# NRC considers legal salmon snagging season



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

You knew this was going to happen sooner or later, but it appears that some of the businesses in northern Michigan have successfully complained long and loud enough, that certain state reps for that area have approached the NRC about considering another legal salmon snagging season on certain rivers. Its no secret that certain areas have taken a huge economic hit since snagging was banned, said House Rep Tom Fulrey. The local courts have a seen a windfall, of sorts, from the repeated tickets being written for illegal snagging, but very little of that has actually trickled down to the communities. He went on to point out that motels, bait shops and even some restaurants and bars have closed up due to a lack of business. Its a simple fact that the snaggers were a lively, fun loving bunch that frequented the local establishments and spent a lot of money in the processyou cant expect to keep a tavern open year round simply catering to a few of the locals. Fulrey added. 
While there have always been some behind-the-scenes attempts to bring back legal snagging for salmon, the most distressing thing is that the NRC is seriously contemplating the issue and some rivers could be opened to the sport as early as this fall. From a biological stand point, it makes perfect sense, stated NRC spokesman Bob Lark, the recent decline in great lakes alewife populations is a result of there being too many predators in the lake. The fisheries division is trying to address this issue with salmon stocking cuts, but natural reproduction is at an all time high and snagging could help tremendously in reducing the number of adult spawners and thus, helping the local economies in the process. 
Three rivers with high instances of natural reproduction are being considered: The Pere Marquette, Big Manistee and Muskegon Rivers. If you look at creel studies done over the last few years, said DNR fisheries tech John Stunt, The catch rates in the Big Manistee alone are around 30,000 salmon per fall. You have to imagine that, at least, that many are spawning unmolested and thus adding more wild salmon to the already out of balance great lake predator to prey equation. As distasteful as it may be, I think snagging those spawners would eventually be a benefit to the great lakes fishery as a whole. 

So, here we go guysyet another fisheries issue to deal with. :rant:


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

I posted the thought of Opening the Ludington State Park to snagging and snagging only.

There is no natural reproduction there and it is in an area they could sell special permits and control.

My thought was it would take snaggers away from "legal rivers" and concentrate them in that area.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Steve would snagging in the fly water still be limited to the PM two fly rig.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

The impression I got when I talked those involved, was that the first mile below the Custer Lamprey barrier would be opened to snagging. Their reasoning is that salmon tend to gather below it when the water levels are at their typical low levels during the early fall and it's a good place to remove adult spawners before they can get up to the gravel. Estimates show that the PM produces close to a million young chinook smolts every year, so thier goal is to reduce that by at least half. Indian Bridge was also mentioned as well as the Taylor Road access. I would imagine the first mile or so below Tippy would be the obvious choice for the Big M, but I think the DNR is also willing to let the local tribe spear in Bear Creek in exchange for them not spearing at the Little M wier...which seemed to be a really horrid sight for tourists visiting the wier last fall.


----------



## PineIsland (Aug 15, 2001)

It is a valid user group that has been pushing for years to reinstate it. They dont have the political clout quite yet, but you know its bound to happen.

Tolerance is all the rage these days, so who is going to tell them they are wrong ?


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

What about the inocent early run steelhead, lake run browns, and resident trout, bass, and walleyes?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

I know I'm dreaming, but why not let nature restock the areas of the great lakes that have the streams, reduce the cost of trapping, stripping, milking, and raising salmon for planting. Just think, maybe some of that saved money could be used to try and increase our summer run population, brown trout plantings or a host of other projects. Imagine the prospect that in less than 50 years the folks in the dnr fisheries intoduced a species that was to become a wild run. Howard Tanner would be proud. Riverman


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Well, that's the problem Riverman--nature is doing a tremendous job of stocking the great lakes and now there's too many spawners coming back to the rivers and adding more and more wild fish to feed on the depleted forage base. That's why these proposed snagging regs are going to be implemented in all likelihood. They can reduce hatchery plants, but they also have to greatly reduce the number of adult spawners that are going unharvested. 

I really think it's going to happen this year. I e-mailed one of the CO's a couple weeks ago and asked when the fall Riverwatch dates were this year. His answer was that he didn't know and the whole thing was up in the air because of some "stuff" going on behind the scenes. He also added that there's a great possibility that the riverwatch won't even be needed at Tippy this year. Take that as well as the other info provided and read between the lines, I guess.


----------



## PineIsland (Aug 15, 2001)

Steelheadfred said:


> What about the inocent early run steelhead, lake run browns, and resident trout, bass, and walleyes?



If you are taking the fish home, who cares how they caught them, they are still gone. Snagging is just another method, like jigging or bottom bouncing, whether it a walleye, steelhead , or anything else.


----------



## dinoday (Feb 22, 2004)

PineIsland said:


> Tolerance is all the rage these days, so who is going to tell them they are wrong ?


 ME!!
This is the worst idea I've heard in ages.There's been "talk" of this since '94 when they finally made it totally illegal.
If there is honest concern of too many fish spawning in the rivers than up the limit for the months of September and October..you could make it 10 fish a day if they see fit.
Lively,fun loving bunch...yep...remember standing on the banks of the Big Man back in '92 or '93 seeing salmon stung across the river by two guys hooked into the same fish on 80lb test? Remember the drunken brawls below the waterfall when two guys both felt they deserved "the meathole"?
How about hitting the river in March and losing your 6lb steelhead rig every other cast because of the huge balls of 50-80lb test filling every hole,each ball covered in treble hook,flies,spawn netting and lures.
Imagine how it would be now.Huge balls of 40lb spiderwire in every hole from the dam to Sawdust Hole.
The litter you see at the Tippy Dam area now is nothing compared to 12 years ago.
The first time I took my now wife to the Big Man was September of '93 and I was embarrassed to be associtated with what was going on there.

If I thought opening up a couple areas to be raped would help the overall problem of snagging and would help the northern communites I _might_ be comviced,but I'm not.
I fished the Au Sable in the early '90's when you could snag on the West side and the Foote Dam was shoulder to shoulder snaggers from the top of the wall to the bottom of the coffer.That's why the DNR Director Order of "No Fishing" below that dam.I watched what seemed like a platoon of CO's and volunteers come down there one night and ticket 50 guys at once.
They won't just stay in the designated area.I know it and I'm sure most of you know it.
Thanks for the information Steve,this is an issue I will be keeping an eye on.I don't want to see legal snagging in this state again EVER!!!


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

riverman said:


> I know I'm dreaming, but why not let nature restock the areas of the great lakes that have the streams, reduce the cost of trapping, stripping, milking, and raising salmon for planting. Just think, maybe some of that saved money could be used to try and increase our summer run population, brown trout plantings or a host of other projects. Imagine the prospect that in less than 50 years the folks in the dnr fisheries intoduced a species that was to become a wild run. Howard Tanner would be proud. Riverman


I agree with this statement from the Muskegon North - no need to stock salmon any more or at least suspend it for 5 years and see what happens.

But the charter industry which is key the financial success of many many coastal towns up and down the lake would blow a nut. 

I am upset that we cut Salmon stocking by 500k - I think they should have been replaced by 250k of steelhead and browns. Even if they were general lake MI plants.

Fritz


----------



## STEELNEYES (Mar 30, 2006)

Hi-- I'm new to this site, and this is my first post, so excuse me if this is messed up in any way, but I couldn't help but reply to this thread. What the **** is the DNR doing?  They want to bring salmon snagging back because of lack of forage for all the predators!! Why not quit planting the dam things. Last year they planted over 98,000 chinooks at Tippy. And this spring I heard they dumped a 100.000 cohos there. I wish they never would of planted them back in the 60's. If they would of went with more steelies and browns back then (to control the alewives), no one would of complained and we would have just as good a fishery, and we wouldn't have to worry about this issue.

STEELNEYES


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

PineIsland said:


> If you are taking the fish home, who cares how they caught them, they are still gone. Snagging is just another method, like jigging or bottom bouncing, whether it a walleye, steelhead , or anything else.


This goes against the fair chase principal. Snagging was legalized based the on the assumption that fall running salmon would not hit (which IMO is still the case for the most part). Dont get me wrong I love to fish them fresh in the river on spawn, body baits, and spinners.

I guess the problem I have is, the steelhead, browns, walleyes, all will eat a bait presented. So I do care if they are caught fair or not!


----------



## JasonCarp (May 9, 2005)

I had a short moral and conceptual dilemma on this topic. I grew up fishing blue gills, bass and pike. So, I had no one to show me the ropes when I decided to get into salmon and steelhead fishing. (Was not a member of this site yet) I still consider myself a novice because I just don't have the time to get out as much as I would like to practice the craft. I got impatient when I first started and began ripping big treble hook spinner baits through some beds to "hook up" with my first big fish in the river. From that point on I was "hooked" and made a commitment to learn more and do it right. If I hadn't decided to snag one this way, I may not have fallen in lust with this sport. Since then I have actually had better luck steelheading and catching kings when I don't intend to while trout fishing with smaller spinner baits. 

I tend to think a reduction in plants would help, but see the dilemma with the big lake and its economics. ( I also enjoy this aspect of the sport as well.) I also believe that guys that want to snag may not have the same approach as I did, and graduate to a more sporting method of catching fish. 

Yesterday I spent four hours out in the rain not catching a single fish, alone away from the dams and crowds. This is what it is all about for me. But not everyone. 

As for the statement "If you are taking the fish home, who cares how they caught them, they are still gone. Snagging is just another method, like jigging or bottom bouncing, whether it a walleye, steelhead , or anything else."

I don't see the sporting angle on this. Is it then okay to shine deer at night with a rifle or get drunk and run them down in the fields with pick up truck just to control the population?

After reading everyone's posts, I see most of the angles and guess I can't make a judgement call at this point, but think it's best not to. My main concern is the streams being littered with heavy line, and big hooks. And also being littered with heavy drinkers and big a**holes. 

My rant,

Jason


----------



## Gaffle (Sep 14, 2005)

I second the thought about massive litter. I end up picking enough garbage around the river already. I don't need to devote MORE time trying to grab gobs of spiderwire hanging off of branches, etc.:rant: They would need to invest in a mono recycling garbage can instead of the sissy box hanging off of a DNR sign. Then I would have to bring an empty back-pack to haul that thick mono out.


----------



## dinoday (Feb 22, 2004)

JasonCarp said:


> My main concern is the streams being littered with heavy line, and big hooks. And also being littered with heavy drinkers and big a**holes.


 That is my number one problem with it.
I know TC,Steelhadfred,riverman and alot of others are my age,about the same as you Jason, and I know we all made a few trips to Tippy in the snagging heydays.
That's why you'll see alot of disgust towards the people that want to do this type of thing.
I don't know why it is,but this way of fishing brings out the worst in people.
I won't put words into their mouths,but I would have to think that fellows like Whit1,Splitshot and DANN09,who got to witness this stuff from the beginning will be totally against it's return.
Do salmon bite well in the rivers? No,but they will bite.Some people can't accept that they can't have 30 fish caught in a weekend,so they try and have laws passed to make them feeling like better "fisherman".
Apparently some members of the NRC have been conviced it's in the best interest of the community 
I'd like them to ask the CO's and local police that were around when this stuff was legal and hear their opinion.I bet they don't look forward to this coming back to their town.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Keeping the snaggers concentrated and legal is something that we've discussed here and thought may not actually be the worst idea. For the month of September only, some designated sections would be worth considering.
Just for fun, how about from Upper Branch down and from M-37 up? :lol:


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Oh man would I love to be TC's age again!!!!!! The ironic twist to all this is all they have to do is stop planting, up the limit on Lake MI and the charters boats/public would remove far more fish than any snagging would do. It's a fine line the fishery folks walk. Crash the population from too many, crash the population from overfishing, and the wrath comes down from the charterboat association and the chamber of comerce of the Lake Mi ports. The BIG picture gets pretty fuzzy at times. Riverman


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Lets increase the limit of kings to 5 and decrease the limit of steelhead and browns to 2?

Bob - I agree, I think Ludington State Park makes the most sense? Easy to patrol, no natural repo, and lots of fish.

Fritz


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Before anyone gets too serious on this topic look who started this thread and then think about todays date.


----------



## salmonslammer (Jan 28, 2001)

Sounds like a really good day of SUCKER fishing!!!! :lol:


----------

