# Chumming



## Spanky

I have yet to see an animal that can fully digest corn kernels.

That must be comparable to trying to crap out a pop can for a human.

:yikes:


----------



## Splitshot

Excellent post Spanky! That is exactly the point Im trying to make.

Almost no one cares who uses chum, it is not about that, but please dont try to sell the idea that you wouldnt use it because you fish for the challenge. This is about a small group of people who want to impose their will upon you and want to force you to accept their set of morals and unfortunately the DNR is buying it. That doesnt mean the DNR is corrupt either. We have the best trout fishing we could hope for in our state and I want to be clear although I dont agree with these social , feel good rules as Spanky stated, I still maintain a great deal of respect for the job the DNR is doing.

I dont know if any of you smoke, I actually quit in 1977. While I believe it is one of the best things I have ever done, I dont think I have the right to tell you or anyone else to stop smoking or demean anyone because they cant see the same risks I see from smoking.

You have all seen the progression of the non smoking terrorist. First they stopped all advertising, then them made tobacco manufactures put warning labels on cigarettes, then they banned smoking in all government buildings using the second hand smoke as a rational, next they got the government to ban smoking in private bars and restaurants always claiming they wanted to protect the non smokers from second hand smoke even if the bar or restaurant owners wanted smoking for their patrons, reasoning that non smokers could choose to go somewhere else if they didnt want to be exposed. These people are ideological driven and they will say almost anything to impose their standards on you because you are not smart enough to figure it out yourself.

Obviously if youre not smart enough to protect yourself someone must do it for you. A short while ago they carried their crusade even farther and in some places now you are not allowed to smoke outside. I guess because one can still smell the second hand smoke feet even yards away and that makes it dangerous. How far do we go to satisfy these do-gooders? Im sure if you asked them why they wanted to ban smoking outside I wouldnt be surprised if they would say that smoke may be a vector in the spread of VHS.

In any event as long as it is legal to sell cigarettes people in my opinion should be free to smoke them. The question is, why do some people want to control the smokers but do not have the courage to outlaw all smoking? Perhaps someday these ideologues will demand prison terms for people who refuse to stop smoking or use it as an excuse to drive them out of business. Think about it, a person who lights up outside in this country can now be classified as criminal. 

In our little piece of the world, there is no question the guide was wrong using chum after its use was banned. No question every one of us chooses how we are going to fish and what legal methods we will use. It is your right. If you think the only ethical way to fish is with a dry fly no one cares, it is your choice and it only becomes a problem when you decide it is the only ethical way to fish and try to force your ethics on me and lobby for rules that force me to fish your way without a good compelling reason be it scientific or social.

So answer the question. What is worse, a person chumming in the Muskegon River and hooking fish in the mouth or a guy fishing gravel with a 12 foot leader with a two fly rig flossing steelhead?

Before you answer consider salmon eggs are legal as long as they are in the skein or tied in a bag. If there was a good scientific reason we should not use spawn, I would support banning the use of all spawn. If a majority of fishermen thought the practice was unethical I would accept that too. 

Since this issue came about, I have been reviewing Muskegon guides web-sites. I have met a few of them over the years and know who many of them are. Today I viewed this web-site http://www.bettsguideservice.com/report.html . The first time I viewed it was yesterday so today is just the second time. From the pictures it is clear why any steelhead fisherman would choose this guide but that is not the reason I posted it. I just saw something in the background of the second picture dated 2/6 and it seemed ironic. So in the spirit of good natured fun, a box of snickers goes to the first person who can identify the owner of the boat in the background!


----------



## Boozer

Supinski's boat...

You can keep the snickers


----------



## samsteel

Splitshot said:


> I just saw something in the background of the second picture dated 2/6 and it seemed ironic.


ha, that's great....I would say that is a little too ironic wouldn't you? maybe his way of saying "kiss my a**"


----------



## toto

It would be my recommendation that the party in question NOT reveal any names on this pubic forum. Thats about as fast a way as I can think of to get sued. Don't mention any names on this subject, I think we can fill in the blanks ourselves.

On chumming, show me the actual science that this is a problem, and it'll make more sense. I don't chum, but I don't have a real problem with it either.

It just seems a little more prudent to follow shoemans logic, why invite a big pain in the butt? I'd rather just go out, enjoy myself, and be left alone. Besides, its the law, and someone else said, you don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it is what it is.


----------



## Trout King

No biological reason for making it illegal, just like the fly water deals. Agenda pushing at its finest, by the minority at that. Talking about fairness...like Hutch and others have stated, isn't fishing an unfair advantage to people with a bit of knowledge about fish and their behavior? It's all politics and lobbying by the self-righteous. It should be a personal choice, not an enforced law. I guess it is unfair how I catch some big browns every sprring then...I got out a day or two before season, find some active steelie redds, and go back in to the area they were and fish behind the spawners...guess what the trout are there, along with other steelhead, is that unfair? Whats the difference if someone wants to throw a handful of eggs in. Biological impacts on the fish being chummed, and trout of the MO? I want to see some studies. If anything wouldn't the extra protein be helpful? What percentage of the trout they put in even make it through one summer? VHS is not the reason for the ban, it is the lobbying, envious "outdoorspeople" of the state that got it banned. 



> Second, where did they come up with all of those loose eggs???
> 
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Chumming - Page 2 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367980&page=2#ixzz1DJMtjq55


Go to Ohio or PA and buy them over the counter or catch a few limits of those steelies that have 0% chance of reproducing...or just fish using skein, bags, spinners, cranks. Spoon skeins. "flyfishing" the same style and technique that fills the pockets of SOME other guides on the MO and every other Lake Michigan trib when the fish are stacked on gravel. 

When did it ever come to the point where fishermen wanted other fishermen to suffer or not catch fish? If an area is fished effectively no matter what method, changing lures, different presentations etc. And the next guy comes through his chances are the same as anyone else. Fish never just decide to turn on and off...I witnessed this past December a beautiful sunny day where nothing would touch anything. I through everything I had and even got creative. Guess what after about fishing one hole for 30 minutes....click...fish on. Proceded to hook 6 fish in 2 holes in an hour. Then nothing. I'm doubting those were the only 6 fish in the section. People need to quit fighting and whining about what others do and just do what you do and not worry about others using ETHICAL techniques to catch fish. I bet if many "anti-chummers" dumped $1000 to go saltwater fishing and the guide busted out some chum and you were pounding fish chumming wouldn't be so bad would it? You can say what you want, but everyone knows catching fish is better than not catching fish. If a person wants to chum to catch fish that is their choice, even if it is or isn't my style. Legislators should show some biological facts about chumming and VHS before they decide to uphold a senseless ban. I guess that is just the way this state works and the mindset of a minority which seems to get it's way with these kinds of issues.


----------



## lakeerierobalo

I just spent the last 2 hour reading all the responses to this topic that I re-opened. It seems that most of us have something in common; we do not like "feel good" laws and do not want others to impose their favorite fishing tactic on us like it is law. I think that all of us want to go out and have an enjoyable outing using whatever tactic we choose. I see both sides of this as I guide a multitude of different anglers from purist fly fisherman to extreme bait fisherman. What I love about this sport is the bite, and the initial surge as that fish just realizes, oh sh**! To have someone place a feel good law that would potentially limit this feeling frankly upsets me! I really believe that in this case we as anglers have cut ourselves short. We need to pay more attention to what laws are being introduced compared to the studies to support the laws relevance. We are paying an extra tax to be able to fish, so we should have the final say!


----------



## quest32a

This thread has one day before I kill it. Chumming is illegal, just as baiting is. Unless someone is going to come up with a way to legalize it then these conversations really are not that productive. Come up with a way to get it legalized and Ill leave this stuff open.


----------



## REG

http://www.moldychum.com/home-old/2009/8/4/rc-chum-boat.html


----------



## Boozer




----------



## thousandcasts

quest32a said:


> This thread has one day before I kill it. Chumming is illegal, just as baiting is. Unless someone is going to come up with a way to legalize it then these conversations really are not that productive. Come up with a way to get it legalized and Ill leave this stuff open.


How about this: 

It was never intended to be a permanent "law." It was a...I'll use the word "poor" action intended to help slow the spread of VHS. 

It was explained to me then and has been explained to me recently, that the intent was never to make it permanent and as soon as they were at a certain point, we would get our chumming back. Certain parties at the top of the fisheries division have been on record as saying as much.

Again...not a permanent law. Anyone who thinks this is a permanent law is mis-informed. There's a reason it's not in the fishing guides as a rule per se', but rather as part of a broad temporary order.

It was then and still is, a TEMPORARY order. 

Whether one likes the practice or not is really neither here nor there with me. I can think of at least 10 practices involving the outdoors that I can't stand, but they're legal and people enjoy doing them, so it's none of my business really. 

The issue should and NEEDS to be: *REVISE THE FISHERIES ORDER AND LIFT THE TEMPORARY BAN AS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED. *

I would think that common sense alone could justify that type of revision, wouldn't you?


----------



## Chromedoggy

thousandcasts said:


> How about this:
> 
> It was never intended to be a permanent "law." It was a...I'll use the word "poor" action intended to help slow the spread of VHS.
> 
> It was explained to me then and has been explained to me recently, that the intent was never to make it permanent and as soon as they were at a certain point, we would get our chumming back. Certain parties at the top of the fisheries division have been on record as saying as much.
> 
> Again...not a permanent law. Anyone who thinks this is a permanent law is mis-informed. There's a reason it's not in the fishing guides as a rule per se', but rather as part of a broad temporary order.
> 
> It was then and still is, a TEMPORARY order.
> 
> Whether one likes the practice or not is really neither here nor there with me. I can think of at least 10 practices involving the outdoors that I can't stand, but they're legal and people enjoy doing them, so it's none of my business really.
> 
> The issue should and NEEDS to be: *REVISE THE FISHERIES ORDER AND LIFT THE TEMPORARY BAN AS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED. *



That is the understanding I had from DNR transcripts in 2007 as well.


----------



## Chromedoggy

lakeerierobalo said:


> I just spent the last 2 hour reading all the responses to this topic that I re-opened. It seems that most of us have something in common; we do not like "feel good" laws and do not want others to impose their favorite fishing tactic on us like it is law. I think that all of us want to go out and have an enjoyable outing using whatever tactic we choose. I see both sides of this as I guide a multitude of different anglers from purist fly fisherman to extreme bait fisherman. What I love about this sport is the bite, and the initial surge as that fish just realizes, oh sh**! To have someone place a feel good law that would potentially limit this feeling frankly upsets me! I really believe that in this case we as anglers have cut ourselves short. We need to pay more attention to what laws are being introduced compared to the studies to support the laws relevance. We are paying an extra tax to be able to fish, so we should have the final say!




Are you saying now that chumming with roe is against the law?
Not consistent with your original post which was the thread starter
(even though is has gotten way off track)


----------



## Jones

samsteel said:


> we get it....your a conformist...if the government tells you something is legal or illegal, you adhere to it, whether you believe it is right or wrong. not everyone feels conforming is always the right thing to do...some of these people in here who are expressing their opinions are also doing things behind the scenes to either change this law, or keep it the same.


Interesting.

Thank you samsteel for your wonderful advice. By your standards, Ted Bundy was a non conformist, and should be hailed as a hero. Heck, all these years I've been "conforming" to DNR fish limits, for what reason? Next time I'm on the river, I'll be sure to box 20 steelhead, just to stick it to those government communists(of course I'll be chumming)! I'll also bait deer off my neighbors property and shoot them with high powered rifles. Great advice!

I also find it humorous how some members on this forum constantly refer to "science" as the answer to everything. "The DNR should base their decisions on sound science". "If there was good scientific reason, I would stop chumming"...yada yada. 

Let me illustrate an example of how the "scientific" argument can take you down a never ending rabbit hole.
Let's say I go fishing for bluegills once a year on a certain lake X. Now, lets assume Retired Roger goes 50 times a year on the same lake. The DNR has set the daily possession limit of bluegill at 25. We both get our limit each time we go. So, in the course of a year, I will take 25 bluegills from the lake, while Retired Roger takes 1250. Now, lets say I catch 1250 in my one day of fishing (using chum of course). Therefore, if I take 1250 in my one day of fishing, while Retired Roger takes 1250 in his 50 days of fishing, scientifically we both fit into the DNR's master bluegill plan, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, obviously the DNR has calculated that 25 is the magical number of bluegills that can be taken(per day) over the course of a year(and not a single one more) , so I "fit" right in with their calculations/model, right? Now, let me ask you this. If you saw me leaving Lake X with 1250 bluegills, would you accuse me of breaking the law? In relativistic terms, I've done nothing wrong. 

Lets face it, our fishery is based on social AND scientific principles, and thats the way it should be! Why were brown trout introduced to Michigan streams? Was it somehow because it improved the ecological integrity of the river? Doubt it. They were stocked for the general public to catch.

This was taken an MDNR publication.
_In particular, the Fisheries Division 
seeks to: 
-Protect and maintain healthy aquatic environments and 
fish communities and rehabilitate those now degraded. 
-*Provide diverse public fishing opportunities to maximize 
the value to anglers of recreational fishing. * 
-Permit and encourage efficient and stable commercial 
fisheries that accommodate Native American fishing rights 
and do not conflict with recreational fisheries. 
-Foster and contribute to public stewardship of natural 
resources through a scientific understanding of fish, 
fishing and fishery management. _

Do you think chumming maximizes the value of recreational fishing to the majority of anglers? While Splitshot gets to go home and "enjoy the spoils" that resulted from a hard earned day of chumming, the next few guys down the line get the skunk. Somehow I don't think they have the same warm and fuzzy feeling you do when they aren't able to bring a fish or two home. 

To me, it sounds like the majority of the people who are against chumming seem to be unhappy that they no longer have a crutch on which to rely. God forbid, a guide actually have more skills than the average fisherman, as opposed to more chum! 

Furthermore, let this be a fair warning to any guide out there. If I see you chumming at any point during my trips on the river, I will honestly drop anchor and fish five feet away from you all day long. If you want to chum and disregard the law, then I'll disregard common river etiquette. Hopefully your clients will hook up before I do.


----------



## Jones

I guess either you're in or you're out on this one. If you're out, you have just as much credibility as the neighborhood poacher. The rules obviously don't apply to you.


----------



## thousandcasts

Jones said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Thank you samsteel for your wonderful advice. By your standards, Ted Bundy was a non conformist, and should be hailed as a hero. Heck, all these years I've been "conforming" to DNR fish limits, for what reason? Next time I'm on the river, I'll be sure to box 20 steelhead, just to stick it to those government communists(of course I'll be chumming)! I'll also bait deer off my neighbors property and shoot them with high powered rifles. Great advice!
> 
> I also find it humorous how some members on this forum constantly refer to "science" as the answer to everything. "The DNR should base their decisions on sound science". "If there was good scientific reason, I would stop chumming"...yada yada.
> 
> Let me illustrate an example of how the "scientific" argument can take you down a never ending rabbit hole.
> Let's say I go fishing for bluegills once a year on a certain lake X. Now, lets assume Retired Roger goes 50 times a year on the same lake. The DNR has set the daily possession limit of bluegill at 25. We both get our limit each time we go. So, in the course of a year, I will take 25 bluegills from the lake, while Retired Roger takes 1250. Now, lets say I catch 1250 in my one day of fishing (using chum of course). Therefore, if I take 1250 in my one day of fishing, while Retired Roger takes 1250 in his 50 days of fishing, scientifically we both fit into the DNR's master bluegill plan, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, obviously the DNR has calculated that 25 is the magical number of bluegills that can be taken(per day) over the course of a year(and not a single one more) , so I "fit" right in with their calculations/model, right? Now, let me ask you this. If you saw me leaving Lake X with 1250 bluegills, would you accuse me of breaking the law? In relativistic terms, I've done nothing wrong.
> 
> Lets face it, our fishery is based on social AND scientific principles, and thats the way it should be! Why were brown trout introduced to Michigan streams? Was it somehow because it improved the ecological integrity of the river? Doubt it. They were stocked for the general public to catch.
> 
> This was taken an MDNR publication.
> _In particular, the Fisheries Division
> seeks to:
> -Protect and maintain healthy aquatic environments and
> fish communities and rehabilitate those now degraded.
> -*Provide diverse public fishing opportunities to maximize
> the value to anglers of recreational fishing. *
> -Permit and encourage efficient and stable commercial
> fisheries that accommodate Native American fishing rights
> and do not conflict with recreational fisheries.
> -Foster and contribute to public stewardship of natural
> resources through a scientific understanding of fish,
> fishing and fishery management. _
> 
> Do you think chumming maximizes the value of recreational fishing to the majority of anglers? While Splitshot gets to go home and "enjoy the spoils" that resulted from a hard earned day of chumming, the next few guys down the line get the skunk. Somehow I don't think they have the same warm and fuzzy feeling you do when they aren't able to bring a fish or two home.
> 
> To me, it sounds like the majority of the people who are against chumming seem to be unhappy that they no longer have a crutch on which to rely. God forbid, a guide actually have more skills than the average fisherman, as opposed to more chum!
> 
> Furthermore, let this be a fair warning to any guide out there. If I see you chumming at any point during my trips on the river, I will honestly drop anchor and fish five feet away from you all day long. If you want to chum and disregard the law, then I'll disregard common river etiquette. Hopefully your clients will hook up before I do.


So...because I've put my time in learning the game, are you gonna be upset if I'm putting 15 to 20 kings in the boat per day using crank baits and skein and you're only getting two (hypothetically, as an example)? That has nothing to do with chum and everything to do with learning the how's, why's and where's. 

By that token, should I also just stop salmon fishing all together because the years I've spent on the water give me an unfair advantage over someone who just bought their first Thunderstick? 

What about all the spots I fish that I put the legwork in to explore and learn. Do I need to post GPS coordinates since it gives me an unfair advantage over someone who only knows one or two spots?


----------



## Chromedoggy

thousandcasts said:


> So...because I've put my time in learning the game, are you gonna be upset if I'm putting 15 to 20 kings in the boat per day using crank baits and skein and you're only getting two (hypothetically, as an example)? That has nothing to do with chum and everything to do with learning the how's, why's and where's.
> 
> By that token, should I also just stop salmon fishing all together because the years I've spent on the water give me an unfair advantage over someone who just bought their first Thunderstick?
> 
> What about all the spots I fish that I put the legwork in to explore and learn. Do I need to post GPS coordinates since it gives me an unfair advantage over someone who only knows one or two spots?



Actually you should be forced to hand a large amount of the information over to a government body who then will decide who deserves your spots and gps coordinates. Of course who ever is in the governing bodies interest will be exempt.
Now we can take this thread yet another direction.


----------



## samsteel

Jones said:


> Thank you samsteel for your wonderful advice. By your standards, Ted Bundy was a non conformist, and should be hailed as a hero. Heck, all these years I've been "conforming" to DNR fish limits, for what reason? Next time I'm on the river, I'll be sure to box 20 steelhead, just to stick it to those government communists(of course I'll be chumming)! I'll also bait deer off my neighbors property and shoot them with high powered rifles. Great advice!


wow, way to twist what I said to fulfill your own agenda. a conformist, by definition, is a person who conforms , especially *unquestioningly*, to the usual practices, laws or standards of a group, society, etc The key word there is *unquestioningly*. I'm simply stating, that if you follow every rule and law you read, because someone tells you to, not because you believe it is right or fair, you are conforming. Ted Bundy was a psychotic, serial murderer, who murdered while acknowledging that he knew it was wrong. The founding fathers of our country did not conform, Rosa Parks did not conform, Christians did not conform, these are better examples. If you truly believe that the DNR's limit on steelhead is unfair and yet you abide unquestionably to their limit, then yes you are conforming. As usual, your post is useless and I am happy that you represent the side that you have chosen on this matter. However, I am sure the fishermen who are "anti-chumming" wish you would just keep your mouth shut.


----------



## Boozer

Vote For Pedro

http://drclarkjensen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/vote-for-pedro1.jpg

Since this thread has went off on 100 different tangents, thought I would get one last one in prior to the lockdown...

Have a good evening everyone and enjoy your fishing in 2011.


----------



## Flyfisher

I find it ironic that a fair amount of the opponents of chum are flyfishermen, considering the use of chum (live baitfish) is quite common with flyfishing guides throughout the saltwater world, particularly on the east coast when pursuing various species of tuna.

This isn't about VHS, its about someone's perception of ethical fishing practices (ie social science). If it was really about VHS, eggs would have been banned altogether. Quite a few sportsmen have ethical issues with flyfishing guides setting clients up on spawning steelhead, but for some reason that's legal?

Personally, I don't chum but don't agree with how this fisheries order came to include a ban on chumming.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Jones said:


> I also find it humorous how some members on this forum constantly refer to "science" as the answer to everything. "The DNR should base their decisions on sound science". "If there was good scientific reason, I would stop chumming"...yada yada.
> 
> Let me illustrate an example of how the "scientific" argument can take you down a never ending rabbit hole.
> Let's say I go fishing for bluegills once a year on a certain lake X. Now, lets assume Retired Roger goes 50 times a year on the same lake. The DNR has set the daily possession limit of bluegill at 25. We both get our limit each time we go. So, in the course of a year, I will take 25 bluegills from the lake, while Retired Roger takes 1250. Now, lets say I catch 1250 in my one day of fishing (using chum of course). Therefore, if I take 1250 in my one day of fishing, while Retired Roger takes 1250 in his 50 days of fishing, scientifically we both fit into the DNR's master bluegill plan, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, obviously the DNR has calculated that 25 is the magical number of bluegills that can be taken(per day) over the course of a year(and not a single one more) , so I "fit" right in with their calculations/model, right?


[youtube]TM-G0bkl8MQ[/youtube]


----------



## Jones

thousandcasts said:


> So...because I've put my time in learning the game, are you gonna be upset if I'm putting 15 to 20 kings in the boat per day using crank baits and skein and you're only getting two (hypothetically, as an example)? That has nothing to do with chum and everything to do with learning the how's, why's and where's.
> 
> By that token, should I also just stop salmon fishing all together because the years I've spent on the water give me an unfair advantage over someone who just bought their first Thunderstick?
> 
> What about all the spots I fish that I put the legwork in to explore and learn. Do I need to post GPS coordinates since it gives me an unfair advantage over someone who only knows one or two spots?



Hypothetically(and I mean hypothetically), if you were to pull up to Instalaunch at 4 am with some paying clients, and I was there tossing dynamite into the river, would you turn the other cheek? 

Another example. Insider trading. Why is that illegal? Because a person using such knowledge is trying to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the market. 

You can sugarcoat it any way you want. You can try to tip toe around it all day long... but it is what it is.


----------



## Boozer




----------



## Jones

samsteel said:


> If you truly believe that the DNR's limit on steelhead is unfair and yet you abide unquestionably to their limit, then yes you are conforming.


Thanks. I will conform only to the rules that I "believe" are fair.


----------



## quest32a

Hell, I thought this would last at least another day. Guess not.


----------



## Shoeman

Jones said:


> Hypothetically(and I mean hypothetically), if you were to pull up to Instalaunch at 4 am with some paying clients, and I was there tossing dynamite into the river, would you turn the other cheek?
> 
> Another example. Insider trading. Why is that illegal? Because a person using such knowledge is trying to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the market.
> 
> You can sugarcoat it any way you want. You can try to tip toe around it all day long... but it is what it is.


BINGO!

I'm beginning to question the validity of this forum


----------

