# Bill to allow State commercial fishing for lake trout in Lakes Michigan and Superior



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

RedM2 said:


> I'd trust the MDNR before any politician based on my experience.


I would as well. We certainly have to keep things from being voted on by the general public.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Sorry the mdnr is a total joke. Pathetic redm2. If you believe the mdnr God help you. If the mdnr supports planting lake gross ask yourself this. The head of the fisheries department was in Ludington. After the charter boat trip he was given only caught lake gross. The captain cleaned his fish put them in a Ziploc bag and told him you can't eat the fish and must dispose of if in a toxic landfill according to your guidelines. The dnr knew they where right and were told to leave their dock. True story. Talk about pos. That's your mdnr at work. What makes me laugh are you folks who copy my posts and mock me but don't have a clue.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

Uh. What? Incoherent post.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

matinc said:


> Sorry the mdnr is a total joke. Pathetic redm2. If you believe the mdnr God help you. If the mdnr supports planting lake gross ask yourself this. The head of the fisheries department was in Ludington. After the charter boat trip he was given only caught lake gross. The captain cleaned his fish put them in a Ziploc bag and told him you can't eat the fish and must dispose of if in a toxic landfill according to your guidelines. The dnr knew they where right and were told to leave their dock. True story. Talk about pos. That's your mdnr at work. What makes me laugh are you folks who copy my posts and mock me but don't have a clue.


Go back and reread what I wrote... your blind anger is hindering you from actually understanding what was being communicated. Additionally, it's important to understand the entire complexity of a situation before taking a position. Give it a try before you start tossing sh!+ at other members. Smh...


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Redm2. you state you trust the mdnr over politicians. Do you deny that?. My blind anger redm2 at what the truth. Incoherent fowl? Both reportable posts. Really you fail to see the premise. I get it you don't. Take a second think about what I wrote and comphrend it before rushing to hatred name calling posts. Oh it's true it's Damm true.


----------



## TriggerDiscipline (Sep 25, 2017)

Well well well... another member of the Gluttonous Oligarch Party siding with big business to destroy our natural resources. Well imagine my shock!





Here's what this pond scum looks like:









Why does every Republican politician look like a chinless inbred dork? And more importantly, why do people keep voting for them?


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

matinc said:


> Redm2. you state you trust the mdnr over politicians. Do you deny that?. My blind anger redm2 at what the truth. Incoherent fowl? Both reportable posts. Really you fail to see the premise. I get it you don't. Take a second think about what I wrote and comphrend it before rushing to hatred name calling posts. Oh it's true it's Damm true.


Then report the post... what I did say was that I'd trust the MDNR _before_ a politician. That's not saying that I _do_ trust them like you incorrectly conveyed in your initial response to me. Again your blind anger didn't allow you to see that so you start tossing your B.S. out there. "Pathetic." Lol


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

If you want the whole truth of the matter you better be ready it will make you understand why the dnr can't be trusted. I gave you all some something to think about. I see you didn't think about what I said as a prelude to the even bigger scandall inside your dnr. Its make me cringe watching people judge who have no clue. Your defending a fish that can't be eaten and must be disposed of in a toxic landfill. Do you what the bigger scandall. It's criminal and needs investigated


----------



## TriggerDiscipline (Sep 25, 2017)

matinc said:


> If you want the whole truth of the matter you better be ready it will make you understand why the dnr can't be trusted. I gave you all some something to think about. I see you didn't think about what I said as a prelude to the even bigger scandall inside your dnr. Its make me cringe watching people judge who have no clue. Your defending a fish that can't be eaten and must be disposed of in a toxic landfill. Do you what the bigger scandall. It's criminal and needs investigated


spill the beans.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well, we would all love to know what's happening in this case, at least behind the scenes. If you don't want to publish it here in the open, you are welcome to P.M. me if you want. I'd curious as all get out.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Boy this is an interesting one. 

What exactly do they plan to do with commercially caught fish that you can’t eat?

On the other hand why not have commercial fishery for a resource no one or very few want? 

They really aren’t that bad smoked FYI. 

People trying to makes this political is hilarious. This isn’t anti sportsman. You could easily argue it’s pro sportsman. 

There are a few states that are ran by a specific party who are having their sporting rights taken away completely. I’ll let you do your own research to see which party it is.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

The problem is that sportsmen in Michigan get craped on by both parties. It really sucks.


----------



## TriggerDiscipline (Sep 25, 2017)

Lumberman said:


> Boy this is an interesting one.
> 
> What exactly do they plan to do with commercially caught fish that you can’t eat?
> 
> ...


Source?


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Lumberman said:


> Boy this is an interesting one.
> 
> What exactly do they plan to do with commercially caught fish that you can’t eat?
> 
> ...


It is political. Additionally, the commercial fishing statute doesn't give the MDNR the authority to make decisions about commercial fishing in this state


----------



## Rogue20 (Aug 17, 2016)

Anyone that is for the keeping of the keeping of these as bycatch is a fool.......
This IS gonna make it easier to allow bycatch of other species down the rd
Commercial folks got on their knees and begged by giving money. It's working it looks like
Only sportsmen group that appears to agree with this is the Great Lakes Salmon Initiative, I couldn't believe it when I read it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> There should no commercial fishing for native species on the Great Lakes.


Your going to have a hard time convincing the tribes that they cant commercially fish their lakes for their fish.


----------



## steveh27 (Oct 23, 2000)

Up until the last year or so the Michigan Advisory on eating fish said no one should eat any lake trout from L Michigan.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

slightofhand said:


> Your going to have a hard time convincing the tribes that they cant commercially fish their lakes for their fish.


Tribes are one thing, non tribe commercial netters are another thing tho imo

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

DecoySlayer said:


> Neither party cares about the health of our Great Lakes, the environment, OR, the sportsman. The commercial interests on the Lakes control everything, including those who pass the laws.


I just don't see enough revenue from commercial fishing in this state to have funds for controlling greasy politicians. Maybe I'm missing something, but the few commercial fishers I've seen look like small operations. No doubt large enough to do damage to fiah populations but I don't think we're dealing with millions of excess revenue to toss at the crooks in Lansing or D.C.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Josh R said:


> Tribes are one thing, non tribe commercial netters are another thing tho imo
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


The only difference is skin color and ethnicity. I would be interested to hear the reason non tribal commercial guys shouldn’t be allowed to harvest them commercially like tribal fishers can. That’s the only thing this bill does, it gives non tribal commercial fishermen the ability to do the same thing tribal commercial fishermen can. I don’t see the harm here at all.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Here is a list of the POS senators that voted to pass this bill though the Senate yesterday. In my opinion they are clearly no friend of sportsmen and sport fishermen. If your senator is on this list, take make note and remember it in the next election. 

Booher (R) Brandenburg (R) Casperson (R) Emmons (R) Green (R)
Hansen (R) Hildenbrand (R) Horn (R) Hune (R) Knollenberg (R)
Kowall (R) MacGregor (R) Marleau (R) Meekhof (R) Nofs (R)
O'Brien (R) Proos (R) Robertson (R) Schmidt (R) Schuitmaker (R)
Shirkey (R) Stamas (R)


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Here is a list of the POS senators that voted to pass this bill though the Senate yesterday. In my opinion they are clearly no friend of sportsmen and sport fishermen. If your senator is on this list, take make note and remember it in the next election.
> 
> Booher (R) Brandenburg (R) Casperson (R) Emmons (R) Green (R)
> Hansen (R) Hildenbrand (R) Horn (R) Hune (R) Knollenberg (R)
> ...


I will definitely support these guys. They chose not to discriminate against non tribal commercial fishermen and allowed them fair and equitable access to our shared resource. Looking forward to the MDNR managing this fishery responsibly and fairly for all stakeholders (sportsmen, tribal commercial, non tribal commercial) in the future.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

slightofhand said:


> I will definitely support these guys. They chose not to discriminate against non tribal commercial fishermen and allowed them fair and equitable access to our shared resource. Looking forward to the MDNR managing this fishery responsibly and fairly for all stakeholders (sportsmen, tribal commercial, non tribal commercial) in the future.


While that sounds noble, the reality is that if this bill is passed, then it will be just one more obstacle that will impede any type of decent settlement in the 2020 consent negotiations between the Indians, the state and sport fishing stake holders. Things aren't going so good with negations now: this will only make it worse and could result in a free for all on the Great Lakes if no consent agreement is reached. This could result in Indians being able to catch as many fish of any species as they want including salmon, steelhead, walleyes.... Is that what you want slightofhand?


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> While that sounds noble, the reality is that if this bill is passed, then it will be just one more obstacle that will impede any type of decent settlement in the 2020 consent negotiations between the Indians, the state and sport fishing stake holders. Things aren't going so good with negations now: this will only make it worse and could result in a free for all on the Great Lakes if no consent agreement is reached. This could result in Indians being able to catch as many fish of any species as they want including salmon, steelhead, walleyes.... Is that what you want slightofhand?


I’m more glass half full on this and see it as an opportunity to get better and closer negotiations with tribes now that there is a new group sitting at the table. I think for years that sportsmen have largely been overshadowed by the wishes of the tribes. Hopefully with the passage of this bill it becomes more balanced with the dnr playing a more prominent role in ongoing collaboration rather than a 20 year agreement that nobody is happy with. My perspective anyway..I don’t see this as being an opening for more commercial harvest of any species, ultimately any changes in harvest regulations have to pass through the dnr and nrc(if this bill passes and non tribal harvest of lake
Trout is permitted) based on science and not just based on a one way street decree.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

slightofhand said:


> I will definitely support these guys. They chose not to discriminate against non tribal commercial fishermen and allowed them fair and equitable access to our shared resource. Looking forward to the MDNR managing this fishery responsibly and fairly for all stakeholders (sportsmen, tribal commercial, non tribal commercial) in the future.


Your a fool, it's being taken outta the DNRs hands









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

Anyone supporting the Great Lakes Salmon Initiative folks might wanna reconsider. They're in support of allowing lakers to be kept

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Josh R said:


> Your a fool, it's being taken outta the DNRs hands
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is really bizarre is that the DNR has stated that they are neutral on this bill. It would seem that our current DNR leadership is nothing more than a political arm of the current majority party that is pushing this anti-sport-fishing bill through. I used to vote Republican more than Democrat in the past, but this bill may change my voting choices in the future big time. It looks like the states Republicans think nothing of alienating thousands of sport fishermen.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I think nontribal fishermen should have the same rights and opportunities as tribal fishermen, both fishing and running casinos.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

Tribal fishermen are exempt from a lot of laws....
I mean heck, who wouldn't wanna run as many rods or keep as many walleye in some areas that they want. I remember seeing 20+ tip ups on Munoscong bay when we used to fish up there

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

plugger said:


> I think nontribal fishermen should have the same rights and opportunities as tribal fishermen, both fishing and running casinos.


If they followed the laws we have to then yes, but if the laws were opened up to allow us to do what they can I'd be in complete disagreement

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MIfishslayer91 (Dec 24, 2013)

This same Casperson clown is trying to get a bill passed to deregulate about 70,000 protected wetlands(roughly half a million acres). If this bill's passed it will be open season for housing developers and businesses to build on some of our favorite deer swamps and duck marshes.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Josh R said:


> Your a fool, it's being taken outta the DNRs hands
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read this differently. This to me says the dnr cannot rescind or modify this bill after it has been passed. Says nothing about regulating harvest or quotas of which obviously they would, or at least the NRC would with Mdnr guidance. The bill itself does not specify regulations, it just allows an even playing field between non tribal and tribal sportfishers and classifies lake trout as a commercial species for all. FYI, tribes do not care less if this passes, neither does DNR. A lot of hissyfits here by a few sportsmen that’s about it. Looks like it should pass.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

slightofhand said:


> Your going to have a hard time convincing the tribes that they cant commercially fish their lakes for their fish.


They are not "their fish", nor are they "their lakes".


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> They are not "their fish", nor are they "their lakes".


According to them, and the dnr, yes they in fact are. If you read some responses here, the same sentiment. Let’s walk on egg shells around the tribes, because it’s their lakes and their fish and we don’t want to upset them before consent decree negotiations or they might not let us catch anymore of their lake trout. Again, tribes dont even see this as a blip on their radar, neither does the dnr for that matter apparently.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

This thread has completely gone off the rails. Shut it down.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

slightofhand said:


> I read this differently. This to me says the dnr cannot rescind or modify this bill after it has been passed. Says nothing about regulating harvest or quotas of which obviously they would, or at least the NRC would with Mdnr guidance. The bill itself does not specify regulations, it just allows an even playing field between non tribal and tribal sportfishers and classifies lake trout as a commercial species for all. FYI, tribes do not care less if this passes, neither does DNR. A lot of hissyfits here by a few sportsmen that’s about it. Looks like it should pass.


Well maybe I'm reading the 3rd paragraph wrong. Seems like it says it's gonna repeal the section that allows the DNR to stop a possible over harvest

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Josh R said:


> Well maybe I'm reading the 3rd paragraph wrong. Seems like it says it's gonna repeal the section that allows the DNR to stop a possible over harvest
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I wish the DNR would clarify what they think this means, or what it actually means...if they really know what it means! Its very telling I think that they took the neutral stand, which at least to me tells me a couple things. One, they don't think its a bad thing....unless they would have voiced opposition to it. So, if they don't think its a bad thing, then they must think they will have control over it and aren't worried at all about over harvest or harvest of other species? They also did not come out in support of it. I see this as a political move to not rile up the tribes prior to consent decree negotiations by effectively supporting state commercial fishers on this issue (assuming the tribes even object to state commercial fishing of lake trout which by all accounts at this point they don't care). I could see the neutral standing as a legal maneuver as well, to deflect from a potential discrimination lawsuit from states commercial fishermen against the MDNR from unilaterally excluding them from commercially harvesting Lake Trout for so long...yet at the same time allowing tribal fisherman to commercially harvest them. On it's face, I can't think of a more blatant discrimination case for state commercial fishermen against the MDNR for excluding them from this fishery..while allowing others (tribes) to participate in it. This is a very interesting dilemma. I suspect the DNR will sit on this and let the chips fall. If it passes, the DNR gets a new windfall of regulatory management responsibility and oversight so far as it pertains to Lake Trout stocking and commercial harvest/bag limits (a GOOD thing for sportsmen). If it doesn't pass, everyone will forget about it in a week or two.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

fowl said:


> This thread has completely gone off the rails. Shut it down.


I disagree. You might not like what's being discussed but it's certainly relevant to the bill that's been introduced. If this bill is passed, there will likely be a significant peripheral impact and those things are being hashed out.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

slightofhand said:


> I wish the DNR would clarify what they think this means, or what it actually means...if they really know what it means! Its very telling I think that they took the neutral stand, which at least to me tells me a couple things. One, they don't think its a bad thing....unless they would have voiced opposition to it. So, if they don't think its a bad thing, then they must think they will have control over it and aren't worried at all about over harvest or harvest of other species? They also did not come out in support of it. I see this as a political move to not rile up the tribes prior to consent decree negotiations by effectively supporting state commercial fishers on this issue (assuming the tribes even object to state commercial fishing of lake trout which by all accounts at this point they don't care). I could see the neutral standing as a legal maneuver as well, to deflect from a potential discrimination lawsuit from states commercial fishermen against the MDNR from unilaterally excluding them from commercially harvesting Lake Trout for so long...yet at the same time allowing tribal fisherman to commercially harvest them. On it's face, I can't think of a more blatant discrimination case for state commercial fishermen against the MDNR for excluding them from this fishery..while allowing others (tribes) to participate in it. This is a very interesting dilemma. I suspect the DNR will sit on this and let the chips fall. If it passes, the DNR gets a new windfall of regulatory management responsibility and oversight so far as it pertains to Lake Trout stocking and commercial harvest/bag limits (a GOOD thing for sportsmen). If it doesn't pass, everyone will forget about it in a week or two.





slightofhand said:


> I wish the DNR would clarify what they think this means, or what it actually means...if they really know what it means! Its very telling I think that they took the neutral stand, which at least to me tells me a couple things. One, they don't think its a bad thing....unless they would have voiced opposition to it. So, if they don't think its a bad thing, then they must think they will have control over it and aren't worried at all about over harvest or harvest of other species? They also did not come out in support of it. I see this as a political move to not rile up the tribes prior to consent decree negotiations by effectively supporting state commercial fishers on this issue (assuming the tribes even object to state commercial fishing of lake trout which by all accounts at this point they don't care). I could see the neutral standing as a legal maneuver as well, to deflect from a potential discrimination lawsuit from states commercial fishermen against the MDNR from unilaterally excluding them from commercially harvesting Lake Trout for so long...yet at the same time allowing tribal fisherman to commercially harvest them. On it's face, I can't think of a more blatant discrimination case for state commercial fishermen against the MDNR for excluding them from this fishery..while allowing others (tribes) to participate in it. This is a very interesting dilemma. I suspect the DNR will sit on this and let the chips fall. If it passes, the DNR gets a new windfall of regulatory management responsibility and oversight so far as it pertains to Lake Trout stocking and commercial harvest/bag limits (a GOOD thing for sportsmen). If it doesn't pass, everyone will forget about it in a week or two.


There's a lot in there I can agree with, heck just about all of it but just because tribes can do it don't mean anyone can tho imo. If that was the case we should be able to hunt and gather like they can

This thread has some good dialogue

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Josh R said:


> There's a lot in there I can agree with, heck just about all of it but just because tribes can do it don't mean anyone can tho imo. If that was the case we should be able to hunt and gather like they can
> 
> This thread has some good dialogue
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I agree with that. True about hunting and gathering rights, its a little different as I don't believe tribes are commercially harvesting deer for example and selling them? I don't know. But these states commercial fishing guys are bringing these fish on their decks anyway, while targeting other fish, and then shoveling dead lake trout carcasses back into the lake because currently they are not allowed to keep them. Sounds like they just want to be able to take those already dead lake trout back to shore and sell them, dead trout aren't doing anyone any good floating upside down in the middle of the lake. I have to agree with them there, sounds like a waste. I kind of trust them also about really not having an interest in actually targeting lake trout, there's no money in it, less than 50 cents a pound. I am generally not a fan of commercial fishing anywhere, but its reality. I would rather the state have better control of it all, then leaving it up to the Feds and tribes only. I read that Michigans commercial fishing statutes haven't been updated since the 60's, probably when discrimination was still legal lol! I guess we will wait and see what happens..


----------



## Whoopee Tyee (Apr 3, 2013)

There are many off the point comments here. The fact is that we Sports Fishermen can only harvest two Trout in area MM-4 where I fish. This is the DNR's opinion on how to protect the fishery. The Casperson bill would open it up to commercial fishing. It's a Lame Duck session assault on our fishery by Republicans. Tell your Republican Representative you disagree.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Whoopee Tyee said:


> There are many off the point comments here. The fact is that we Sports Fishermen can only harvest two Trout in area MM-4 where I fish. This is the DNR's opinion on how to protect the fishery. The Casperson bill would open it up to commercial fishing. It's a Lame Duck session assault on our fishery by Republicans. Tell your Republican Representative you disagree.


What's off topic?


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Whoopee Tyee said:


> There are many off the point comments here. The fact is that we Sports Fishermen can only harvest two Trout in area MM-4 where I fish. This is the DNR's opinion on how to protect the fishery. The Casperson bill would open it up to commercial fishing. It's a Lame Duck session assault on our fishery by Republicans. Tell your Republican Representative you disagree.


But I very much agree so why would I do that? Many sportsman including me are not a fan of all the lake trout we have in the system. Let the commercial fisherman have a go at them and leave some forage for other game fish. That sounds pro fisherman to me. I think this is a great thread. I am curious of the other unintended consequences that don't necessarily understand. 

I fell like its a lame duck assault on Lake Trout that are assaulting our fisheries!

Go senators!


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

Wrong. The


slightofhand said:


> I wish the DNR would clarify what they think this means, or what it actually means...if they really know what it means! Its very telling I think that they took the neutral stand, which at least to me tells me a couple things. One, they don't think its a bad thing....unless they would have voiced opposition to it. So, if they don't think its a bad thing, then they must think they will have control over it and aren't worried at all about over harvest or harvest of other species? They also did not come out in support of it. I see this as a political move to not rile up the tribes prior to consent decree negotiations by effectively supporting state commercial fishers on this issue (assuming the tribes even object to state commercial fishing of lake trout which by all accounts at this point they don't care). I could see the neutral standing as a legal maneuver as well, to deflect from a potential discrimination lawsuit from states commercial fishermen against the MDNR from unilaterally excluding them from commercially harvesting Lake Trout for so long...yet at the same time allowing tribal fisherman to commercially harvest them. On it's face, I can't think of a more blatant discrimination case for state commercial fishermen against the MDNR for excluding them from this fishery..while allowing others (tribes) to participate in it. This is a very interesting dilemma. I suspect the DNR will sit on this and let the chips fall. If it passes, the DNR gets a new windfall of regulatory management responsibility and oversight so far as it pertains to Lake Trout stocking and commercial harvest/bag limits (a GOOD thing for sportsmen). If it doesn't pass, everyone will forget about it in a week or two.


Wrong. The DNR rarely comes out on one side or the other on an issue. Remember, these are bureaucrats and their life can be made very difficukt by the politicians that they come out against . Recall that they were also "neutral" on the first rewrite of the commercial bill that sportsmen scuttled, even though we found out later that it was the DNR in cooperation with the commercial industry that actually wrote it. Neutral? I think not.

This bill is garbage. If it wasn't garbage there wouldn't be this last minute, 11th hour, backroom, lame duck session push to get it passed. This bill is an assault in sportsmen plain and simple.

Don't be fooled, join MUCC, Trout Unlimited and thousands of Michigan sportsmen who are vigorously opposing the junk bill.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> Wrong. The
> 
> Wrong. The DNR rarely comes out on one side or the other on an issue. Remember, these are bureaucrats and their life can be made very difficukt by the politicians that they come out against . Recall that they were also "neutral" on the first rewrite of the commercial bill that sportsmen scuttled, even though we found out later that it was the DNR in cooperation with the commercial industry that actually wrote it. Neutral? I think not.
> 
> ...


Would like to see evidence of your claim about DNR in cooperation with commercial fishing and in opposition to sportfishing. Your group is spending a lot of time fear mongering about this bill, not sure why, maybe because it strips your groups ability to peddle influence in fisheries management. The more and more I research on all parties sides of this issue, I am becoming more convinced that this is a positive for sportsman in that it forces the DNR to act on commercial fishing before the consent decree negotations...of which they have been avoiding. I would rather this bill pass and have the DNR immediately act and write SCIENCE BASED regulations around commercial fishing, then have some hidden group of “old boys” write a commercial fishing bill that puts sportsmen and states commercial fishermen and the DNR in a straight jacket prior to the consent decree negotiations.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

slightofhand said:


> Would like to see evidence of your claim about DNR in cooperation with commercial fishing and in opposition to sportfishing. Your group is spending a lot of time fear mongering about this bill, not sure why, maybe because it strips your groups ability to peddle influence in fisheries management. The more and more I research on all parties sides of this issue, I am becoming more convinced that this is a positive for sportsman in that it forces the DNR to act on commercial fishing before the consent decree negotations...of which they have been avoiding. I would rather this bill pass and have the DNR immediately act and write SCIENCE BASED regulations around commercial fishing, then have some hidden group of “old boys” write a commercial fishing bill that puts sportsmen and states commercial fishermen and the DNR in a straight jacket prior to the consent decree negotiations.


You must have been living under a rock last spring then when the DNR and commercial fishermen drafted a new commercial fishing bill that allowed them to keep walleyes and other game fish without any input from sport fishing stake holders.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> You must have been living under a rock last spring then when the DNR and commercial fishermen drafted a new commercial fishing bill that allowed them to keep walleyes and other game fish without any input from sport fishing stake holders.


It’s called bycatch, it’s going to happen...that’s unavoidable. If MUCC and TU are so against commercial fishing (and bycatch that comes along with it), then why aren’t they heading to Washington to try and undo the Treaty of 1836? It’s okay for tribes to keep bycatch, but not for state commercial fishermen? Makes no sense to me this fake outrage and exclusion against one group and not another. Maybe TU and MUCC are infiltrated with native Americans and are trying to exclude white men from the same activity? Thats about all I can think of at this point to justify the opposition.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> It’s called bycatch, it’s going to happen...that’s unavoidable. If MUCC and TU are so against commercial fishing (and bycatch that comes along with it), then why aren’t they heading to Washington to try and undo the Treaty of 1836? It’s okay for tribes to keep bycatch, but not for state commercial fishermen? Makes no sense to me this fake outrage and exclusion against one group and not another. Maybe TU and MUCC are infiltrated with native Americans and are trying to exclude white men from the same activity? Thats about all I can think of at this point to justify the opposition.


Wow. Like TS said, you must've been living under a rock. The collaboration between the DNR and commercial interests is documented fact 

As far as bycatch, it's happening is far from a surety. A lot of very good groups are working hard to make sure that door doesn't open.

On the native american side, yes I think that a lot of us would like to see changes there too. But this is legislation moving swiftly that we have an opportunity to act on.

From the perspective of passing this and letting the dnr use science. This has nothing to do with management. This is an end-run around science, letting the legislature pretend to be fisheries managers. Does that sound like a solid plan to you?


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> Wow. Like TS said, you must've been living under a rock. The collaboration between the DNR and commercial interests is documented fact
> 
> As far as bycatch, it's happening is far from a surety. A lot of very good groups are working hard to make sure that door doesn't open.
> 
> ...


It does. The DNR will swiftly move to write sound science based regulations and reforms around this...a modernized version of the existing commercial fishing statutes. Legislators know this, which is why they left it open ended. It will force the DNR to act. Isn’t this what you want? They didn’t act on your senate bill in August, this will now force their hands. You need to see the forest through the trees on this one.

The previous poster suggested some level of collusion (lol) between commercial fishermen and the dnr against sportsmen this past summer, I asked for evidence of this.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> It does. The DNR will swiftly move to write sound science based regulations and reforms around this...a modernized version of the existing commercial fishing statutes. Legislators know this, which is why they left it open ended. It will force the DNR to act. Isn’t this what you want? They didn’t act on your senate bill in August, this will now force their hands. You need to see the forest through the trees on this one.
> 
> The previous poster suggested some level of collusion (lol) between commercial fishermen and the dnr against sportsmen this past summer, I asked for evidence of this.


You keep suggesting that the "DNR will swiftly move". There is no reason to assume this. In fact, part of this bill takes authority *away from the DNR! 

As far as collusion. If you were anywhere near the Saginaw Bay bycatch discussion or lake huron committee meetings last year, you would've heard directly from the DNR that they were consulting with commercial interests on the rewrite, while puposely excluding recreational interests. Those are simply facts, if you don't believe us call Dexter/Goniea, et al at the DNR or MUCC to ask them. I don't think that anybody on this thread needs to do your research for you.


----------



## Heskett (Mar 30, 2008)

Trophy Specialist said:


> While that sounds noble, the reality is that if this bill is passed, then it will be just one more obstacle that will impede any type of decent settlement in the 2020 consent negotiations between the Indians, the state and sport fishing stake holders. Things aren't going so good with negations now: this will only make it worse and could result in a free for all on the Great Lakes if no consent agreement is reached. This could result in Indians being able to catch as many fish of any species as they want including salmon, steelhead, walleyes.... Is that what you want slightofhand?


Well......lets just get more democRATS in office so they can give all the fish and the lakes away to anyone that is considered non white and under "privileged" and under "represented" or...wait for it...."disenfranchised"... Would that make you and your ilk happy or would it still be not enough? The self hating, white guilt crowd never cease to amaze. Enjoy Gretchen and Stabenow lol.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

mrbreeze said:


> You keep suggesting that the "DNR will swiftly move". There is no reason to assume this. In fact, part of this bill takes authority *away from the DNR!
> 
> As far as collusion. If you were anywhere near the Saginaw Bay bycatch discussion or lake huron committee meetings last year, you would've heard directly from the DNR that they were consulting with commercial interests on the rewrite, while puposely excluding recreational interests. Those are simply facts, if you don't believe us call Dexter/Goniea, et al at the DNR or MUCC to ask them. I don't think that anybody on this thread needs to do your research for you.


So Jim Dexter and the MDNR conspired with commercial fishermen against sportsmen? got it.


----------



## JAA (Oct 6, 2004)

It's all about big Business. Well orchestrated by Snyder and his cronies, Have the Fed's Dump Ton's and Ton's of Lakers in the system That sportsman didn't want !! Let them Grow, {Knowing few sportsman want them}. So what do we do now??? start Back Up, An even Bigger Commercial Netting Fishery. Money Money Money --- Money !!







As Snyder pat's Himself on the Back Again!!!!!!! What a Piece of Sh$


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

slightofhand said:


> So Jim Dexter and the MDNR conspired with commercial fishermen against sportsmen? got it.


Like I said...do your own research, or stop wasting our time.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Slightofhand, are you involved with commercial fishing in any capacity? I ask based on your position with this bill and because I seem to recall you having knowledge of Sarafin's bycatch.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

RedM2 said:


> Slightofhand, are you involved with commercial fishing in any capacity? I ask based on your position with this bill and because I seem to recall you having knowledge of Sarafin's bycatch.


I wouldn't be surprised but they don't like admit it on here. Works better if they are under cover.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

RedM2 said:


> Slightofhand, are you involved with commercial fishing in any capacity? I ask based on your position with this bill and because I seem to recall you having knowledge of Sarafin's bycatch.


Absolutely not in any way shape or form. A sport fisherman who’s done some research and knows a few ppl. I would generally be against any commercial fishing as a rule. But it’s not going anywhere so we have to deal with it. But whoever these folks are here posting are out for themselves and appear to be charter captains. They give lip service when it’s brought up that tribes are legally allowed to keep and sell bycatch yet they are railing against 2 or 3 state commercial fishermen who want the same privileges. This is an old boys club excluding others. I want transparency and fairness and the dnr to do its job and manage commercial fishing based on science, not some legislation written by the Michigan charterboat association. Not fair and this appears to be pure cronyism and fear mongering.

Again, the dnr nor the tribes are concerned in the least if this passes. That says all it needs to say right there.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Lumberman said:


> But I very much agree so why would I do that? Many sportsman including me are not a fan of all the lake trout we have in the system. Let the commercial fisherman have a go at them and leave some forage for other game fish. That sounds pro fisherman to me. I think this is a great thread. I am curious of the other unintended consequences that don't necessarily understand.
> 
> I fell like its a lame duck assault on Lake Trout that are assaulting our fisheries!
> 
> Go senators!



Why are sportsman opposed to the species that naturally belong here? That makes no sense what so ever.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

slightofhand said:


> Absolutely not in any way shape or form. A sport fisherman who’s done some research and knows a few ppl. I would generally be against any commercial fishing as a rule. But it’s not going anywhere so we have to deal with it. But whoever these folks are here posting are out for themselves and appear to be charter captains. They give lip service when it’s brought up that tribes are legally allowed to keep and sell bycatch yet they are railing against 2 or 3 state commercial fishermen who want the same privileges. This is an old boys club excluding others. I want transparency and fairness and the dnr to do its job and manage commercial fishing based on science, not some legislation written by the Michigan charterboat association. Not fair and this appears to be pure cronyism and fear mongering.
> 
> Again, the dnr nor the tribes are concerned in the least if this passes. That says all it needs to say right there.


I agree on some things you're saying but there's a lot of things the tribal members can do that the common sportsmen can't. With your way of thinking maybe they should open the door for us to do what they can as far as hunting and gathering 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

DecoySlayer said:


> Why are sportsman opposed to the species that naturally belong here? That makes no sense what so ever.


As Lumberman eluded to, Michigan sports fishing was in an uproar due to the excessive lake trout planting. How could they cut salmon plantings but continually increase lake trout planting? I believe we had a long topic on this and it was noted the feds were cramming the fish down our throats. Lake trout don't die off after 4 years, they are not good table fare and eat the same bio masses. In fact a lake trout could go on for over 15 years eating the bio mass. The feds were only doing the planting due to an agreement with the tribes. Sounds like this new bill opens it up so its not just for the tribes. Most people I know would rather see the lake trout disappear and more silver fish in the box. Wisc fisherman even argued with there DNR and they had them stock some lake trout in our waters to appease them. I know many of the tribes are also running hatcheries and they are planting lake trout.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

JAA said:


> It's all about big Business. Well orchestrated by Snyder and his cronies, Have the Fed's Dump Ton's and Ton's of Lakers in the system That sportsman didn't want !! Let them Grow, {Knowing few sportsman want them}. So what do we do now??? start Back Up, An even Bigger Commercial Netting Fishery. Money Money Money --- Money !!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is absolutely silly. The big business is the sports fishery. Not the couple commercial companies that would benefit from this. 

How do you think Michigan’s tiny little commercial fisheries stacks up against the sportfishing business? Charters for instance? 

Commercial fishing for lake trout would be a tiny drop in the bucket.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

kingfisher 11 said:


> As Lumberman eluded to, Michigan sports fishing was in an uproar due to the excessive lake trout planting. How could they cut salmon plantings but continually increase lake trout planting? I believe we had a long topic on this and it was noted the feds were cramming the fish down our throats. Lake trout don't die off after 4 years, they are not good table fare and eat the same bio masses. In fact a lake trout could go on for over 15 years eating the bio mass. The feds were only doing the planting due to an agreement with the tribes. Sounds like this new bill opens it up so its not just for the tribes. Most people I know would rather see the lake trout disappear and more silver fish in the box. Wisc fisherman even argued with there DNR and they had them stock some lake trout in our waters to appease them. I know many of the tribes are also running hatcheries and they are planting lake trout.


Lake trout belong here. They are natural to this eco-system. Sorry that bothers some.


----------



## JAA (Oct 6, 2004)

Lumberman said:


> This is absolutely silly. The big business is the sports fishery. Not the couple commercial companies that would benefit from this.
> How do you think Michigan’s tiny little commercial fisheries stacks up against the sportfishing business? Charters for instance?
> 
> Commercial fishing for lake trout would be a tiny drop in the bucket.


Well the Fed;s put them here for a Reason, Like it or not, Wisconsin didn't want anymore of them! So mich took them And they weren't requested by Mich Native tribal fishermen?? They don't want them and can't sell what they do catch! I talk to to a tribal fisherman almost every weekend at my Local Farmer's market. People Don't want them! He takes over half of the Lakers he brings to market, Back Home because they don't SELL. But he has No Problem selling his other fish catch's out  Salmon, Is a huge market! as well as Walleye, Whitefish, and smelt. That Right There Speaks Volumes for the Lonely Lakers. I wont't eat them that I catch, But my Dog enjoys them, As well as my garden. Charter fishing industries, Ha, Ha That's a Joke right? We used to have a booming one, That was in the 70's and 80's what's left? Maybe a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the fleet, State wide? But the hot market for Lake Trout right now are Fish feeding pellets and the Multi Million$$ dollar High Class Pet Food Industries !!! And people are willing to Pay for IT!! Like it or Not that's the Lakers Lonely Future. So unfortunately Let the Nets Fly


----------



## JAA (Oct 6, 2004)

So What's Wrong With Mich DNR???? They are Clueless Idiot's that's Whats Wrong!!!! 
*Lake Michigan fisheries management strategies for 2018-2020 highlight partnerships to enhance fishing for salmon and trout*
*Published by* Central Office March 20, 2018
*Contact(s):* Brad Eggold, DNR Great Lakes District Supervisor, [email protected], 414-382-7921, or Todd Kalish, DNR Deputy Director, [email protected], 608-266-5285

MADISON -- Fish stocking trucks are starting to deliver the first trout and salmon for Lake Michigan under a new stocking plan that seeks to sustain diverse fishing opportunities and expand partnerships to make sure more stocked fish survive to catchable size and wind up on Wisconsin anglers' lines.

The plan, developed over more than two years of discussion and input from more than 500 anglers, business owners and other stakeholders, calls for stocking Skamania steelhead for the first time in a decade, stocking larger salmon and trout that survive better, and expanding efforts with fishing clubs to place stocked fish in pens in Lake Michigan to get acclimatized and grow bigger before they're released. 
The plan also calls for DNR to contract with private fish farms to help meet stocking needs, and enhance data sharing with sport and charter anglers to continue improving the information DNR uses to make proactive and innovative management decisions.

"Our Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan not only have world class fisheries, they have world class anglers, businesses, stakeholder groups, and communities committed to keeping the Lake Michigan fishery strong," says Department of Natural Resources Secretary Dan Meyer.

"With their input, expertise, and discussion, we've created a collaborative plan that embraces partnerships to enhance fishing opportunities and success for all anglers, while sustaining a healthy Lake Michigan fisheries community."









Kettle Moraine Springs Fish Hatchery staff transfer Chambers Creek steelhead from raceways to a stocking truck on March 14 for delivery to Lake Michigan tributaries.Photo credit: DNR
DNR's 2018-2020 plan calls for stocking levels similar to 2017's and remains within the guidance recommended by the Lake Michigan Committee, which is composed of state and tribal agencies on Lake Michigan, says Brad Eggold, DNR Great Lakes District fisheries supervisor.

"We're cognizant of the complex interaction within the prey base," Eggold said. "Our plan stays within Lake Michigan Committee guidelines but also maximizes the bang we get for our investment. We include innovative approaches and partnerships to make sure we are maximizing the survivability of the fish stocked and anglers' success in catching them."


Chinook salmon stocking numbers remain consistent at about 810,000 fish total a year, recognizing the popularity of this fish and that angler catch rates are highest for chinook. Eight Lake Michigan stocking sites will get more fish (1,800 to 4,200 fish per year) under a reallocation of 25,000 fish from Marinette and Strawberry Creek. Marinette will get 20,000 more brown trout per year, to offset the chinook reallocation.
The annual lake-wide brown trout stocking target will increase from 356,000 to 376,000 and coho salmon stocking will focus on larger yearlings versus smaller fingerlings for stocking. The number of yearling fish stocked is targeted to increase over previous years, with a target of 400,000 yearlings stocked annually. Wisconsin research indicates that coho stocked as yearlings are nearly twice as likely to be caught by anglers than coho stocked as fingerlings.
Steelhead stocking targets will increase from 300,000 to 350,000, and lake trout targets will continue to be evaluated, but will remain 300,000 per year for now. DNR partnered with Indiana to bring Skamania steelhead to Wisconsin hatcheries, which will be stocked into Lake Michigan in 2018, and the additional steelhead stocking is expected to occur under a new collaboration with the private aquaculture industry. DNR is developing a Request for Proposals to solicit private aquaculture interests to raise steelhead to supplement DNR stocking into Lake Michigan beginning in 2019.
In addition, the DNR fisheries bureau is: expanding the salmon and trout net pen projects to maximize survivability of stocked fish; committing to working with Sea Grant in collecting additional information from charter and commercial fishers to better inform future management strategies; enhancing outreach and communication by more actively engaging stakeholders in communication initiatives; and exploring enhanced electronic reporting options that will increase the efficiency and accuracy of fishing report data.

Eggold says that DNR staff greatly appreciate the continued involvement, expertise, and collaborative efforts of all Lake Michigan stakeholders. "We will continue to seek creative, constructive, and diverse input to inform management strategies to maintain diverse and sustainable fishing opportunities for current and future sport, commercial and charter anglers."

For more information, contact a Lake Michigan fisheries biologist or search the DNR website, dnr.wi.gov, for "Lake Michigan fisheries."


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

This commercial fishing bill (1145) which was passed by the Senate has died in the House Tourism and Outdoor Recreation Committee.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

RedM2 said:


> This commercial fishing bill (1145) which was passed by the Senate has died in the House Tourism and Outdoor Recreation Committee.


That is terrific. Thank you for the update. I'm proud of my fellow sportsmen that took a stand and made the calls. Congratulations are in order. We need to come together on issues like this more often.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

It's embarrassing to see "sportsmen" who are trying to get rid of native species in favor of invasive species. Just as it is when you see people calling for the killing of all cormorants.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> It's embarrassing to see "sportsmen" who are trying to get rid of native species in favor of invasive species. Just as it is when you see people calling for the killing of all cormorants.


There's a few loud people in every group, rarely do they represent the masses. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Josh R said:


> There's a few loud people in every group, rarely do they represent the masses.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk



I sure hope not.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Dont know anyone that wants to "wipe" out lake trout. Reduce the numbers of planting more and reduce numbers already here, yes. As I am one of them. For the comorant comment, again highly doubt anyone wants to demise the cormorant population. Reduce their numbers by say 50 % will not hurt you or the population of them nuisance birds. Open a season on them and its a win win situation, DNR makes $ and the Sportsperson will see drastic changes in our fisheries!


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Dont know anyone that wants to "wipe" out lake trout. Reduce the numbers of planting more and reduce numbers already here, yes. As I am one of them. For the comorant comment, again highly doubt anyone wants to demise the cormorant population. Reduce their numbers by say 50 % will not hurt you or the population of them nuisance birds. Open a season on them and its a win win situation, DNR makes $ and the Sportsperson will see drastic changes in our fisheries!



I doubt very much that we have yet to even return to the lake trout numbers that were in the Lakes before the pollution and invasive species, like the lamprey, darn near wiped them out.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

DecoySlayer said:


> I doubt very much that we have yet to even return to the lake trout numbers that were in the Lakes before the pollution and invasive species, like the lamprey, darn near wiped them out.


May not be near past numbers, although there are LOTS of them in our Greatlakes LOTS of them. Don't think you could go out on any given day and not catch lakers. If the pollution and invasive species nearly wiping them out, why keep planting outrages numbers of them since the pollution is even worse in my opinion and theres more invasive species now than the past. Makes no sense. $, time, resources just to name a few are better spent on other species than Lake trout that most dont eat. Fun to catch tho just as sheephead....


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> May not be near past numbers, although there are LOTS of them in our Greatlakes LOTS of them. Don't think you could go out on any given day and not catch lakers. If the pollution and invasive species nearly wiping them out, why keep planting outrages numbers of them since the pollution is even worse in my opinion and theres more invasive species now than the past. Makes no sense. $, time, resources just to name a few are better spent on other species than Lake trout that most dont eat. Fun to catch tho just as sheephead....



Returning them to their historical norm is the right thing to do. So is restoring the grayling and sturgeon. The pollution is no where near as bad as it once was either, not even close. You no longer see rivers catching fire these days.

Funny, but humans ate lake trout for hundreds of years without a problem.

It's a shame we cannot bring back the passenger pigeon, we missed our chance with that one.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

DecoySlayer said:


> It's embarrassing to see "sportsmen" who are trying to get rid of native species in favor of invasive species. Just as it is when you see people calling for the killing of all cormorants.


I don't know that anyone wants cormorants to be wiped out or extinct, but their numbers are too high. There needs to be a season on them...maybe a part of the waterfowl season with a meaningful limit.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

DecoySlayer said:


> I doubt very much that we have yet to even return to the lake trout numbers that were in the Lakes before the pollution and invasive species, like the lamprey, darn near wiped them out.


It's my understanding that over harvest of lake trout is what caused their demise. Other factors are impeding their resurgence.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

DecoySlayer said:


> Returning them to their historical norm is the right thing to do. So is restoring the grayling and sturgeon. The pollution is no where near as bad as it once was either, not even close. You no longer see rivers catching fire these days.
> 
> Funny, but humans ate lake trout for hundreds of years without a problem.
> 
> It's a shame we cannot bring back the passenger pigeon, we missed our chance with that one.


Returning them to historical numbers as before leaves less room for more sought out species. Only so much room on the playground, as they say not everyone gets along on the playground when it gets crowded! Pollution comes in MANY forms, you are correct as to nope have not seen a river catch on fire ever. The chemicals part of the pollution equation has gotten better but other pollutions that are in our waterways is far from better. More people, more vehicles, less ground cover just a few examples..... List is to large for my wanting to type to explain.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

RedM2 said:


> It's my understanding that over harvest of lake trout is what caused their demise. Other factors are impeding their resurgence.


*"Lake trout were historically the top Great Lakes predator. ... However, it was the invasive sea lamprey that nearly wiped out lake trout when the lamprey entered the Upper Great Lakes in the 1930s. Today, Lake Superior supports the only remaining naturally sustaining population of lake trout in the Great Lakes."

"Historically, lake trout, along with whitefish, sturgeon and herring, were one of the “big four” species of Great Lakes commercial fishing. As early as the 1880s, lake trout numbers began declining, probably due to overfishing and pollution of their spawning areas. However, it was the invasive sea lamprey that nearly wiped out lake trout when the lamprey entered the Upper Great Lakes in the 1930s. Today, Lake Superior supports the only remaining naturally sustaining population of lake trout in the Great Lakes."*

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/Home/Topics/sustainablefish/Details.aspx?PostID=1735&FishType=43


----------



## hawgeye (Mar 3, 2011)

Lumberman said:


> But I very much agree so why would I do that? Many sportsman including me are not a fan of all the lake trout we have in the system. Let the commercial fisherman have a go at them and leave some forage for other game fish. That sounds pro fisherman to me. I think this is a great thread. I am curious of the other unintended consequences that don't necessarily understand.
> 
> I fell like its a lame duck assault on Lake Trout that are assaulting our fisheries!
> 
> Go senators!


You gotta be kidding me? You can't really be serious? You think they want a worthless lake trout? They want open up sport fish to commercial catch!!!!!! They are using a fish no one cares about to get the sport fish unprotected so they can go after walleye and steelhead!!!!!! Go senators? I'm very conservative and I'm ready to hang every Republican that votes for this garbage! Unreal.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## hawgeye (Mar 3, 2011)

slightofhand said:


> It’s called bycatch, it’s going to happen...that’s unavoidable. If MUCC and TU are so against commercial fishing (and bycatch that comes along with it), then why aren’t they heading to Washington to try and undo the Treaty of 1836? It’s okay for tribes to keep bycatch, but not for state commercial fishermen? Makes no sense to me this fake outrage and exclusion against one group and not another. Maybe TU and MUCC are infiltrated with native Americans and are trying to exclude white men from the same activity? Thats about all I can think of at this point to justify the opposition.


It's totally avoidable!!!!!! If they catch to many non-target species they should be allowed to fish there!!!!!!!!!!

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

hawgeye said:


> You think they want a worthless lake trout?


This is almost funny! Did you know that the English used to feed "worthless salmon" to their "apprentices" and there were laws passed saying that those people could not be required to eat salmon more than 3 days a week? 

It's all a matter of taste. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=h...used to feed salmon to their servants&f=false


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

slightofhand said:


> It’s called bycatch, it’s going to happen...that’s unavoidable. If MUCC and TU are so against commercial fishing (and bycatch that comes along with it), then why aren’t they heading to Washington to try and undo the Treaty of 1836? It’s okay for tribes to keep bycatch, but not for state commercial fishermen? Makes no sense to me this fake outrage and exclusion against one group and not another. Maybe TU and MUCC are infiltrated with native Americans and are trying to exclude white men from the same activity? Thats about all I can think of at this point to justify the opposition.


Make no mistake its not Fake outrage against "ONE" group. I as many others despise the commercial netters for wanting to net "Gamefish" same goes for the Tribal community that still think they are owed something!


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Make no mistake its not Fake outrage against "ONE" group. I as many others despise the commercial netters for wanting to net "Gamefish" same goes for the Tribal community that still think they are owed something!


I am 100% opposed to ALL commercial netting, except that which targets invasive species, like carp


----------

