory nonsense until I and others hammered it out of you.



> April 2011
> What level of social benefit or pressure is your cut off point for allowing social considerations over conservation?
> 
> another poster: To answer your question, None!
> 
> Ranger Ray: Well stated Ray.





> May 2011-The committee should focus on environmental and habitat not social regulation. Leave the regulation to science


As far as I can tell your position has evolved into allowing only those social considerations which _you_ consider valid. The considerations of the rest of us don't count or are unfair.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> No it prohibits "deposit" of such items. Next time you are down at a launch with a CO next to you, start throwing lures or say decoys in the river unattached to anything, see what happens.


Mettlefish maintains that the deposit of fish attractants is a violation of law which is tolerated by a misuse of power from the DNR and apparently you agree with him. I'll ask you too, produce the law that is being violated and show us where the DNR is abusing their power. Otherwise this is just another unsupported and possibly libelous claim made on the web by people who talk/type bigger than they walk. Here are his words which you have supported.



> When you throw eggs into the water without a hook attached.....you are not fishing.





> As I said above, where is it stated as allowed? I do see where it states you may not place/put ANY foreign matter in the waters of the state. Is the spawn they are using cured? Worse yet! and again not legal under the written portion of the guide. Without written exception adopted by the legislature non enforcement is Dereliction of duty. IMO.





> Just were in the State Constitution does it allow Mr. Dexter to pick and choose what to enforce? Pretty upsetting actually. Picture this: A friend or family member of Mr.Dexter gets ticketed for a Fisheries violation. Mr. Dexter simply makes a statement temporarily changing the law to allow it? S--- like that is how so many plants "accidentally" end up in the Creek behind his house....





> I am more concerned about the ability of one person to at his spoken word change Law without any change within current Laws.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Ray you used to say that regulations should be made using biological criteria only, not social criteria. I have always maintained that that is nonsense because it is impossible. Here are a few of your quotes.
> 
> 
> This next one starts with a question I asked, the response of another poster and your response to that. Admitting now that you can't get social aspects out of regulations doesn't get you off the hook for calling for the impossible. You used that sort of inflammatory nonsense until I and others hammered it out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell your position has evolved into allowing only those social considerations which _you_ consider valid. The considerations of the rest of us don't count or are unfair.


kzoo man, you are getting too predictable. As soon as I posted that, I knew you were off to the search engine. You spend too much time trying to prove what you want to believe I am saying, as what I am saying. Maybe you should believe what I told you. Or is your mission to just prove people wrong? I went back and checked one of your quotes you used to prove your point, and low and behold you stopped short. Was it on purpose? Who knows, you have been known to befuddle that which was being said before. 



> To answer your question, None! But you are correct in that social and ethical considerations are interwoven into our fishing and hunting rule book and that is not likely to change.


From the same post:



> As far as social rules go it is difficult for many to compare some social rules with discriminatory social rules or confuse legal social rules with illegal social rules like your dynamite comparison so lets just stick to the legal and economic rules.


Oh my, the poster I said good post to, stated there are some social rules. 

Once again, what you are trying to present as what I meant or said, is wrong. Let me state it again so you understand. There is "social considerations" in game management. Who, when and how they are applied in game management is the issue.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Mettlefish maintains that the deposit of fish attractants is a violation of law which is tolerated by a misuse of power from the DNR and apparently you agree with him. I'll ask you too, produce the law that is being violated and show us where the DNR is abusing their power. Otherwise this is just another unsupported and possibly libelous claim made on the web by people who talk/type bigger than they walk. Here are his words which you have supported.


I have not studied or read enough of what he is saying to come to any conclusion. Your assumption I agree with him is incorrect.

Here is what you said:


> I say that is nonsense because it clearly does not include lures, baits, traps, decoys etc. etc. etc., and challenge you to back it up.


I pointed out a scenario in which it does include lures etc.. "Deposit" shows intent to leave. Throwing lures and retrieving them is not an apples to apples comparison. My example of throwing them and leaving them was.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> kzoo man, you are getting too predictable. As soon as I posted that, I knew you were off to the search engine. *You spend too much time trying to prove what you want to believe I am saying, as what I am saying. Maybe you should believe what I told you.* Or is your mission to just prove people wrong? I went back and checked one of your quotes you used to prove your point, and low and behold you stopped short. Was it on purpose? Who knows, you have been known to befuddle that which was being said before.
> 
> Oh my, the poster I said good post to, stated there are some social rules.
> 
> Once again, what you are trying to present as what I meant or said, is wrong. Let me state it again so you understand. There is "social considerations" in game management. Who, when and how they are applied in game management is the issue.


Umm, I didnt post what I believed what you were saying, I posted what you wrote. If you mean something different than what you write, maybe you should write better. In the first quote you write that the public being involved is causing divisions among sportsmen and that the DNR should go back to making decisions without public input, Go back to biology., as if that was ever the case.

In reference to the second quote you rightly point out that I didnt quote the whole thing. It was pretty long and I did leave some out, but I noted and dismissed the rationalization in that post of accepting social considerations so long as they meet your needs and rejecting the consideration of any others. I notice you also left some of that post out. Like this part, We had a terrible time defeating the snagging rules and as a result we have generations of people who only know how to catch salmon and steelhead by snagging and it seems impossible to stop completely. Snagging was a social rule and it was finally defeated for moral and ethical reasons. No mention of biology there, just elitist moral and ethical grandstanding, which is kind of funny because there are valid biological reasons to ban snagging. Maybe you are the one trying to befuddle what was previously said in order to make it meet your new position. There are no biological reasons that I know of to ban spearing for salmon but as one of your cohorts put it, even when people have a right to spear it makes him sick. I have brought it up many times before but you continue to deny the sportsmen who prefer to pursue fish by that method, all the while claiming to stand for all sportsmen under the banner of biology. Your who, when and why of social considerations is pretty clear. By you and your friends, without input from sportsmen in general and for the benefit of you and your friends.


----------



## kzoofisher

Ranger Ray said:


> I have not studied or read enough of what he is saying to come to any conclusion. Your assumption I agree with him is incorrect.
> 
> I pointed out a scenario in which it does include lures etc.. "Deposit" shows intent to leave. Throwing lures and retrieving them is not an apples to apples comparison. My example of throwing them and leaving them was.


Youre right there, I assumed that anyone who jumps into a discussion would have taken a couple of minutes to find out what it was about. Just to bring you up to speed Mettlefish says that chumming should be illegal because it is depositing or placing fish parts in a body of water and that one or more Fisheries Directors is derelict in their duty and in violation of State Law and the State Constitution for allowing it. His statement about Directors acting outside of their legal roles was the part you agreed with. Context is awfully important and you should have been more aware of what the overall argument was before you agreed with what you may have thought was just a small part of it.

You did point out a scenario where fishing would be legal but you failed to make any case for chumming. That was the subject of disagreement, sorry you missed it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Umm, I didnt post what I believed what you were saying, I posted what you wrote. If you mean something different than what you write, maybe you should write better. In the first quote you write that the public being involved is causing divisions among sportsmen and that the DNR should go back to making decisions without public input, Go back to biology., as if that was ever the case.
> 
> In reference to the second quote you rightly point out that I didnt quote the whole thing. It was pretty long and I did leave some out, but I noted and dismissed the rationalization in that post of accepting social considerations so long as they meet your needs and rejecting the consideration of any others. I notice you also left some of that post out. Like this part, We had a terrible time defeating the snagging rules and as a result we have generations of people who only know how to catch salmon and steelhead by snagging and it seems impossible to stop completely. Snagging was a social rule and it was finally defeated for moral and ethical reasons. No mention of biology there, just elitist moral and ethical grandstanding, which is kind of funny because there are valid biological reasons to ban snagging. Maybe you are the one trying to befuddle what was previously said in order to make it meet your new position. There are no biological reasons that I know of to ban spearing for salmon but as one of your cohorts put it, even when people have a right to spear it makes him sick. I have brought it up many times before but you continue to deny the sportsmen who prefer to pursue fish by that method, all the while claiming to stand for all sportsmen under the banner of biology. Your who, when and why of social considerations is pretty clear. By you and your friends, without input from sportsmen in general and for the benefit of you and your friends.


Whatever dude, you are obsessed with trying to put words in my mouth. Cohorts? :lol: Enough with the befuddlement, its getting old.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> Youre right there, I assumed that anyone who jumps into a discussion would have taken a couple of minutes to find out what it was about. Just to bring you up to speed Mettlefish says that chumming should be illegal because it is depositing or placing fish parts in a body of water and that one or more Fisheries Directors is derelict in their duty and in violation of State Law and the State Constitution for allowing it. His statement about Directors acting outside of their legal roles was the part you agreed with. Context is awfully important and you should have been more aware of what the overall argument was before you agreed with what you may have thought was just a small part of it.
> 
> You did point out a scenario where fishing would be legal but you failed to make any case for chumming. That was the subject of disagreement, sorry you missed it.


Ah yes, the innuendo's and assumptions. Some things never change. You have a problem with being proven wrong. Attack! Attack!


----------



## kzoofisher

:lol::lol::lol: OK, snarky, non-responsive one liners. Par for the course when you've run out of points to make. And what is wrong with "cohorts"? It's a lot shorter than writing "one of the other guys who you tend to agree with and who backs you up" and it's a lot more polite than "ilk". Can't say it seems like it's much less common than "befuddle".

I'm no psychologist, but your thinking that someone disagreeing with you and using some facts (like your own words) to try and show you're wrong, equals them attacking you says a lot about why you feel the process of involving the public is so unfair. Don't take things so personally, you'll give yourself a stroke.


----------



## Ranger Ray

kzoofisher said:


> :lol::lol::lol: OK, snarky, non-responsive one liners. Par for the course when you've run out of points to make. And what is wrong with "cohorts"? It's a lot shorter than writing "one of the other guys who you tend to agree with and who backs you up" and it's a lot more polite than "ilk". Can't say it seems like it's much less common than "befuddle".
> 
> I'm no psychologist, but your thinking that someone disagreeing with you and using some facts (like your own words) to try and show you're wrong, equals them attacking you says a lot about why you feel the process of involving the public is so unfair. Don't take things so personally, you'll give yourself a stroke.


Right. You have to post something worth responding to. Innuendos and your assumptions keep being proven wrong, yet you just can't grasp that and want to keep assuming wrong. I will say it again, "social considerations" are part of game management. Que the next post from befuddler kzoo where I don't mean what I just said.  No stroking out here, life is good.


----------

