# Chumming - The Facts



## Steelee (Aug 26, 2003)

Per Mark Tonello, Fisheries Biologist, Cadillac, "There is so adverse effect from chumming, either to the fish or fishery, using salmon eggs which are disease free".

Take a look at the BBT Website for pictures of winter browns from the PM, then take a look at winter browns from the Muskegon River websites. Which river's fish look healthier? Could chumming be actually be helping?

Hands down the Mighty Mo - THINK FOOD!

Leave the guides out of this. Almost every guide I know has a licence, pays launch fees to use the river, has insurance, and takes a captains exam. Most are catch and release because keeping the fishery healthy is the key to their livlihood. Name calling does nothing for the fish.

Think about it for a minute, please. Is my personal attitude, or ethics, more important to making laws for the fish than the science?

Regards, Steelee


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

amen
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jones (Mar 5, 2010)

Steelee,

Nice try, but your logic fails on several grounds. Let's break it down...

1. Mark Tonello's (supposed) quote "_There is so adverse effect from chumming, either to the fish or fishery, using salmon eggs which are disease free_".

All this means is that chumming with salmon eggs doesn't "hurt" the population of steelhead and resident trout, i.e. have adverse physical effects on the fish or fish population. Obviously...salmon eggs are what they eat! It has absolutely nothing to do nor does it address the reason why a large number of people are against the practice, which is that it undermines the fair play aspect of fishing.

2. _Take a look at the BBT Website for pictures of winter browns from the PM, then take a look at winter browns from the Muskegon River websites. Which river's fish look healthier? Could chumming be actually be helping?_

The Pere Marquette and the Muskegon are two completely different river systems...you are comparing apples to oranges. The Muskegon is a large fertile tailwater with an incredible food supply. The PM is smaller, colder, and doesn't have growing conditions like the Muskegon. It's a fantastic trout stream in its own right, but totally different than the Muskegon. 

3. _Think about it for a minute, please. Is my personal attitude, or ethics, more important to making laws for the fish than the science?_

ABSOLUTELY YES! Fishery decisions are always based on utilitarian principles! Think about it...if the limit of steelhead is increased to 10/day, what will the overall effect on the population be? Sure, it will likely go down, but there will still be enough fish that make it through the gauntlet and successfully spawn to produce another generation. Maybe we wouldn't be able to catch as many as we would like to in a day, but the population won't go extinct. Fisheries(especially artificial ones) are managed for the general public. If that weren't the case, the fish stocking would have no point at all.

I understand that your world might come crashing down if you're no longer able to throw a bunch of eggs in the water at each hole you fish, it's a bitter pill to swallow. I used to chum back in the day, and in the event that I forgot the bottle, i felt naked. However, once you get over the numbers game, you'll likely appreciate the fish you do catch, more.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Perfect. You fish the fatties on the MO and I'll fish the fatties on the PM!!!!!!!!


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Here are some facts that are pretty interesting.

http://www.michiganrivernews.com/2011/12/great-lakes-salmon-polluting-michigans-stream-fish/

The more I research it, the more I would like to see chumming banned on watersheds or sections of watersheds which DO NOT get a run of migratory Trout & Salmon.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

is it ethical to push personal ethics on other fisherman?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Traylortrout (Apr 17, 2012)

Trout King said:


> is it ethical to push personal ethics on other fisherman?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


IMO no, I think fisherman have the right to do as they please within the confines of the law. People should be allowed to have their own opinions of what is ethical. Once again on things that are lawful


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

The way I see it, if a fisheries biologist says it isn't harming anything, throw them eggs. That's the scientific fact as stated by Mr. Tonello. After that, it's all about what makes you feel good. Just because some guy wants to chum, and I don't doesn't make me feel any different for that person. I don't chum as I just don't feel like having the mess, and hauling around one more thing, but that's just me. If it isn't illegal, then what's the problem? Ask yourself why is it, really, that you don't like this chumming thing. Is it really for the fishes protection, which has been stated isn't a problem, or is it because you don't do it, so no one should? Just be honest about it, not only to us, but to yourself.


----------



## Jones (Mar 5, 2010)

toto said:


> The way I see it, if a fisheries biologist says it isn't harming anything, throw them eggs. That's the scientific fact as stated by Mr. Tonello. After that, it's all about what makes you feel good. Just because some guy wants to chum, and I don't doesn't make me feel any different for that person. I don't chum as I just don't feel like having the mess, and hauling around one more thing, but that's just me. If it isn't illegal, then what's the problem? Ask yourself why is it, really, that you don't like this chumming thing. Is it really for the fishes protection, which has been stated isn't a problem, or is it because you don't do it, so no one should? Just be honest about it, not only to us, but to yourself.


toto, my dislike for the practice has nothing to do with the "fishes protection" (as stated in my previous post). If that were the case, I wouldn't fish at all.

By your logic, if i drop a grenade in the water, collect my limit of fish, and leave, there should be no repercussions because nothing (except the fish) was harmed by my actions. However, there are laws (which were at some point in time created) against such methods because it isn't sporting, nor is it fair chase.

Second, whether or not it is currently "illegal" again has nothing to do with it. Legislation is continually modified such that things which were formerly legal _become_ illegal, e.g. talking on cell phones while driving. 

The reason I dislike it is due to its effectiveness. Sure, if I'm the one driving around with a liter of loose roe, good things are going to happen to me and those fishing with me. But what about the rest of the fisherman on the river?


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Boozer said:


> Here are some facts that are pretty interesting.
> 
> http://www.michiganrivernews.com/2011/12/great-lakes-salmon-polluting-michigans-stream-fish/
> 
> The more I research it, the more I would like to see chumming banned on watersheds or sections of watersheds which DO NOT get a run of migratory Trout & Salmon.


 
Why'sat?.... we sein up a few thousand shiners and get the Smallies worked all up and then slip em a phony one with a hook...works great....


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

Boozer said:


> Here are some facts that are pretty interesting.
> 
> http://www.michiganrivernews.com/2011/12/great-lakes-salmon-polluting-michigans-stream-fish/
> 
> The more I research it, the more I would like to see chumming banned on watersheds or sections of watersheds which DO NOT get a run of migratory Trout & Salmon.


I thought chumming and use of fish eggs _was_ banned upstream of fish barriers w/ no passage? Can anybody clarify?


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Jones said:


> toto, my dislike for the practice has nothing to do with the "fishes protection" (as stated in my previous post). If that were the case, I wouldn't fish at all.
> 
> By your logic, if i drop a grenade in the water, collect my limit of fish, and leave, there should be no repercussions because nothing (except the fish) was harmed by my actions. However, there are laws (which were at some point in time created) against such methods because it isn't sporting, nor is it fair chase.
> 
> ...


people need to quit worrying about what and how other LEGAL fisherman are doing. everyone enjoys fishing in a diff way. btw its my opinion someone chumming doesnt kill my chances. example i was floating waxies in the rogue this winter and came on a popular run. talked to a guy packing it up, he said he chummed and got one. i fished it anyway, landed 4 fish in a half hr. chumming doesnt necessarily mean the river is getting cleaned out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Steelee (Aug 26, 2003)

Hello To All Who Replied to my Original Topic,

To me, the best thing about this site is when I read or participate in a fairly reasonable discussion of outdoors issues such as chumming. No name calling, whining, or swearing.

First to Jones. I have never chummed in my life. I asked Mr Tonello about this topic because my 1 and only concern is the effect of chumming salmon eggs to the resident fish and the environment. If Mr. Tonello had told me that chumming was biologically harmful, I would have signed up to have chumming banned. But as stated by our fisheries biologist, whose views I deeply respect, chumming is not at all harmful. It may be beneficial in the winter: more food. Maybe it is not beneficial as you suggest in your argument. But a few more salmon eggs chummed into the PM might help in winter.

We agree to disagree on the last point. I say that biology should be the basis for laws regarding fishing. You do not agree, which is fine. I applaud your approach to have a reasonable approach to discussing this issue.

I took a look at the SWTU website today - I am a member. They are anti-chumming and directed me to the anti-chumming website. On the anti site there are lots of logos of supporters, mostly fishing guides, outfitters, fly shops, flies only dudes, and other commercial interests. When I see this, I think to myself, "Are their interests in anti-chumming selfish, money driven, making money off the resources we all own driven; or are they really interested in protecting the welfare of the fish. Given Mr. Tonello's statement regarding the biology and science; I have developed my own opinion of the anti-chumminng crowd.

I am not anti-chum. Chum all you want if the fish are OK. However, I will not be chumming. I belong to TU, fly fish 98% of the time, but I eat trout and I do not believe in the "Flies Only" sections of our rivers unless there is a sound biological reason. I believe a person that paid bucks for the fishing license should get to fish anywhere. Thank you again for your civility.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Steelee said:


> Hello To All Who Replied to my Original Topic,
> 
> To me, the best thing about this site is when I read or participate in a fairly reasonable discussion of outdoors issues such as chumming. No name calling, whining, or swearing.
> 
> ...


Not everyone is as level headed as you in their train of thinking. The anti chumming - flies only - C&R crowd operates on heart felt emotions, and there really is nothing wrong with that... except they tend to dis-regard sound biological data when it comes to "their" beloved Trout. They want them to live forever and reach historic proportions. If only!

In any fish population there are fish that can be caught and fish that are iether more difficult to catch or just plain can't be caught. Genetics, intelligence and training play a role in this. Some fish will live longer than others and thus grow larger. Those are true trophies, they are not contrived specimens that are really no different than Trout pond Trout.


----------



## GRUNDY (Jun 18, 2005)

I don't chum, but I have fished a hole that was actively chummed by someone else. Turns out I didn't mind it so much...But I just can't justify messing with all those extra eggs, prepping them storing them etc...

A statement made above regarding what was once legal, and is now illegal, and vice versa, gives somethng good to think about. Just becasue its legal now does not necessarily make it good, or even OK. 

Market hunting of waterfowl was once legal, and probably considered OK...

I can be a manwhore and knock up many women, even if I am "responsible" and pay all the required child support, I may be legal, but its not really OK...

Chumming may be legal, but is it really OK?

Nice civil topic...

B


----------



## samsteel (Oct 6, 2008)

GRUNDY said:


> I can be a manwhore and knock up many women, even if I am "responsible" and pay all the required child support, I may be legal, but its not really ok
> B


well.....thats just like....your opinion, man


----------



## Traylortrout (Apr 17, 2012)

I do understand that legal doesn't make it right all the time. I myself also do not chum either. I just can't justify telling a fisherman he is doing something terrible if it isn't against the law and also not hurting the fish. And from the statements made I don't see anything showing that chumming harms the fish. Just saying cut the guys chumming some slack until one of the above situations becomes true. Not saying that everyone bashes people who chum. Just my thought to some of the anti chumming slogans out there.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

a lot of anti chumming sympathies is either bc someone feels slighted by not catching fish, jealousy, and or greed. i chum sometimes, honestly it is a waste of eggs a lot of times, but truth be told if im having a tough day anything helps. i fish to catch fish. if i have spawn turning old ill chuck them. i dont see a sense of wasting eggs, if i cant use them i might as well feed the fishes,lol. its kinda the same thing as some flies only vs bait guys. "you can catch more so i dont like it". is that what fishing is about? a competition? not to me. i like catching fish and a lot of them, but i wont push my ethics on othet legal fisherman, no matter the methods they choose...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Multispeciestamer (Jan 27, 2010)

Ive fished on the pier while guys chum in whitefish, etc. Never chummed and never had to. But if someone wants to who cares, it can actually benefit.


----------



## Chromedoggy (Mar 25, 2007)

If it is within the law, I am ok with it. If it is against the law I am ok with it. If you get arrested for violating and lie about it, I have a problem with it.

I must point out, Mr Tonello's research and view are professional and with good basis. However it is still opinion, not fact, as you can find peers with opposite opinions.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

TSS Caddis said:


> I find it hard to believe someone that chums resorting to throwing spiders over mooching at a cleaning station or lining them off gravel.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk





wintrrun said:


> Me 2.
> The same way someone who actually believes chuck and duck with the two fly rig equates to legal hook ups, photo session and a shawwwty release.
> Amazing how many turds ya can find for and against.:16suspect


Cleaning station isn't usually gonna get you loosies and the fact everyone and their Brother is out there mooching at cleaning stations nowadays doesn't make it real easy...

Regarding the spiders, that was a statement from a guy I know who doesn't even fly fish, simply an observation he made since the ban was lifted. He fishes small tribs in NW Michigan North of the Manistee where spider rigs would be a very easy way to rack up a bunch of eggs, had there not been an increase in zipped carcasses in the same areas, he would have never made any correlation... Doesn't mean he was correct, just an observation...

While I do remain indifferent, I do find it very interesting more than half the bait fisherman I know want chumming banned for similar reasons as Bombcast stated. Yet everyone keeps assuming it's only spawner snagging fly fisherman that don't want it...

Then you get the comments that C&D is for snagging only, that really makes your credibility go out the window as if it is done right, you can get a lot of legit hookups with it, I'm not talking fishing gravel here...

You guys need to stop the non-sense of outright disagreeing with something simply because your "enemy" doesn't like it. Same thing that is going on in our Government right now, can't get passed the hatred for the others to have any legitimate discussion...

Here's one way to look at it, if chumming wasn't really effective and wasn't necessary to get fish going after a while, why would some of the biggest tight-wads you will ever meet be spending money to obtain eggs for chumming? These guys have more time on the water than our MDNR does by far, they clearly believe that behavioral conditioning is really taking place or they wouldn't be chumming, more and more and more. They wouldn't be risking losing their $25,000 jet sled by breaking the law and continuing to chum would they. So assuming they are right, there is really no difference between chumming and flies only water, both would be selfish acts, would they not?

Just food for thought, my guess is, like gear restrictions, chumming isn't going anywhere...


----------



## Steelee (Aug 26, 2003)

Great Point Boozer,

I agree that agreeing to disagree in a civil manner is surely lacking today. But it can be done. Because another person or organization does not act to our liking, it does not make them the enemy.

However, when a person or organization begins a mission to change a law like in this case, I want to learn why. My backyard has 60 feet of grass then the Mighty Mo. I am not an innocent bystander as I have skin in the game as I fish-often, and usually with flies.

I have accumulated enough information, thanks to you, Mr. Tonello, and lots of opinions on this great site. I will now take my information to the leadership people and to my brothers and sisters at TU. They have put their support to the anti-chumming campaign based on something other than science. Science is the hallmark of TU. We believe in biology. This does not conform to the Mission of TU as I see it.

I believe they will listen. Maybe not agree, but listen which is great. I am pretty sure they will not evict me. Good folks, but like me, sometimes off on a tangent.

Weather is breaking. More fishing on the horizon. Have a safe and sane steelheading season.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Fish eat eggs. Eggs are in the river system that time of the year. People then use eggs to chum and fish with. Its not illegal. Get over it.

Ganzer


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

MERGANZER said:


> Fish eat eggs. Eggs are in the river system that time of the year. People then use eggs to chum and fish with. Its not illegal. Get over it.
> 
> Ganzer


That is all correct, to an extent...

Eggs are not being dumped by the ladle full in January of February...

Lot of things are legal and/or illegal that aren't really on the up and up so to simply say it's not illegal is dangerous...


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Steelee said:


> Great Point Boozer,
> 
> I agree that agreeing to disagree in a civil manner is surely lacking today. But it can be done. Because another person or organization does not act to our liking, it does not make them the enemy.
> 
> ...


Do not quote me on this, BUT I have been told that there are individuals in the Michigan TU organization with equal credentials so to speak as the biologists working for the MDNR who disagree with the MDNR biologists. As has been pointed out though, on both sides, there really are no hard facts to back either sides claims.

The only thing that can be proven is, fish are not harmed by eating the eggs, which is pretty much common sense...

I find the argument interesting, hence why I keep discussing it, again, I really could care less if it takes place in watersheds where the Salmon eggs are being dumped "naturally".


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Its all protien being used by the fish consuming the eggs. I dont see a problem when the biologists dont see a problem. Thats all. If there is no harm to the resource whats the problem. Youre feeding some fish.

Ganzer


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

MERGANZER said:


> Its all protien being used by the fish consuming the eggs. I dont see a problem when the biologists dont see a problem. Thats all. If there is no harm to the resource whats the problem. Youre feeding some fish.
> 
> Ganzer



Absolutely correct, although any biologist will admit, there is virtually no studies that can say either way what the effects would be on the feeding habits of the fish due to chumming.

If behavioral conditioning is indeed taking place in areas where it is being done a LOT (Croton to Newaygo for example), it could in effect make those who do not want to fish eggs, be at more of a disadvantage because of chumming. This would in effect, make it very similar to the argument that gear restrictions are not fair. Hypothetical, yes indeed...

If they are changing the feeding habits of the fish, that is a biological impact and would then likely not be supported by the vast majority of anglers, again, purely hypothetical. Like I said, it simply interests me if it is or is not, there are a lot of guys "not the ones on real steelheaders" who swear it is making a difference. I don't fish in areas where it takes place in large amounts enough to have any opinion either way...


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

People still chummed when it was banned and one was even ticketed/arrested. Banning it again is just going to keep honest people honest. And let's not fool ourselves, this whole issue comes down to one guide on one river and a continuing feud with fellow guides.

Has anyone contacted the A&E, Discovery, or the History Channel yet? It's enough of a soap opera on that river they could easily do a pseudo-reality series and call it "Guide Wars".


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Flyfisher said:


> \Has anyone contacted the A&E, Discovery, or the History Channel yet? It's enough of a soap opera on that river they could easily do a pseudo-reality series and call it "Guide Wars".


 
:lol:


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Flyfisher said:


> People still chummed when it was banned and one was even ticketed/arrested. Banning it again is just going to keep honest people honest. And let's not fool ourselves, this whole issue comes down to one guide on one river and a continuing feud with fellow guides.
> 
> Has anyone contacted the A&E, Discovery, or the History Channel yet? It's enough of a soap opera on that river they could easily do a pseudo-reality series and call it "Guide Wars".


LOL, hey if they can have shows about custom bra's, dance mom's and the multitude of other obnoxious crap, my guess is "Guide Wars" would actually get pretty good ratings. Maybe we should get some camera's and get on it!

In all honesty, the past few times I fished that river, guides and anglers were the friendliest I have ever seen on it, was weird, but I don't fish it during the peak times when everyone is on edge...

I have said it many times, many of the issues in this state regarding this kind of stuff could easily be resolved by limiting how many people can guide each river, but then you would run into a whole slew of issues with that as well...


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

Fact: I sometimes eat bologna sandwiches.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

tannhd said:


> Fact: I sometimes eat bologna sandwiches.


Fried or au natural?


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

microwaved.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Now that sounds nasty


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

tannhd said:


> microwaved.


Thats trailer park bro.


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

yee haa


----------



## Chromedoggy (Mar 25, 2007)

Flyfisher said:


> People still chummed when it was banned and one was even ticketed/arrested. Banning it again is just going to keep honest people honest. And let's not fool ourselves, this whole issue comes down to one guide on one river and a continuing feud with fellow guides.
> 
> Has anyone contacted the A&E, Discovery, or the History Channel yet? It's enough of a soap opera on that river they could easily do a pseudo-reality series and call it "Guide Wars".



No one was ticketed or arrested?
The only person to claim that was the one who was ticketed and arrested.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Fact: Tonello has probably forgotten more about salmon and steelhead, both as a biologist and as a fisherman, than most guys on here will ever know. 

He has a passion for salmon and steelhead fishing and if there was some sort of threat to the fishery, he'd be the first one to try and address it. As a biologist, he manages based on science and common sense...not emotion or social "wants." 

I don't care what the issue is or whatever debate is going on--even if I agree or don't like something that Mark has to say, his viewpoints carry a ton of weight with me and I don't say that about very many people. I may not like the answer he provides me when I ask a question, but when he provides an answer, that's it--you can trust that what he's saying is based on common sense and his knowledge of the fisheries.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

thousandcasts said:


> Fact: Tonello has probably forgotten more about salmon and steelhead, both as a biologist and as a fisherman, than most guys on here will ever know.
> 
> He has a passion for salmon and steelhead fishing and if there was some sort of threat to the fishery, he'd be the first one to try and address it. As a biologist, he manages based on science and common sense...not emotion or social "wants."
> 
> I don't care what the issue is or whatever debate is going on--even if I agree or don't like something that Mark has to say, his viewpoints carry a ton of weight with me and I don't say that about very many people. I may not like the answer he provides me when I ask a question, but when he provides an answer, that's it--you can trust that what he's saying is based on common sense and his knowledge of the fisheries.


Hence why he would say what he did, clearly the fish eating eggs are not hurting the fish, don't think you will find anyone whom would ever argue that point.

Him or anybody else cannot say with any definitive answer though if it effects the "fishing" for others as there have been no definitive studies done. I think that bothers a lot of people especially the pro-chumming people, but it is a fact. That is not to say we should make any changes to our current laws, just means there is a possibility it could have a negative impact by way of things such as behavioral conditioning, albeit likely a minor negative impact, but nobody can say as there is no answer at this time, purely speculation. I know they don't have any studies regarding this as I have asked and I am not implying they should run out and spend their limited resources to do a study either, but it would be interesting to see the results IF it's even possible to do a study on something like that and be accurate.

I don't think anyone here "meaning people posting to this thread" has any lack of respect or trust in our current fisheries guys like Tonello. Anything I have stated either for or against chumming was simply material for discussion, things people say as to why it should or should not be banned, etc... Tried really hard to make it clear I was indifferent on it. I am assuming your post was intended for me as I am really the only one whom has mentioned Tonello's name here. Trust me man, I think Michigan's fisheries are the best all around fishing destinations in the country, we didn't get that quality of fisheries by way of magic, we got them due to good management. I simply knew the original post stating that Tonello said what was in quotation marks in that post wasn't likely 100% accurate and after reading his email, it said exactly what I thought it would...

Tonello was not quoted accurately in the original post, it was said he stated "There is so adverse effect from chumming, either to the fish or fishery, using salmon eggs which are disease free".

You can read the email yourself to see. To add the words "either to the fish or fishery" would be reckless for a man like Tonello to say there is no effect on the "fishery" given they really have no proof, like I thought, he didn't say that. What I mean by this is, our MDNR biologists would never be so reckless to assume things they have no proof of, like the biologists who are disagreeing with them supposedly, are obviously doing if these biologists who disagree, really exist...


----------



## Jones (Mar 5, 2010)

Flyfisher said:


> People still chummed when it was banned and one was even ticketed/arrested. Banning it again is just going to keep honest people honest. And let's not fool ourselves, this whole issue comes down to one guide on one river and a continuing feud with fellow guides.
> 
> Has anyone contacted the A&E, Discovery, or the History Channel yet? It's enough of a soap opera on that river they could easily do a pseudo-reality series and call it "Guide Wars".


Sure, one is probably head and shoulders above the rest, but I could name ~10 others off the top of my head who play the same game on the that river.


----------

