# Spawn Fishermen Unite!



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

As some of you are already aware, the DNR last week came up with an emergency order that temporarily bans the broadcasting of roe. In effect, this amounts for a victory for a very distinct minority of anglers since it bans the use of chumming with fish eggs. The special interest in question saw their little window of opportunity with the VHS disease and the head of the Fisheries, Jim Dexter, ignored the input from his field biologists and pandered to this fly-fishing minority that wanted it banned. 

Supposedly, this is a temporary ban with the intent for it to be lifted once VHS has spread to all areas of the Great Lakes, namely Lake Michigan. Whats ludicrous is that its OK to use spawn bags, but a handful of eggs is deemed hazardous. Why stop there? Why not just ban all salmon from coming upstream this fall since those fish are going to be broadcasting a hell of a lot more eggs than the common anglers can. 

Make no mistake, the field biologists do not think that chumming has any adverse affect on the fishery one bit. This is not about slowing the spread of the disease, this is about Jim Dexter siding with a minority special interest group who have no intention of bettering the fishery for all that use it. Once again, it comes down to fly-fishermen trying to put the squeeze on bait fishermen simply for the fact that most of these fly jockey guides cant stand being outfished by a bait fisherman in front of their clients. 

A good percentage of salmon migrate from Lake Huron, due to a better forage base in Lake Michigan, and then subsequently run up lake Michigan riversthat much is fact. What else is fact is that Lake Huron is a watershed thats infected with VHS. Those potentially carrying the disease will dump millions of eggs into lake Michigan tribs this fall. Is Mr. Dexter going to identify those lake Huron salmon and have them ticketed for broadcasting roe? 

The point is this: If youre a bait fisherman, you need to make some noise. This isnt so much about chumming, but rather making sure we let the DNR know that we arent going to accept them pandering to special interest. If you enjoy fishing spawn in this state, you need to e-mail Jim Dexter and show your displeasure at this new emergency order. A number of us are already working on fighting this, but we need some help! A simple e-mail to Jim Dexter voicing your displeasure with this ban would go a long way. 

E-mail addy: 

[email protected]

As always, it comes down to us having to fight off special interest minorities in order to enjoy the sport of salmon fishing. Scientific fact has not been used in this instance and despite what the field biologists have told Mr. Dexter, he chose to appease the special interest, period.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Here is the link....I think everyone should read the document and make an intelligent decision for themselves before getting worked up.Hey, the DNR is only trying to do what is best for &quot;ALL&quot; fisherman / women, not just the &quot;special interest&quot; groups.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

That link does not work. Hmmmm, I wonder if the DNR is getting too many hits on this already? Not that I would expect them to recognize that in any way........................

TC posted an email address to voice any concerns you have. 

"You can have my spawnbags when you pry them from my cold dead fingers."


----------



## Apache Trout (Feb 5, 2002)

You can blame the fly guide outfitters all you want but as a fly dunker who is known to throw some fire every now and then, I also think this is ridiculous. I am sure there are many fly fishing guides, who when fun fishing, have been known to throw a handful as well. If you are going to restrict chumming, spawn dunking should have the same restriction. Chumming has saved many a s-l-o-w winter day for me! Heck, if I were a fly fishing guide I wouldn't mind taking a client behind someone who is chumming. Tight lines.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

FISHMANMARK said:


> Here is the link....I think everyone should read the document and make an intelligent decision for themselves before getting worked up.Hey, the DNR is only trying to do what is best for &quot;ALL&quot; fisherman / women, not just the &quot;special interest&quot; groups.


That would be great if this move were based on science provided by the field biologists. It's not. This is nothing but a move pandering to a minority group of special interest--completely ignoring the input from the people in the field who get paid to add input. Ignoring science and putting out a knee-jerk order like this is not trying to do what's best for everyone. If a handful of eggs is a danger, how long before a large gob o skein is? Then what? We have to make noise about this...expecially when the DNR is standing there with its hand out asking for more money, then potentially alienating a large group of anglers with this order.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Apache Trout said:


> You can blame the fly guide outfitters all you want but as a fly dunker who is known to throw some fire every now and then, I also think this is ridiculous. I am sure there are many fly fishing guides, who when fun fishing, have been known to throw a handful as well. If you are going to restrict chumming, spawn dunking should have the same restriction. Chumming has saved many a s-l-o-w winter day for me! Heck, if I were a fly fishing guide I wouldn't mind taking a client behind someone who is chumming. Tight lines.


Trust me, I've seen quite a few fly guys greasing up runs and then running clown eggs through it. I'm strictly talking about those so called purists who have been making noise and acting as if they're the only guides on the river or even the only fishermen on the river that matter. Anyone tossing a little fire is affected by this and need to send an e-mail to Dexter.


----------



## Apache Trout (Feb 5, 2002)

Will do Thousandcasts. I will send a note to Dexter and I will have a few friends do the same. Thanks for bringing the issue to everyones attention.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

I agree this may be knee-jerk. But, what if this does help stop the spread? I have not read any info from the Biologists, so I can't form an opinion. I just think it may be a little "over the edge" to think this results from the fly fishing lobby. Remember this is to attempt to stop the spread of VHS, it makes sense to me that you don't use spawn that could be infected with the disease, it would lessen the chance of spreading.
If it does spread it affects all of us, chummers, flyfisherman and snaggers!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

FISHMANMARK said:


> I agree this may be knee-jerk. But, what if this does help stop the spread? I have not read any info from the Biologists, so I can't form an opinion. I just think it may be a little "over the edge" to think this results from the fly fishing lobby. Remember this is to attempt to stop the spread of VHS, it makes sense to me that you don't use spawn that could be infected with the disease, it would lessen the chance of spreading.
> If it does spread it affects all of us, chummers, flyfisherman and snaggers!


But what's the difference between a handful of eggs and thousands of salmon dumping millions of potentially infected eggs into a stream bed? Salmon travel thousands of miles in the ocean, and creel studies have indicated that a large number of Huron fish are being caught off Lake Michigan ports. If a handful of eggs is dangerous, how long before a big chunk of skein is? That's the point to all of this. With all the salmon that'll be dumping eggs in every river, this order makes no sense.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Can anyone say, "The now infamous worm bill?" seems to me its right along those same lines.


----------



## dsmithgall (Oct 10, 2006)

This is BS, regardless if you chum or not, they should not have the right to just ban it. They need to concentrate on the true problem of the Great Lakes and that is these huge ships ballast water. Gobies, Zebra muscles, Asian Carp? When will it stop??? How can they blame it on spawn, when like TC explained, every year millions of steelhead, salmon, suckers, etc- blow there eggs all over the river..Need to monitor these ships, and not so much the fisherman.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

dsmithgall said:


> This is BS, regardless if you chum or not, they should not have the right to just ban it. They need to concentrate on the true problem of the Great Lakes and that is these huge ships ballast water. Gobies, Zebra muscles, Asian Carp? When will it stop??? How can they blame it on spawn, when like TC explained, every year millions of steelhead, salmon, suckers, etc- blow there eggs all over the river..Need to monitor these ships, and not so much the fisherman.


The disease can be carried and spread by the sexual fluids of fish, namely eggs and milt--that much is true. However, this knee jerk order comes from the very top, from Jim Dexter, a fisheries manager who admits that he had no idea that people on the great lakes were using cutbait such as herring and alewife for bait. You'll be able to read that for yourself in an article from another member of M-S very soon. 

So, we have a fishery manager that's out of touch with what anglers do in this state, yet he arbitrarily bans the use of chum, but not skein chunks, bags, etc? It does not make sense and that's the real problem here. What's next...banning salmon and steelhead from coming upriver and laying eggs??? 

As Toto said, this reaks of worm bill no matter how you look at it--that's the problem. Frankly, I am sick and tired of having to fight over salmon and steelhead fishing, but as long as the special interest keeps getting its way from the DNR, it's what has to be done. I hate it, I'd rather just enjoy the fishery and be ignorant to everything that goes on, but what's going on right now is not right, period.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I'll have more to say on this issue tomorrow, but when I read what ottertrapper had to say, I had to post this now.



ottertrapper said:


> I am not a fly guy and I don't think chumming a hole should be legal myself. In my opinion that is not fishing it is almost like cheating by getting them to take eggs like crazy so someone can hook more fish. I have seen several guys do this over the years and it just doesn't seem right to me. Disease or no disease I never agreed with chumming. Just my two cents worth. You can still hook a lot of fish with spawn or flies without chumming. I think the slows days or a bad day of fishing is much better than a good day of work. We can't always have banner days and if it meant that I had to chum to catch fish well I guess I would never catch them. Just my opinion I have never said they should ban it just that I never agreed with the principle of chumming. OT


This is the exact argument the fly guys are using, except instead of chum the say spawn bags. If you don't want to use it, don't, but why should you critize others from using it? They think using spawn is cheating and not real fishing. They say you can't always have banner days and if they had to use spawn bags to catch fish, well I guess they would never catch them.

Like Bill said, if they could they would make us all fish the way they feel is the right way to catch fish. "The worm bill" Kind of like the leg hold trap argument if you think about it.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Here is the link that didn't work

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FishDiseaseControlOrder-FO-245-Final_195763_7.pdf


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

I've never done it and don't think I would, but this is horribly skewed logic in my opinion.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Yep, that's the link. It's provision 17 that states: 

_Except as further restricted in this Fish Disease Control Order, a
person shall not use or otherwise release Baitfish that are listed as
Prohibited Fish Species, or Roe harvested from fish that are listed as
Prohibited Fish Species, in any public waters of the State, unless
that person is fishing and those Baitfish or that Roe are attached to
a hook."
_

Supposedly this is a temporary order that will be lifted once VHS is everywhere. However, we need to make enough noise so that it stays temporary and can't be used as something to make it permanent. The special interest already used this to their advantage, so don't think for a minute that they won't keep pushing for this to be a lifetime ban.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

cadillacjethro said:


> I've never done it and don't think I would, but this is horribly skewed logic in my opinion.


You see exactly what the rest of us see! This order does not make any sense at all, but it sure does make a few guides extremely happy.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> You see exactly what the rest of us see! This order does not make any sense at all, but it sure does make a few guides extremely happy.


And some guides extremely unhappy.:lol: Years ago when I first heard and saw what was going on, it was quides with that ability to put clients "on" fish who were practicing the art. Perhaps the intent is to stop a "trend" before it gets out of hand. It's the easy way out to increase your chance to catch a fish, spawn or fly, period. If it's popularity continued to grow, the day would come when more "fire" was tossed than attached to a hook.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Whether or not one agrees with the practice is not the point. The point is our DNR is supposed to use science in order to make its decisions. Eggs are going to litter the stream beds no matter what--what's the difference between a handful of eggs getting thrown into a run or 50 hens on the gravel upstream of there dropping about a hundred thousand eggs into that? By the same token, is a handful of eggs just as dangerous as a golf ball sized hunk of skein on a hook? If not, what's the difference and at what point do we have to fight to keep spawn as a legal bait?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

I guess I just don't see the day when using spawn or skein attached to a hook banned. There is the ethical side to this equation, like it or not, and probably was a factor in his decision. If Tonello and the rest truly believe they work for a man that doesn't listen to science, then they need to ring the bell loud and go to work righting the injustice that "one" man has done, but I have a feeling the ethical side to this story will keep them quiet. Maybe not.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Quotes I found interesting:

"Will VHS spread to the other Great Lakes and when? While the exact timing is
impossible to determine, *it is highly likely that the virus will be found in Lake
Michigan in the next 1-2 years. This is based on the large scale fish movements,
particularly Chinook salmon, between lakes Michigan and Huron*. If fish
continue to be the key movement vector, the virus will likely take a long time to
get established in Lake Superior as fish movement through the Soo Locks is
limited."

"It should be noted that once a pathogen gets into a wild fish
community, it is impossible to effectively eliminate it and control is highly
unlikely."


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Some very valid points here. For the record, I'm not a fan of chumming, having said that, I really don't have a problem with per se.

The only issue we really need to concern ourselves with, is the truth. So, just what is the truth here? Can anyone confirm that the fly guys are behind this? Until we can do so, its only speculation. It amazes me that the people in charge of these decisions can't handle the pressure of powerful groups, if thats the facts. Someone needs to get an answer as to how this is going to help the fishery in the big picture, and in my opinion it won't. It may delay things for a year or so, but eventually, it will happen (VHS).

What really bothers me is this: I have always been of the opinion that the DNR was orginally drawn up with rules, and, to some degree, legislative statutes. These statutes basically said the legislators of Michigan were to have no hand in the decisions of the DNR; the theory being, how could some politician have any idea of wildlife needs, and how to control it. Well somewhere along the line, it all changed, and its all about the money now. The NRC is nothing more than a shell to throw ideas around, and they trully have no significant duties, as far as I can tell. 

I really have no idea as to who originally started this whole banning thing, but it seems blatantly obvious that it was for some reason besides the betterment of the fishery. Getting off on a tagent here a bit, but someone also mentioned that the NRC/DNR were considering more "Flies Only" waters, that also needs to be stopped. Tell me this: should one group of individuals have special treatment over another? Especially when we would then have 100 miles more river for the "elite" to fish, that the people who don't, won't, or can't really afford to fly fish can't fish? Seems like a very disturbing form of segregation to me.

In summary, as most of you have said, if the little bit of chumming that takes place is that risky to our fisheries, than whats next? When I say "Little Bit", I'm meaning the amount of chumming verses the amount of naturally reproduced eggs in any stream. Hey, heres an answer, why don't we just have the Indians increase their amount of nets, and what they can catch, and just eliminate ALL fish from our Great Lakes, after all they (******) need our help. As you can tell, I'm sick and tired of the DNR being controlled by the few with the most. Sorry for tirade, and getting off track.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

riverman said:


> What about the trout in those streams that recieve no salmon runs? Are they imuned to vhs? If you can chum up steelhead, why not browns, brookies and rainbows? I would think a little roe would work a heck of alot better than corn. If the lakes and rivers that fish run are going to be infected no matter what we do, the ban is insane, but what if all our trout streams become infected because of chumming eggs, is it still a bad idea? Where's the science that says this couldn't become a reality?


VHS has now been found in some inland lakes in the lower peninsula--no salmon or steelhead were there either. Perhaps it was chummers?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Couple of things I found interesting. 

It is very unclear what the risk is to our fish stocks from this pathogen as
susceptibility and virulence studies have not been done on this isolate. It does
clearly cause large scale mortalities in susceptible fish populations. The potential
outcomes range from being a short term 1-time mortality factor to a pathogen that
causes annual mortalities that will need to be factored into fisheries management
plans. It also appears that there are a wide range of potential carriers for the
pathogen which will need to be factored into fisheries management options.
 What will be the pathogen management strategy in the Great Lakes? Since this
pathogen can clearly cause large scale mortalities of valuable adult fish and it has
a wide range of potential carriers, it is critical to make every attempt to contain
the pathogen and not allow a rapid spread of the disease to all Great Lakes and
inland waters. This and other basic pathogen information will take time to develop
and will greatly inform management decisions. Until that information is
available, precautionary principles will be employed to attempt contain this
pathogen to its current distribution. Great Lakes resource agencies are taking
every opportunity to collect information on the current distribution of the
pathogen.

The virus can be found on the surface of the salmonid eggs during
spawning of infected female broodstock (sometimes at very high levels) and is
capable of persisting for a sufficient time period to result in vertical (actually
egg-associated) transmission between generations (adult to progeny).

As much as I hate the wier on the PM I say crank the volts up this fall on that river and shut the doors on the wier on the Little River. We at least have a chance to try and protect two rivers from what little we know about this pathogen.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> VHS has now been found in some inland lakes in the lower peninsula--no salmon or steelhead were there either. Perhaps it was chummers?


So what are you saying TC? We should do nothing to try and stop the spread to uninfected water until more is known or just accept the spread like the zebra muscle.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

No, what I'm saying point blank is that it makes no sense to ban chumming when thousands of salmon will be dumping eggs and all of us who use spawn will be chucking bags and big chunks of skein into those same rivers. If you don't like chumming, don't do it. The issue here is using this VHS disease as a backdoor to ban something that some anglers think is unethical. Saying that banning chumming is going to slow the spread is like trying to drain Lake Michigan with a mop bucket.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

That's the difference in our views. It's a fact that most rivers will become infected up to barriers and banning chumming is pointless, but if the ban keeps just one river upstream from those barriers or one inland lake from being infected it's worth it. Quite frankly I think the state should be doing a heck of alot more, but the problem is they know so little about this pathogen, the public would scream, just like you, at any proactive measures to curb the spread. Five to ten years from now we will look back and ask ourselves what was all the hysteria about, or we may wishing for the "old" days of fishing. Time will tell. Best of luck with the skams this summer and the uglies this fall.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

At this point, I'd simply settle for just being able to take my sons out fishing and not have to worry about some special interest group forcing just how and where we should be fishing down our throats. I love the enthusiasm and fun they have when we're out fishing, but part me hopes they'll get older, look at all the crap that goes on behind the scenes and decide for themselves, "**** this, it just isn't worth it." 

We have differing viewpoints on this, Riverman, and that's OK. I just hope people can understand my perspective on this and based simply on what's presented, just how illogical this ban is for the reasons that the DNR is hiding behind it.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

What do you guys think of lining on the gravel redds?:help: 

Ganzer


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

Thousandcasts,
You keep referencing the "special interest groups", I guess that is the flyfishers. Out of all the conversations I have been a part of, or privy to the information being exchanged. I have never heard the complaining about chummers. It is always about the indian nets, snaggers or canoes. 
I really think this is a great example of the DNR trying to do what is best for everyone. They are trying to make decisions based on little or no information, but, I still think they have the best intentions to all fisherman in mind. Like Riverman said.... If it only saves one river.
As fisherman, I think we need to do whatever sounds like something that will save our fishery. That is the only thing that matters (in my opinion).


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

Basically what TC has been trying to say is that there more to this than just VHS. This has been a dream of a few special interest groups well before there was any thought of VHS or any threatening disease for that matter. What stings is there doing back flips over this, and VHS has little or nothing to do with it... 

Borgenson and others has always had it in for chumming, and for years he has let the public know how he feels its unethical. Trust me if VHS didnt exist he would be still trying like hell to get chumming banned. The Fact that VHS popped up on the radar and Borgenson smelled blood and ran to the NRC and said chumming will help eliminate or slow down the progress of the disease. Dont get me wrong, there a very well organized group, and they follow though like a pack of Hyenas, once the door was opened they attacked full force and now it looks like were stuck with more regulations


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

That's correct, Denny. Borgenson is one of the driving forces that's been public about his desire to ban chumming. Another notable person that's been public with his disdain for chumming has been Supinski. 

How do I feel about the redd raking? Well, Another issue here is the hypocrisy behind which some of these special interest anglers operate. You see, to them chumming is unethical, but they have no problem putting themselves or in the case of some guides, paying clients on gravel bars where spawning salmon and steelhead are stacked up and then ripping two-fly rigs through there as they &#8220;line&#8221; fish after fish in the process. Lining as many of you are aware is the practice of running long leaders through spawning fish and the line actually drifts into the fishes mouth. When the angler sets the hook, the line slides through the fishes mouth until the fly makes contact with the outside of the mouth. The same anglers/guides that find chumming abhorrent can be found every spring and fall in front of a gravel bar loaded with fish flinging their two-fly rigs--in a lot of cases using longer than normal leaders. If gravel fishing were banned, a number of these guides would basically go out of business. However, a practice that is tantamount to legalized snagging is OK, but someone getting an edge by knowing when to toss a few eggs out is unethical? These same anglers are all about more wild fish, yet they endlessly harass the spawners day in and day out with a boatload of clients and making a buck off the resource in the process? If they were truly serious about promoting ethical fishing and increasing more natural reproduction, they&#8217;d get off the gravel every spring and fall and leave those spawners alone. Of course, that would mean an end to their being able to advertise hooking 20 fish a day and we can&#8217;t have that, can we? Point blank, this is nothing more than a few bitter, self-promoting anglers/guides that are trying to turn Michigan into their own personal playground. They can&#8217;t stand to see other people catching more fish than them, period. Most of us, I might add, are predominantly catch and release advocates, so the &#8220;meat fishermen&#8221; label is completely inaccurate. I ask you, what&#8217;s the difference between tossing a few eggs out to entice steelhead and tossing a handful of corn out to draw in carp? Both are fine gamefish and both are not native to this state. Borgenson&#8217;s claims that chummers are throwing bucketfuls of eggs out at a time, as he has publically stated, are ignorant and completely inaccurate. Most (key word here since there's always a few bad apples) of us who do it utilize chumming minimally and never toss out more than a handful when we do. It&#8217;s merely an added edge that when used sparingly, can be quite effective. It&#8217;s not like you can just go to the river, toss a handful of eggs out and start catching fish. You still have to know how to fish, you still have to have knowledge of the fish themselves and what their patterns and behaviors are. It&#8217;s not a slam dunk by any means-it&#8217;s merely an additional edge that knowledgable anglers utilize in certain times and places. None of us just arbitrarily go tossing eggs out on a whim and expect to start catching fish&#8230;it doesn&#8217;t work that way, period. Again, it all boils down to the fact that these fly purists just can&#8217;t stand to see a dumb bait angler out fishing them in front of their clients. A number of them can&#8217;t stand chumming, but have no problem juicing up their flies with various scents that are commonly on the market at any bait store. I&#8217;m not trying to be slanderous here or &#8220;persecute&#8221; one specific person in any way, shape or form--I&#8217;m generalizing based on what I and many others have witnessed day in and day out on the rivers. 

Supposedly, we all abhor the act of snagging, but where are these purists whenever there&#8217;s a riverwatch? Where are they when there&#8217;s a river cleanup? I participate in a number of both of those activities on rivers that I hold dear and I can assure you that I&#8217;ve never seen any of the people making the most noise at either one in the past-on any river short of the Pere Marquette. Guide Steve Fraley actually organizes a river clean up there twice a year. 

If you really want to talk about ethics, myself and a number of fellow bait fishermen have gotten away from fishing gravel in the spring and fall...or at least altering our techniques to insure that fish are legit biters. We can gather enough eggs at various cleaning stations around this area to supply us with spawn for an entire year without having to get on the gravel and line a bunch of spawning fish. Even the phrase, &#8220;bait fishermen&#8221; is a misnomer since most of us utilize a number of different techniques to catch fish. Sure, spawn fishing is part of it, but so is pulling plugs, tossing crankbaits or spinners for aggressive salmon or steelhead, even fishing flies ethically in holes and runs when the need calls for it. Even in the spring a bait gatherer can find enough fish that aren&#8217;t preoccupied with the act of spawning, in the dark water behind gravel, that are eager to take a well presented offering.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Kirk,

The way I understand it, once the disease is introduced into a body of water it is to late to do anything to stop it and it will run its course. We know Lake Erie and Lake Huron have been infected and there is little doubt that Lake Michigan and connecting waters are already infected. When the fish get infected they either die or survive and after words are immune. Kind of like when you get chicken pox. At least that is the way it was explained to me.

We know there was a pretty big die off in Lake St. Clair but some scientist dont think it was that big of a deal. We know Saginaw Bay has been infected for at least 4 years and since most of the emerald shiners sold around the state come from Saginaw Bay, it is pretty certain that most lakes where fishermen use emerald shiners are already infected.

As I said, once a body of water is infected further restrictions are meaningless because it is too late. It is assumed by scientist that most bodies of water in our state are infected even if the evidence hasnt shown up. It might do some good to look up the difference between a pathogen and a vector.

If you look up the thread I started in March http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176115&highlight=spawn+threat
you can read a little history about Dave Borgenson.

The Resource Stewards started out as a group of retired DNR personal who felt they needed to say what they couldnt say while working for the DNR. Remember this is part of their mission statement; The Stewards strongly oppose at every turn the politicization of resource management, or decisions based on unscientific principles, and are a respected and outspoken voice on behalf of the long-term use and conservation of Michigan's natural resources.

They started out speaking with science and without politics and were gaining the respect of the outdoor community until now. Believe me they know the truth about Mr. Borgenson, but now he is the president of their organization they have chosen to forgo their principles because as one steward told me Dave is a nice guy. By the way Toto, there is no doubt that he is the one behind this, because he said that was his goal at a public meeting.

Now the Resource Hypocrites go to Jim Dexter and ask for his support and he folds like a cheap suite. Remember all this would have been swept under the rug just a few years ago, but with Inter-Net sites like this one things are changing.

So Riverman, the idea that spawn is a threat to the fishery is just a guise to promote what Dave Borgenson wants us to do. That is accept his concept of ethics and morals when it comes to fishing even if he has to sacrifice his scientific integrity and the good will built up by the Resource Sellouts over the years. 

This is all political. There is no way to put VHS back in the box. If it was a real threat and Jim Dexter believed it, he would have no choice but to protect our natural resources and that would have mandated that he ban the use of all spawn, minnows and cut bait. Ill say that if it were a real threat me and all the other fishermen talking about this double standard would have jumped on the bandwagon and supported the protection of our fishery along with him.

Fisherman Mark,

All I can say is if you have never seen or are not aware of these special interest groups you dont get around much. 

Thousandcasts,

Thanks for taking the lead on this issue, you are a good man!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> You keep referencing the "special interest groups", I guess that is the flyfishers.


I cant even and won't lump all fly anglers into the anti chumming crowd since a number of fly anglers and fly guides chum as well. Visit any major river system in the fall or winter and youll see fly anglers in drift boats greasing up a run before running a peach colored egg fly through it. So, there are even some avid fly anglers that could be equally upset with this ban. Not all fly guys subcribe to what comes out of Newaygo, ya know?  

This is more or less being driven by an even more distinct minority that yes, happen to be avid fly fishermen. As it just being fly fishermen in general, not by a long shot, rather the "chosen ones." :lol:


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

So what your saying Ray is if someone wants to use spawn or chum the Pine/any river/inland lake with infected eggs it doesn't matter? The trout/fish in that stream/any river/inland lake are already infected and it's only a matter of time before a die off occurs? If that was the case why is the draining of boats from know infected water needed? Why the minnow ban? If what you say is true why are we not shouting at the top of our lungs at the waste of money the state is/going to throw at studing/controlling the spread of vhs that is already widespread according to you instead of complaining about a little trick to catch a ******* eating machine, steelhead?


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Exactly Kirk! Hundreds of people fish the Pine already use eggs, especially steelhead eggs.

My question to you, is do you think it is immoral to use spawn or chum for steelhead? What about worms for trout?

Why the caustic remark about using a little trick to catch this so called eating machine? I already said I don't chum even though I have tried it a couple of times when that eating machine was not eating anything.

How many times do I have to say if my expert sources said it would do any good, I would be the first to support the ban. If you read my last post, answer the question why didn't Jim Dexter outlaw all spawn if he actually thought it was a threat? Why would you just outlaw chumming and not spawn? Maybe that makes some sense to you, but not me!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

riverman said:


> So what your saying Ray is if someone wants to use spawn or chum the Pine/any river/inland lake with infected eggs it doesn't matter? The trout/fish in that stream/any river/inland lake are already infected and it's only a matter of time before a die off occurs? If that was the case why is the draining of boats from know infected water needed? Why the minnow ban? If what you say is true why are we not shouting at the top of our lungs at the waste of money the state is/going to throw at studing/controlling the spread of vhs that is already widespread according to you instead of complaining about a little trick to catch a ******* eating machine, steelhead?


No, the point is this:

Thousands of salmon and steelhead dumping millions of eggs into the watersheds. No problem. 

Spawn bags, no matter what size they are. No problem.

Gobs of skein that's bigger than anything a chummer will toss out. No problem.

Guys tossing a handful of eggs into a river. Big problem...ban it! 

Frankly, if they wanted to ban chumming on inland streams that don't see salmon and steelhead, that'd be one thing. However, banning that and only that in waters that host thousands of potentially infected fish? Does not make sense and that's the root of the issue. This is not VHS driven, this is exactly what's been talked about for four pages now: Dexter pandering to these special interest guys that have been trying to ban this for over 10 years now. That's what this is all about. If they can use chumming as their window, what's to stop them from trying to get all forms of spawn fishing banned since it's putting eggs in the water?



> How many times do I have to say if my expert sources said it would do any good, I would be the first to support the ban.


Exactly.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Ray I wan't saying it wasn't Borgenson, I'm just trying to lesser heads prevail. In other words, lets get to the root of the problem.

In reading your past post concerning Borgenson, one thing that jumped out at me was the discussion of whirling disease. Well, what now, no wading? After all, and this is fact, whirling disease can be transmitted by your boots/waders, from one stream to the next. 

Again, Ray, I hope you understand I'm on your side on this issue, and the issue really isn't chumming itself, its whats next is what the issue is. As for people like Supinski, why do the DNR people think he is so knowledgeable? Has anyone from the DNR ever checked his credentials? This guy reminds of another well known, and I might say, arrogant fisherperson from the past.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> the issue really isn't chumming itself, its whats next is what the issue is.


Yes, that is exactly it. Frankly, I don't need chumming to catch fish--it's something that in the right time and place is an added edge. I don't care how many eggs a person throws out there, if those fish aren't willing to go, they're not gonna go period. I'm long past the stage of figuring out what type of fishing I like best and trying to find out what's challenging or what not. I like to hook fish, that's it. I am out there on that river for the hookset, the headshake and the fight. It's what I live for, other than my # 1 priority of being the best dad possible, the set, shake and fight is my passion--The more I get of that in a day, the happier I am. If that means that sometimes chumming will get me more of those three things, then I do it. However, what bothers me is that people can attack that as being unethical yet can't look in the mirror and figure out that dragging slinkies and two fly rigs through a gravel bar is far more unethical than someone like me tossing a few eggs out from time to time. Do I go raising the banner of trying ban gravel fishing or fight for a one fly rule and leader length that's no more than 2'? No, if that's how they want to fish, let 'em. Lord knows I used to fish that way. The same respect should be applied to me and how I want to fish, ya know? Until that happens, then we'll never be able to get anything settled from a fisheries standpoint. They're too busy trying to **** us out of being on the water doing what we enjoy and we're having to constantly fight them off.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This is another of those issues that we need to band together, as someone else said earlier. We should have banded together better over the Dove Hunting issue, as we should on the trapping issue as well. This issue is no different. Fighting about whether or not we like chumming is only side tracking the issue. Look at the bigger picture, where does this madness stop? If we allow it to continue, we'll only have ourselves to blame later.

I just off the phone with Ray, and it dawned on me: How many eggs do you suppose we chum with, in whole sceme of things, I would think very little. I've stood at the mouth of the Little Man and seen literally hundreds if not thousands of eggs wafting down river, are they coming from a chummer up river? No. The problem I have with the whole scenario is there is no scientific basis for this decision, and as we all know, the decisions of the DNR are SUPPOSSED to be scientifically based on whats good for the wildlife in question, not on social dilemma they have seen fit to fight.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Great post, Toto. That's why it's important for everyone who opposes this measure to send an e-mail to Jim Dexter and let him know you oppose it. 

mailto: 

[email protected]


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Another question I have is, did Dexter consult with DNR biologists about this ban?:tsk: 

As far as Borgeson, I'm sure I don't have it word for word, but at the Steelhead Symposium, if I remember correct, after listening to guides complain about cold water, zebra mussels, lower limit etc... Borgeson got up and pretty much said those are all no big deal, the biggest threat to fishing is "Chumming" ! He touched on VHS a little bit but his major argument was that it "Cheapens the sport"! Now tell me, if he was convinced that chumming had such a great impact on the spread of VHS, then why was his primary argument on ethics?????:rant:

Email sent earlier today.


----------



## Mitch (Jan 10, 2003)

I've been mulling over this for the past few days and I'm still not sure what to think. On one side it's the most rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. On the flip side, I follow what Riverman is trying to point out. 

It's fact that if it's not already here, it's on it's way. It's a fact that once it arrives any waterways connected to the great lakes is going to be affected. But why take the risk above any fish barriers? The Big M above Tippy, the White above Hesperia, the Mo above Croton, the Kzoo above Allegan. A handful of examples where the transmission of this could be stopped by banning all use of eggs (whether attached to a hook or otherwise) at least until our trusted biologist get a grip on what's happening. Below these obstructions, salmon and steelhead water, you're absolutely right, a bunch of political and ass-slapping BS.

The one thing that makes me believe this whole deal is crooked is the complete lack of scientific fact from our professional biologists. Where are thier opinions? Where are thier documented studies? Where are they, bound and gagged in the back-room? Probably not too far from the truth... After all, if we're not going to trust in thier expertise, why do we need them?

The sad part. We as steelhead fishermen make up a very small population comparitively. Unfortunately the general population isn't going to give two chits about this, and if the issue comes up will be easily swayed by the big names with big titles and big foundations backing them.

I will send my email voicing my opinions, concerns, and demanding to hear from OUR biologists. I hope the truth comes out, the realist in me isn't so optimistic.

In the meantime, I'm sure glad I love walking skein. I'm off to make a trapdoor in the transom!:evilsmile 

My .02,

Mitch


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

http://www.chicagolandfishing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53052

wisconsin used science to make thier decision. why are propaghanda and special interest groups making the decisions in michigan?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> Why the caustic remark about using a little trick to catch this so called eating machine? I already said I don't chum even though I have tried it a couple of times when that eating machine was not eating anything.
> 
> !


No caustic tone from me at all. Chumming is just what I said, a little fishing trick that can increase your chance of catching a fish. There are so many different ways and baits you can use to catch steelhead it's ridiculous. I call them eating machines because of that, but like you said, sometimes they just don't eat. That's fishing.

I going to back out of this for now, I need to get ready for a few days on the pond chasing uglies and chrome, but sorry, I just don't buy that ALL the waters in the state are already infected and we should do nothing.


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

keep it on topic boys..............................

https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admru...ocumentId=5145

one more link. looks like im taking my business elsewhere


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

locallegendry said:


> http://www.chicagolandfishing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53052
> 
> wisconsin used science to make thier decision. why are propaghanda and special interest groups making the decisions in michigan?


That, my friend is the question of the day--and the real issue at hand here!

I didn't see anything in that Wisconsin order that banned chumming--maybe it's just Michigan based chum that's dangerous.


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

steve,

i dont know if chumming with salmon eggs is legal there, but i know that many chum the wolf and wisconsin rivers with corn for carp. i think it may be a littering jurisdiction there though, not a way to stop a virus thats already spreading


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

On chumming with corn, that makes sense, fish cannot digest corn properly, and therefore it is unhealthy for them, in particular trout. I don't have the required scientific study in front of me on this, but I know it to be true.

In talking to Ray last nite it dawned on me, in an effort to get this stuff stopped, not only the chumming thing, but some others; it became obvious to me that the only way to win this argument is to fight fire with fire. More on that later, as I will take the ball and run with that one. I'll be off the putor for the next few days, heading out to Tennessee, will follow up on Monday.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

OMG this is horrible:yikes: 

Ganzer


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Thanks for all of the opinions. I've been following this, and it's good to see this discussed in a fairly cival manner, with quite a range of attitudes on this very important matter. Differances aside, there is a common glue that can hold us banded together.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

MitchBut why take the risk above any fish barriers? Mitch[/quote said:


> As I understand in the DNR order on page 5 or 6 you cannot use spawn at all above obstructions. It is a lot of legal ease but thats what I understand it to say.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FishDiseaseControlOrder-FO-245-Final_195763_7.pdf


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

Oldgrandman said:


> As I understand in the DNR order on page 5 or 6 you cannot use spawn at all above obstructions. It is a lot of legal ease but thats what I understand it to say.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FishDiseaseControlOrder-FO-245-Final_195763_7.pdf


I'm a "bait" guy, but the above makes complete sense. I understand the hypocrisy of banning chumming yet allowing spawn, and also can see this being a slippery slope that could lead to a ban on spawn. Makes no sense to me to ban using it if it won't stop the spread of VHS, i.e., its already here. That said, it makes perfect sense to ban the use of ALL spawn and minnows (I think) above impoundments where anadramous fish can't pass. 

On a lighter note, every single time this thread pops up, all I can think of is the old bumper sticker that goes like this:

DYSLEXICS - UNTIE!!!


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

I think ths says you cannot use spawn above obstructions stopping fish passage. Let me know if I misunderstand it, I think I may have cut some of it off but it starts on page 6.


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

How about this from page 6:

"A retail customer shall retain and and show upon request the receipt for purchases of Baitfish or Roe from a State-licensed Baitfish retail operation. A receipt shall be valid for seven days from the date of sale."

So... keep those receipts with your fishing license then! 

Point 17 on page 7 pretty much says no chumming if roe is from prohibited (I read that as affected or infected) species:

"... a person shall not use... roe harvested from fish that are listed as Prohibited Fish Species, in any public waters of the State, unless that person is fishing and those Baitfish or that Roe is attached to a hook."

Steelie


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

While we all know that Dave Borgenson wants to ban chumming based on his ethical and moral beliefs, it is possible that he does not have the influence with the DNR that I gave him credit for in a previous post. Another possibility exists that Jim Dexter made his decision simply because we know so little about VHS that he wanted to be conservative and proactive. Some of our members have taken the same position an it seems reasonable.

It still doesnt make much sense to make a rule without good science and it seems contentious since the rule is un-enforceable. What I have recently gleaned about the rule (FO245) is that as soon as it is confirmed that a river or lake has VHS, the rule is automatically lifted for that body of water.

I expect that Mr. Borgenson will be lobbying against spending money for testing, but thats a bridge we will cross when we come to it. Lol

In lieu of this new information I think a lot of fishermen who know about the rule will abide by it and I will be one of them. As good stewards of the outdoors, I think we have to temper our positions as we discover new information or as the conditions change. To do any different would make us to inflexible. Trust me there are still some old cowboys who still thing the aero-plane and the automobile are just gimmicks to drive the price of horses down.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

That's exactly what I've heard, Ray, but I don't buy it. If I knew without a doubt that this ban was indeed temporary and that it would absolutely be lifted once VHS is found to have spread to different Lake Michigan areas, I wouldn't be making noise about this. 

However, if no noise is made, then what's to stop them from saying, "Well, no one complained about it--we might as well make it permanent." 

I don't expect it to be overturned based on people making noise, but I want Dexter to know that this better be just "temporary." 

I simply do not trust the politics involving the fisheries, period.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

steelie said:


> Good Day,
> 
> How about this from page 6:
> 
> ...


Well I bet most of us cannot remember the last time we purchased "roe" or even considered it. Unless we had guests from Europe and needed a quick appetizer to have ready  .
It's gonna get interesting in the years ahead I am afraid.


----------



## brookid (Aug 25, 2004)

...from another board, i'm not sure if he is a member over here but i thought it interesting information...

If found this really interesting...

_"VHS just landed on our doorstep. We do not understand all of the
vectors regarding the transfer of this disease or what it will do to our
fish populations. *We have been ordered by the Federal Government to stop the spread of this disease.* We have reviewed and are consistent with other states policies and procedures."_

I guess in the above context we can assume Federal Government is code for fly fisherman.. 

**********************************************

*Here is two e-mails I have received from Jay Wesley that I feel many of you may find very interesting. I hope it may change some of your opinions on exactly what our DNR is trying to do as I don't believe it is discrimination against bait fishing and I am a bait fisherman:*

Kory, 

They are definitely carriers and at one time were affected by it. They
seem to have become immune. 

We are doing everything in our power to stop the spread of this
disease. We are concerned not only with the steelhead and salmon but
also with walleye, lake sturgeon, suckers, minnows, bass, etc. 

The use of infected bait can spread this disease. 

Please also understand that these restrictions on bait are not
permanent. We will adjust as necessary as the disease becomes positive
in various parts of the state. 

Jay K. Wesley
Southern Lake Michigan Unit Manager
Fisheries Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
621 N. 10th Street 
Plainwell, MI 49080

Phone : (269) 685-6851 Ext. 117
Fax: (269) 685-1362





Hi Kory, 

Without spending a bunch of time myself doing research at this point, I
can only tell you what I know and what the scientific community doesn't
know. 

VHS just landed on our doorstep. We do not understand all of the
vectors regarding the transfer of this disease or what it will do to our
fish populations. We have been ordered by the Federal Government to stop
the spread of this disease. We have reviewed and are consistent with
other states policies and procedures. 

There is evidence that it can be transferred in water and a lot of
evidence that it is transferred in fish and in fish parts. Pacific
Herring parts are full of VHS. 

It only makes sense that the eggs could potentially be a vector. To
wait for scientific evidence may take a few years. By then it may be too
late. 

Furthermore, it can be detected in salmon eggs. That is why they treat
the eggs out west and is why we are going through a lot of effort to
treat any eggs that we collect. 

There is probably research already done on it. The pathologist at MSU
probably has a lot of scientific papers on it. 

I just don't have them at my finger tips. 

The folks on the internet probably would say that the research was
flawed anyway.

Regardless, the fish order has been signed and it will not be changed
until we learn more about VHS. 

We must all do what we can to prevent the spread of this disease. 

Sorry, I couldn't be more help. 

If there is a leader on one of these internet sites, I am sure that
they could contact Gary Whelan in Lansing. He is our point person for
VHS. He is up to date on the latest research. 

Take Care!

Jay

Jay K. Wesley
Southern Lake Michigan Unit Manager
Fisheries Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
621 N. 10th Street 
Plainwell, MI 49080

Phone : (269) 685-6851 Ext. 117
Fax: (269) 685-1362


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

the info. below is on another site. in 15 minutes on the web i found numerous sources and studies about this virus. there's no excuse for "not knowing". its just laziness to me when the info. is out there and you don't use it to make a decision scientifically:

plain and simple its an agenda. i would like to see the "scholerary journals" about vhs. once again, if this vhs study is "out" there and has been published, why, why, why isn't it available for us to read? sounds like more agendas again. here is a link that states that the viral contaminent is on the outside of fish eggs not within the eggs. 

http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/fhb/leaflets/83.asp#transmission 

one more link from a scholerary study stating that the disease is actually not in the eggs but in the ovarian fluids and sperm of fish. you tell me how you are going to stop a male salmon or steelhead from busting a nut







(refer to page 2 under transmission) 


http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/viral_hemorrhagic_septicemia.pdf 

one more link here states that the virus cannot enter an egg that has not hatched yet. 

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/vhs_factsheet.html 

and this is a link for an amended federal order by the USDA on VHS. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture/downloads/vhs_fed_order_amended.pdf 

hope these facts help everybody in what is really going on here. banning chum? not an answer just an excuse. 

thanks for your time, 

mark


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Let's see...

Jay Wesley works out of Plainwell, which was Dexter's stomping grounds before he "moved up" in the DNR. He probably would tow the company line on this, I suppose. 

Again, this is my issue: 

Thousands of salmon and steelhead dumping millions of eggs into the watersheds. No problem. 

Spawn bags, no matter what size they are. No problem.

Gobs of skein that's bigger than anything a chummer will toss out. No problem.

Guys tossing a handful of eggs into a river. Big problem...ban it! 

Tell ya what, you guys look at this from your own perspective, see if 2 + 2 = 4 and form your own opinions. I know what my opinion on this is and no "damage control" coming from Lansing, Plainwell or Cadillac is going to pacify me on this. Why just chumming? WHY? You cannot tell me that there isn't more to this than meets the eye. If this is completely about slowing the spread of VHS then why just chumming--why not ban it all? 

If you guys think it adds up, cool--forming your own opinion is the best thing a human mind can do. I sent my e-mail and said what I needed to say, so that's all I can do...for now.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

I'll leave this thread with: I think there is plenty more to this that people know but it would betray the trust of some if it was posted. Suffice it to say that this is very "fishy" so to speak.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

TSS Caddis said:


> I'll leave this thread with: I think there is plenty more to this that people know but it would betray the trust of some if it was posted. Suffice it to say that this is very "fishy" so to speak.


Exactly and "ditto."


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Exactly and "ditto."


Should also add, I would imagine any public statement by a DNR employee will always back the DNR. So if your hearing positive things from 1 or 2 people...you do the math.

So bottom line, either Borgenson had someone's ear, or this is the biggest knee jerk reaction I've seen in a long time. Ahh yes... let's stop chumming and slow down VHS by about 5 mintues:lol: Kudo's to you Jim Dexter


----------



## brookid (Aug 25, 2004)

These statements confuse me...

*"The special interest in question saw their little window of opportunity with the VHS disease and the head of the Fisheries, Jim Dexter, ignored the input from his field biologists and pandered to this fly-fishing minority that wanted it banned."*

But today...

*"Jay Wesley works out of Plainwell, which was Dexter's stomping grounds before he "moved up" in the DNR. He probably would tow the company line on this, I suppose."*

I'm not sure you can have it both ways...but then again, if it suits your point of view.


I don't fish bait, don't chum, don't fish salmon, very rarely chase steelhead. I'm not jumping into this for ethical or moral fishing issues. The only reason i chimed in is because i do take exception, and get tired, of the "conspiracy theories". In this case the those elite, purist, holier than thou fly fisherman.

To suggest that a bunch of fly fisherman are in the shadows driving all this is ridiculous. To further suggest the the DNR would roll over to this so called "special interest" is almost laughable. Is the Michigan DNR a bunch of fly fisherman?

Show me the evidence, the memo, the taped conversation. Get me the person who can say "i was in the room when a bunch of guys in Orvis waders walked in"

Could it possibly be that there is a bigger issue here?...or is it easier to point fingers...fellas, the man isn't trying to keep you down or *uck up your fishing. I think they are using the information that they have and trying to do what is in best interest for the fisheries...not what is in the best interest for a specific group of fisherman.

I don't care how anyone fishes or what method you choose, how many fish you catch, how often or how big...i could give a S H I T...

I don't care if someone does or doesn't chum...have at it...but if your going to pin this decision on someone, come to the table with some proof...not speculations, not theories, not assumptions and not "my sources tell me"...come with some proof.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

brookid said:


> These statements confuse me...
> 
> *"The special interest in question saw their little window of opportunity with the VHS disease and the head of the Fisheries, Jim Dexter, ignored the input from his field biologists and pandered to this fly-fishing minority that wanted it banned."*
> 
> ...


I don't know if you're from Michigan and moved to Chicago or what not, however if you spent more time paying attention to what goes on this state from a fisheries stand point, you'd begin to see just how much ear pulling a very distinct minority of fly fisherman do...at public meetings and in the press. Not the majority, mind you and I've said as much, but a distinct minority that has enough backing to make noise when it comes to the fishery. 

I've brought this issue up because it doesn't add up to me. People who've been to the same public meetings, etc that I have know exactly what is going on this state and what's been going on for some years now. The same thing has been discussed time and time again in these forums--same minority, different issue they're pushing. Maybe you don't have to deal with this crap in Chicago, but it's something we're constantly dealing with here. 

Most people here stay informed enough on what goes on involving our fisheries, that they can see what's going on and make their own conclusion.


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

im from out of state(IL to be exact) and know for a fact that mr. schmidt did not want a recent creel survey published about the manistee river because it proved that 75% percent of the steelhead caught there were not naturally reproduced fish and would hurt his clientel. brook that was straight out of ray's mouth. 10 years on the bubble with the dnr in michigan and i can tell you without a doubt small interest groups have more say so via connections and of course $$$ than the majority bigtime. look at it logically and you too will see this doesn't make any sense. now if this jurisdiction fell under "littering" that would be a different story


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Brookid,

Ignorance is bliss and you don't have a clue. Your buddy Rusty and many of his cohorts including the North Woods Call has been putting pressure on our fisheries personal for years. Ever notice where most of the "fly only" waters are?

I know your tired of these conspiricy theories, and without a doubt, being from Chicago gives you extra insite the rest of us couldn't possibly have.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

thousandcasts said:


> Let's see...
> 
> Jay Wesley works out of Plainwell, which was Dexter's stomping grounds before he "moved up" in the DNR. He probably would tow the company line on this, I suppose.
> 
> ...


It sure seems that all of the above are a problem and I wouldn't be surprised that eventually all of it will be banned until the authorities get a handle on the situation. 
Anyone remember BKD? If the biologists would have found the source to be glow-in-the-dark Silver Streaks, they would have been banned as well. I consistantly hear about letting the Bio's dictate the rules/set limits, ect, well maybe we should let them make the decisions on this as well. We sure don't need another collapse, even if the ban comes across biased.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Shoeman said:


> It sure seems that all of the above are a problem and I wouldn't be surprised that eventually all of it will be banned until the authorities get a handle on the situation.
> Anyone remember BKD? If the biologists would have found the source to be glow-in-the-dark Silver Streaks, they would have been banned as well. I consistantly hear about letting the Bio's dictate the rules/set limits, ect, well maybe we should let them make the decisions on this as well. We sure don't need another collapse, even if the ban comes across biased.



Amen Ralf.

Thanks for saying what I was afraid to! 

If (God Forbid) the fishery were to collapse the same people would be asking why they didn't do anything.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

brookid said:


> These statements confuse me...
> 
> *"The special interest in question saw their little window of opportunity with the VHS disease and the head of the Fisheries, Jim Dexter, ignored the input from his field biologists and pandered to this fly-fishing minority that wanted it banned."*
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm missing it in Jay's response, but I don't see where it says he was consulted at all, what I do see is him agreeing with the order.

At the point the DNR admits it is already in Lake Michigan and has admitted that it is impossible to stop, why the ban? Why were biologists that probably should have been consulted with in the dark on this? Again, the only public statements you'll hear on this are ones where the company line is towed. From Ray, the original intent of the Stewards was to say what they could not say in office, if DNR employees were free to speak out against policy then there would be no need for the Stewards. So public statements from one person are dubious at best.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Nice post brookid,

but as you can see, reason is in short supply on this thread.

Jim Dexter institutes a _*temporary*_ ban on chumming to help combat the spread of a disease that can cause massive fish die offs.

Whats the response??? Thank you Jim for trying to help the fishery. No its Jim's a hack whose caving in to "special interests". 

Ask yourself this: Should you be able to ladle VHS contaminated eggs into a vhs free river???????? Yes or No????? 

As soon as the river is VHS contaminated you can go back to your God given right to chum. 

But wait it's not about chumming. Its whats the DNR is going to take away from me next. nuthing wurse than the guberment telling me what to do.

It's amazing. The threat from VHS wasn't invented by special interests. Yet it seems many would prefer the DNR do nothing then try to prevent the spread.
Yeh its probably futile in waters connected to Lake Michigan, but don't you think an attempt should be made???

Okay all you scientists. If you were Jim Dexter what would you do to prevent VHS????????? and remember he only has the power to change angling rules. Soooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

TC-fisherman, NEMichsportsman, and Shoeman please explain how not allowing people to chum with eggs, but you can fish the *exact same eggs* in a spawn sack in the *exact same water* is going to help?
If they thought this would help slow the spread all eggs should be banned.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

It probably should be banned as well, but just think of the uproar that would have caused.

I'm all for banning everything and stop the up-stream migration "temporarily" like mentioned earlier in this thread. Stop them at Custer, Manistee Lake, ect.


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

If the interest is to stop the spread of VHS, and this was a viable solution, uproar should not matter. If this ban made one lick of sense I don't believe we would be seeing this uproar. My .02


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

Shoeman said:


> It probably should be banned as well, but just think of the uproar that would have caused.
> 
> I'm all for banning everything and stop the up-stream migration "temporarily" like mentioned earlier in this thread. Stop them at Custer, Manistee Lake, ect.


 
this ban makes no sense, in rivers the eggs are already being littered in you can't chum? how stupid is that. the chumming eggs wouldn't even make up 1% of the eggs in the river the fish are in. there is no logic or good reason behind a all out chumming ban. it would make a lot more sense in certain areas to have a complete spawn ban to help slow the spread. i'm a little confused to your statement that the dnr is afraid to ban all eggs because of a uproar. there probably would be a uproar but if science backs there position that's what they are suppose to do. that's scary


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

deathroll said:


> i'm a little confused to your statement that the dnr is afraid to ban all eggs because of a uproar. there probably would be a uproar but if science backs there position that's what they are suppose to do. that's scary


If they were to ban the use of all eggs it would be some kind of conspiracy against baitfishermen. I bet some flydunker came up with that one...lol

But like you said yourself, if there's proof... I don't think we've heard the last of this.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

deathroll-

I thought I would get run out of town on a rail if I brought up a total ban.

I think for the time being that it would be the best course of action. In lieu of that..... I certainly think doing something is better than no action at all.

My river fishing time (utilizing any method) has been severely limited in recent years, so I have no dog in the fight about tossing meat vs. dunking flies.

I just want to see the right thing done for the fishery so that we all can enjoy it for a long time.


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

Brookid,

When you get a sec., why don't you shoot an email to Jay and ask him, specifically, why they decided to ban chumming and not fishing with skein or spawn sacs? That's the only part of this that doesn't make sense to me.

While I don't know him personally, I have met Jay Wesley a couple of times while he was involved on a fairly large-scale stream restoration project in my neck of the woods. I found him to be a hell of a guy, and more than willing to sit around and talk about what he loves most - our fisheries. For what its worth, I had an ultralight and a box of baby crawlers in plain view :lol: . Calling the guy a Dexter lacky is not only unfair, but misguided.

I find it hard to believe in the massive conspiracy theory that seems to be floating around here, but then plently of you fellas have more direct knowledge about these issues and insight into the players involved than I do. I would just like to see the answer to my question above before I make up my mind.

And for christs sake guys - lay off of BrookID. Feather-flinger or not, he's one of the good guys.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

NEMichsportsman said:


> deathroll-
> 
> I thought I would get run out of town on a rail if I brought up a total ban.


:lol: I think that is what everyone has been arguing from the beginning. Total ban and maybe even more drastic action makes more sense than stopping chumming (except above barriers, with no spawn at all makes sense). Amazing how several people look at the same thing and get different meanings. Stopping chumming in rivers that will get large runs is such a weak response to the threat that it is the reason everyone suspects the motive.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Ranger Ray said:


> :lol: I think that is what everyone has been arguing from the beginning. Total ban and maybe even more drastic action makes more sense than stopping chumming (except above barriers, with no spawn at all makes sense). Amazing how several people look at the same thing and get different meanings. Stopping chumming in rivers that will get large runs is such a weak response to the threat that it is the reason everyone suspects the motive.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

I second you, all of the way!
As to everyone else... someone presents a very logical point of view, what happens??? You bash him. Your conspiracy theory probably goes all the way to the top, in fact, I bet it's Bush's fault.
There is only one way to counter a "special interest" group... Form your own. By the way.... Bring your check book!
Thats all, thanks for your time.


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

FISHMANMARK said:


> I second you, all of the way!
> As to everyone else... someone presents a very logical point of view, what happens??? You bash him. Your conspiracy theory probably goes all the way to the top, in fact, I bet it's Bush's fault.
> There is only one way to counter a "special interest" group... Form your own. By the way.... Bring your check book!
> Thats all, thanks for your time.


 
what logical point of view? that eggs being chummed will spread VHS but the same eggs fished in a spawn a spawn sack in the same water won't. That's pretty stupid.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Ranger Ray said:


> :lol: I think that is what everyone has been arguing from the beginning. Total ban and maybe even more drastic action makes more sense than stopping chumming (except above barriers, with no spawn at all makes sense). Amazing how several people look at the same thing and get different meanings. Stopping chumming in rivers that will get large runs is such a weak response to the threat that it is the reason everyone suspects the motive.


Yeah, you got it, I got it, and so do a few others. I think some people have lost site of the original issue thousandcast tried to point out.

And if some group having pull with any government personnel/agency to get what it wants is considered a conspiracy? Man oh man there are a lot of conspiracies going on in this country.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

brookid said:


> These statements confuse me...
> 
> *"The special interest in question saw their little window of opportunity with the VHS disease and the head of the Fisheries, Jim Dexter, ignored the input from his field biologists and pandered to this fly-fishing minority that wanted it banned."*
> 
> ...


This whole issue is about attempting to save our fishery. I agree, banning chumming will probably not stop the spread of VHS. (I think, everyone agrees on this) So, what will work? banning all baitfishing, spawners, turn on the weirs, string nets across the river mouths? That's about the only other options.
Question: To everyone that is so "cranked up" about this, how would you fix it?
Or is easier to point fingers and play the "blame game"?


----------



## brookid (Aug 25, 2004)

...not that this has anything to do with the thread but i was born and raised in Michigan (alpena) and spent 25 years as a Michigan resident. My folks still live there and we keep a cabin in Montmorency county.

I'm a die hard fly fisherman. I've said this many times before and will again. I don't care how you fish, or your methods...have at it and enjoy yourself.

I care dearly about the resource...the resources we all enjoy. I will do everything in my power to protect them. If it came down the pipe that for the greater good, everyone is to stay out of the river for a year...then i'm staying out of the river for a year. I wouldn't be happy about it but i would do it.

*I'm not arguing the logic of this decision. I'm arguing getting blamed for it...guilt by association. Please understand that point. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ISN'T A SHREAD OF PROOF.* 

Splitshot, if i'm so clueless...enlighten me. You seem to be big on facts...aren't you? Then show me. Show me the absolute proof that a group of flyfisherman are steering the ship & laying down policy.

If you can do that i will have no problem coming on here and saying i was wrong. Until then, to me its horse *hit.


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

FISHMANMARK said:


> This whole issue is about attempting to save our fishery. I agree, banning chumming will probably not stop the spread of VHS. (I think, everyone agrees on this) So, what will work? banning all baitfishing, spawners, turn on the weirs, string nets across the river mouths? That's about the only other options.
> Question: To everyone that is so "cranked up" about this, how would you fix it?
> Or is easier to point fingers and play the "blame game"?


 
It's too late, it's in the water. eggs are not the only way it can infect fish most of it is out of our control. Until they BAN ocean freighters from coming into the great lakes this type of thing will continue to happen. I want to know where this ban on chum came from because it will do little if any anything to slow down VHS?. since most people agree with that... WHY WAS IT BANNED?


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

If eggs which might carry VHS are to be banned (but only when used as chum???); and boats from infected waters need to be washed down, then why not ban using flies and lures which have been wetted in infected waters? How about banning line - monofilament, flyline, etc., if it has been exposed to infected water? Waders? Shoes? Minnow traps? Truck tires? 
Bathing suits? Snorkeling equipment? Lifejackets? 

I am very strongly against the spread of any invasive species or disease in our great State. I would support any valid argument or movement to stop those things. This does not seem valid for reasons which have been stated and supported many times in this thread. 

Anyone who would take Salmon or Steelhead eggs to a Trout stream which did not flow directly into infected waters unimpeded would be WRONG. But please understand that one way or another, this disease is likely to spread everywhere in a short time. If you don't believe this, just look at the widespread problem we have with Zebra Mussels.


----------



## FISHMANMARK (Jun 11, 2007)

deathroll said:


> It's too late, it's in the water. eggs are not the only way it can infect fish most of it is out of our control. Until they BAN ocean freighters from coming into the great lakes this type of thing will continue to happen. I want to know where this ban on chum came from because it will do little if any anything to slow down VHS?. since most people agree with that... WHY WAS IT BANNED?


To be honest... No clue why it was banned. I do know it has nothing to do with flyfisherman. Maybe, the correct answer is to temporaily stop upstream migration of fish (hoping they develop an immunity). I think, I read that tests in New York show that some fish did develop an immunity. I can't seem to find the article (maybe, I was dreaming). If the DNR truly wants to stop the spread, they need to be radical. Instead of complaining about the chumming band, we as SPORTSMEN should be lobbying for radical policies that can / would stop the spread. Otherwise, hold on to your *sses, who knows what will happen to OUR fishery.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Fishndude said:


> Anyone who would take Salmon or Steelhead eggs to a Trout stream which did not flow directly into infected waters unimpeded would be WRONG.


but you think the DNR should allow it?


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

FISHMANMARK said:


> To be honest... No clue why it was banned. I do know it has nothing to do with flyfisherman. Maybe, the correct answer is to temporaily stop upstream migration of fish (hoping they develop an immunity). I think, I read that tests in New York show that some fish did develop an immunity. I can't seem to find the article (maybe, I was dreaming). If the DNR truly wants to stop the spread, they need to be radical. Instead of complaining about the chumming band, we as SPORTSMEN should be lobbying for radical policies that can / would stop the spread. Otherwise, hold on to your *sses, who knows what will happen to OUR fishery.


 
IMO it is because of a select few flyfisherman. I have nothing to back it up just my opinion, but I can't see any other reason for it - somebody?anybody? it just doesn't make any sense.

"Originally Posted by *Fishndude*
_
Anyone who would take Salmon or Steelhead eggs to a Trout stream which did not flow directly into infected waters unimpeded would be WRONG. _

"but you think the DNR should allow it?" TC-fisherman

no they shouldn't allow it, but they should ban those waters instead of all waters.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

No one is saying that chumming in sections of rivers or streams that don't get a salmon/steelhead run is appropriate. On the other hand, the DNR has admitted it is in Lake Michigan and come fall there will undoubtedly be infected fish running the river and as many have pointed out dumpbing 1000 times more possibly infected eggs into the river than chumming would. Sort of like spilling 100 gallons of gas on the ground and then saying an extra tea spoon is the one that will cause a disaster! So it makes no sense to ban chumming on rivers like the Mo, Big M, St. Joe, Grand etc... So if it makes no sense, was it done for purely polotical reasons to give the appearance fo "doing something" or did Borgenson use VHS as a springboard to get his agenda in place and Dexter bought into the VHS hype?

Even though some point out this is only "temporary", temporary is one step closer to permanent.

To think that a ban on chumming in waters that can get steelhead/salmon runs is going to slow down VHS is absurd, hence people are doubting that is the true reason for the ban since it just does not make sense!


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

Given that his name was brought up, I went ahead and emailed Jay Wesley.

His response was essentially this: He likened the temporary chum ban to fishing with minnows. It's OK to to fish with them, but not the best idea to dump a bucket of them into your favorite lake. In a perfect world, we would never take the chance of an invasive minnow species infiltrating an inland lake, but you've got to weigh the risks associated against the cost in angler satisfaction of, say, banning all minnows for use as bait.

Switch to VHS-infected spawn: In a perfect world, we would never take the chance that infected spawn would make it into any of our lakes or rivers. Strictly speaking of angler-introduced spawn, which is the only type that we can control, a handful (or ziploc bag full) of spawn is quite a bit more than a single egg, or tied spawn bag. More spawn, in a greater concentration, equals a better chance for it to cause damage.

The perfect solution would have been to completely ban all use of spawn, especially above impassable impoundments. Unfortunately, the DNR is well aware that while we (yes, me included) might get on our high horses about how that would be so great, we would have thrown a FIT had the DNR banned it all. If you - specifically TSS Caddis, Split, and TC honestly don't fit into that category, you've at least got to admit that a majority, or at least a huge number, of spawn fisherman do. Just imagine the conspiracy theories that would abound had that taken place.

I'm nobody's lapdog, and don't know Jay personally. I've met him a couple times and he seemed like a great guy - one who has dedicated his life (not just from 9-5) to improving and maintaining our fishery. This was his honest assessment in a private email. Take it for what its worth.

Is this the best solution? Nope. Will this disease likely spread to all rivers connected to the great lakes, at least as far up as fish can travel? Yep. Would it have been better for the DNR to just throw their hands in the air and call it quits? I think not. Its a start, though. Had this not come about, I wouldn't think twice about taking a supply of St. Joe-caught spawn with me on my next trip to the Pine, or Little Manny, or hell, to some of my local streams. I would bet that lots of other guys are in the same boat. It ain't rocket science fellas. If a little ol' egg is bad, a bunch of them is worse. As near as I can tell (and I can bash the DNR with the best of them) this order was an attempt at reaching some middle ground and playing damage control. If you guys have some specific, concrete insider knowledge and want the rest of us on board with you, then quit being so damned coy and cough it up. Until then, I'm having a hard time getting on your bandwagon.


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

TSS Caddis said:


> Sort of like spilling 100 gallons of gas on the ground and then saying an extra tea spoon is the one that will cause a disaster! So it makes no sense to ban chumming on rivers like the Mo, Big M, St. Joe, Grand etc... So if it makes no sense, was it done for purely polotical reasons to give the appearance fo "doing something" or did Borgenson use VHS as a springboard to get his agenda in place and Dexter bought into the VHS hype?


Those are possibilities. It is also possible that they tried to put something together that wouldn't outrage the majority of fishermen in Michigan (as would banning all spawn), and which addresses the stuff that we actually have any control over - i.e., fishing/chumming with the stuff. Whether or not we introduce .5%, 1%, or 10% of the spawn into a river at any given point is moot. It makes sense to try and control what we can control.


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

Creek-Chub said:


> Those are possibilities. It is also possible that they tried to put something together that wouldn't outrage the majority of fishermen in Michigan (as would banning all spawn), and which addresses the stuff that we actually have any control over - i.e., fishing/chumming with the stuff. Whether or not we introduce .5%, 1%, or 10% of the spawn into a river at any given point is moot. It makes sense to try and control what we can control.


 
when did the DNR start making decisions based on the reaction of the majority of fisherman? seems pointless to have a DNR make rules if it's just gonna be run by the majority fisherman? doesn't it?

"Is this the best solution? Nope. Will this disease likely spread to all rivers connected to the great lakes, at least as far up as fish can travel? Yep. "

why was the ban done on waters that are going to have a billion eggs in them in a few months? that makes no sense, banning all eggs in certain area's would have made sense but that is not what they did? why is that?

it only takes 1 fish with VHS to spread it throughout the system. kinda banning some of it doesn't cut it. why did they do it?


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

deathroll said:


> when did the DNR start making decisions based on the reaction of the majority of fisherman? seems pointless to have a DNR make rules if it's just gonna be run by the majority fisherman? doesn't it?
> 
> "Is this the best solution? Nope. Will this disease likely spread to all rivers connected to the great lakes, at least as far up as fish can travel? Yep. "
> 
> ...


Come on man, you can't just pick and choose which parts of a post you want to read. I said up front that the best solution would be to ban it all. In a perfect world, the DNR wouldn't have to worry about public opinion. I'd love it if every decision were made 100% on science alone. Unfortunately, unless you live in a bubble you know that's not possible. I'm not sticking up for anyone here - but I can completely see how this decision could have been made, and it didn't have to be as a result of pandering to the fly guys. Could it have been? Sure. It just doesn't seem likely.


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

Creek-Chub said:


> Come on man, you can't just pick and choose which parts of a post you want to read. I said up front that the best solution would be to ban it all. In a perfect world, the DNR wouldn't have to worry about public opinion. I'd love it if every decision were made 100% on science alone. Unfortunately, unless you live in a bubble you know that's not possible. I'm not sticking up for anyone here - but I can completely see how this decision could have been made, and it didn't have to be as a result of pandering to the fly guys. Could it have been? Sure. It just doesn't seem likely.


 

I did read your post, and you thinking the DNR is more concerned about the majority being outraged rather than preventing the spread of VHS is ridiculous - at least I hope. If it saves thousands of fish from being killed I really don't see how anyone could argue with the facts. I wouldn't. They banned chum in areas that will be littered with eggs here shortly, what sense does that make? NONE. Banning chum in some area's does make sense. THAT"S NOT WHAT THEY DID. why is that creek chub? your saying because of public opinion? what a crock of ****


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

Last time for this roundy-round. I'll keep it simple.

1) We can't do much to control where salmon/steelhead spawn.
2) We can control how much spawn we put in the water.
3) 1 infected egg is bad. Lots of them is worse.
4) Risk/reward played a part in this decision. Completely hamstringing a whole group of anglers (and a pretty big one at that) was deemed not worth it by the DNR - for better or for worse.
5) DNR chose to temporarily ban the most detrimental practice - chumming with (possibly) infected eggs.
6) Dumb idea? Possibly. Conspiracy? Nope.


----------



## Mitch (Jan 10, 2003)

How about a bounty on tight hens? No holds barred, whack 'em-n- stack 'em. Seems to me that would make more sense...

To argue that any usage of roe was not implimented because of the fear of outrage is rediculous. I know for a fact that the people in this thread making the most noise about this issue would embrace a blanket ban faster than the chumming ban. After all, what is the role of our fisheries division? Pacifying the public or protecting our resources?

Personally the most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is that, in this world run by politics and association "we" can't know the truth...

Round and Round we go!

 

Mitch


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

deathroll said:


> this ban makes no sense, in rivers the eggs are already being littered in you can't chum? how stupid is that. the chumming eggs wouldn't even make up 1% of the eggs in the river the fish are in. there is no logic or good reason behind a all out chumming ban. it would make a lot more sense in certain areas to have a complete spawn ban to help slow the spread. i'm a little confused to your statement that the dnr is afraid to ban all eggs because of a uproar. there probably would be a uproar but if science backs there position that's what they are suppose to do. that's scary


exactly!
would the dnr backers please read the links provided to get a better understanding of the virus. it is transmitted through sperm, fish defication, and ovarian fluids. NOT IN THE EGGS ON THE EGGS. all it takes is one fish to be infected and either bust a nut, lay eggs, or take a piss and the river system is infected. so tell me how is me taking a handful of eggs going to spread it any faster. the virus has been documented in sturgeon bay of lake michigan already, so its here. the ignorant opinions i keep reading here are unbelievable. USE COMMON SENSE:rant:


----------



## deathroll (Jun 3, 2004)

TC-fisherman said:


> Thats why the ban was put in place. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Everyone against the ban who writes an email to dexter should begin it with the following:
> 
> ...


 

i thanked him for still allowing everyone to infect the river with a spawn sack? great ban, way to prevent the spread of VHS.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> Thats why the ban was put in place. Everything else is conjecture.


Your half right. Jim's ban of chum was also conjecture. You seem to be able to apply conjecture to one group when it applies to both. :lol: This is what the complaint was about Jim's decision to begin with, conjecture, conjecture with possible prejudice. Prejudice based on Jim's own past thinkings on said subject.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Your guys are right. VHS isn't present in eggs. There is zero risk associated in spreading infected eggs. 

Jim Dexter instituted this temporary ban for the sole purpose of screwing with anglers. He tried to hide his true motive by making the ban only temporary but we see through his web of lies. After all there's no difference between putting an egg on a hook and ladling eggs freely into a river. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't get it.

After spending years as a professional protecting the resource he decided it was time to mount a personal crusade against the people who chum and he's only biding his time before he goes after the spawn users then worm dunkers. We must stop this lunatic now!!! Unite!!!!!


----------



## Mitch (Jan 10, 2003)

Finally, he get's it!

LOL!

Mitch


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

TC-fisherman said:


> Your guys are right. VHS isn't present in eggs. There is zero risk associated in spreading infected eggs.
> 
> Jim Dexter instituted this temporary ban for the sole purpose of screwing with anglers. He tried to hide his true motive by making the ban only temporary but we see through his web of lies. After all there's no difference between putting an egg on a hook and ladling eggs freely into a river. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't get it.
> 
> After spending years as a professional protecting the resource he decided it was time to mount a personal crusade against the people who chum and he's only biding his time before he goes after the spawn users then worm dunkers. We must stop this lunatic now!!! Unite!!!!!


would you get a clue and read the links i provided over 10 days ago! the virus is way more present in a fish's urine. plain and simple you are arguing a point like someone else on another site...without a clue. if you think chumming is unethical then ban it because its considered littering, like wisc, ny, etc. here's what the ban tells me...if i touch salmon eggs outside of spawn netting im spreading the virus. does that make me a carrier? oh jeez i better ban myself from fishing because i use bait:lol:

also i bet you would be suprised if k. smith didn't know about this "order" before it was passed into law

and you think you have a clue:lol:


----------



## locallegendry (Apr 13, 2007)

TC-fisherman said:


> Your guys are right. VHS isn't present in eggs.


before i leave this sarcastic statement alone, actually you are correct. VHS is NOT in eggs its present only in the ovarian fluids of fish. i've provided links over 10 days ago. the disease is past on through urine, sperm(milt), and ovarian fluids. the disease cannot penetrate an unhatched egg. that is fact, not opinion. please TC read up on this. you are making a fool of yourself:lol:


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

locallegendry said:


> before i leave this sarcastic statement alone, actually you are correct. VHS is NOT in eggs its present only in the ovarian fluids of fish. i've provided links over 10 days ago. the disease is past on through urine, sperm(milt), and ovarian fluids. the disease cannot penetrate an unhatched egg. that is fact, not opinion. please TC read up on this. you are making a fool of yourself:lol:


How is VHSv transmitted? VHSv can be transmitted by urine, feces and sexual fluids.Reservoirs include clinically ill and carrier fish that do not show signs of the infection. *The virus can be found on the surface of the salmonid eggs during spawning of infected femalebroodstock (sometimes at very high levels) *and is capable of persisting for a sufficient time period to result in vertical (actually egg-associated) transmission between generations (adult to
progeny). http://www.greatlakesfishhealth.com/Viral%20Hemorrhagic%20Septicemia%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%202-26-2007.pdf

How does VHS spread?
It is unclear exactly how the disease is spread but it appears that the virus can be shed by infected fish into the water through metabolic waste materials, particularly by fish that survive the disease and become carriers. It also appears that carrier fish or offspring of carriers become more resistant to the disease. The virus can infect fish of all ages.* It may enter a host fish through the gills or food or contact with some contaminated object. *It does appear that stressed fish more vulnerable to viral infection. Typical fish stressors include sudden water temperature changes, crowded hatchery conditions and, spawning activity.The timing of the recent fish die-off in the Great Lakes coincided with the spawning by some of the fish species, such as muskellunge.

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/Fisheries/Default.aspx?tabid=1586


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

I am prepared to accept any measure necessary to help stem the spread of this. No live bait for a year, no big deal, no spawn in any form, no big deal. Throw some spinners or try and take up fly fishing instead of just bashing all the "special interest groups". I dont understand the present science, but I am willing to make sacrifices until the answer to the problem has been found.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> VHS is already in Lake Michigan.
> 
> http://www.dogflu.ca/05262007/09/vhs_virus_enters_lake_michigan
> 
> ...


As I understand it, Whit, this is how it works: Once the virus enters a watershed, it can possibly kill off up to 10% of the fish population...sometimes more depending on the over all health of the fish population in question (food, water temps, etc) While this happens the surviving fish and offspring develop an immunity to it and while it's always present, it essentially runs its course. It's like the BKD virus...it's there, but the fish populations have adapted to it. Take Lake Erie for instance; while there was a noticeable fish mortality last year amongst certain species, that hasn't been the case this year. In effect, it's run it's course and pretty much taken what it's going take...or so as the biologists there believe. 

From a monetary view point, I'd support any measure that addresses the biggest problem with our fisheries and that's the freighters that continue to introduce these things into our Great Lakes via ballast water. Michigan needs to set the standard and basically cut off these vessels from traversing the Great Lakes and force the shipping companies to deal with the problems they've created. Right now, the shipping companies are just doing the same thing they've always done and Michigan needs to set an example and force them to sanitize their ballast compartments before entering the Great Lakes.

As for other monetary issues, if you'd have asked that same question a month ago, I'd say "absolutely--let's get those license fees increased!" now, today--nope. Since the proposed fee increases are in front of the legislature right now, I intend to contact my state rep and let him know that I'm opposed to the increases and also let him know exactly why I'm opposed to them. Like I said earlier, if this chum ban is the kind of policy that's going to come out now days, then I'm not supporting paying more money for it. 

If others disagree with this ban as much as I do, then I encourage them to do the same thing...contact their state reps as well.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I think this thread has gone about as far as it's going to go. It's to the point where it is no longer effective and is only causing further splintering.


----------

