# Chumming on NRC agenda



## Trout King

kzoofisher said:


> They fish for them for the same reason that you do, they love to. They also use the least exploitive method to reduce their impact. These other streams you mention that are so similar to the PM, are they open year round and do they receive the same pressure? I'm looking for an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> In general a fair description. It is mostly an issue of fair chase and a bit that the guides who chum think that their clients feel entitled to fish and won't come back if they don't get enough, at least according to some posters here. As for fair chase the idea is that if some people use artificial means to draw the fish and make them catchable it prevents others from having the opportunity to catch fish. An extreme version of this argument would be if someone cast a net (assuming that was legal) in a hole and along with his friends took out all the steelhead. By using the net they have prevented anyone else from having a chance at the fish because they took them by an unfair method. I don't know that I buy that argument but I haven't seen any studies that say whether or not the fish are actually drawn to a spot and/or made more active.
> 
> It's a very heavily studied stretch over the last 40-50 years and nat repo was basically unheard of until the last five years or so. If you would care to explain or even guess what environmental factors are different now than they have been since the 1960s I'm all ears. Correlation is not causation and as I've said several times more study is needed but the one major change that leaps out is that new rules protecting large trout were implemented six years ago. The gear used on that stretch has not changed in 50 years.
> 
> This get brought up a lot. Care to name those streams? Do they meet the criteria for being listed as GR water? I've brought up some streams that aren't even unmentionables and had posters get in a tizzy over it. Unmentionables can get your post deleted. Yet we want to maintain the fantasy that fishing pressure has no effect? Go ahead, name the streams, specific holes and techniques if you truly believe that a couple hundred guys descending on the water won't make a difference. The DNR obviously disagrees with you. They are quick to raise and lower limits when they need to reduce walleye or increase perch. Of course a lot of walleye and perch fisherman keep what they catch, a large percentage of trout fisherman don't keep fish so the limit remains fairly liberal for those who do. Let your philosophy become the dominant one and we will see if the limits can remain liberal. Put your favorite stream up to the test. Trout King likes to fish the Middle Branch of the Waxamahatchie, says its full of 10" brookies, 16" browns and 15# steelhead. Come on down guys you can't hurt the fishing!


I seemed to have struck a nerve, but I am not the one pimping out sections of river for the almighty dollar, then crying fowl when other people come to fish. 

I like to fish where thr fish are biting. I fish Prairie Creek the most. 20 inch browns are not uncommon and if I don't catch 10 steelhead in 2 hrs I am disappointed. Come get them. It is already more pressured per acre than the PM, Muskegon, Betsie, Manistee and Muskegon, if I don't catch a fish it isn't because they aren't there. 

Since I took up your offer, why don't you provide us with some evidence to back up emotions?


----------



## kzoofisher

_No rivers may be named in your post(s) outside of the those that are specifically listed on the forum header for each region. In addition specific holes, access points, runs, etc. must not be named even on the large rivers. Small rivers and streams not listed on this forum's header must not be mentioned by name. Any posts that violate the letter and spirit of these rules are subject to editing, deletion or closure without notice._

If you have more specific questions feel free to ask. I will try to answer them and not dodge by asking a different question.


----------



## kzoofisher

LOL, I don't think I'm the one who's getting very emotional. Or pimping out a stretch of river? Who is doing that?

Prairie Creek is hardly comparable to the PM, it doesn't have the large percentage of public land for one thing. For another even though it is small it needs over 8000 5"+ browns planted each year and 5000 steelhead smolts. What does planting fish that size cost, $1 each maybe $.70? Sure hope it gets fished a lot if the DNR spends $9,500-5$13,000 a year planting it, that's 350-500 licenses just to break even for the fish planted. Since we know they don't all make it or get caught what is the cost per fish kept? That'a where 1/3 of the Fisheries budget goes. It doesn't have "better crops of trout and steelhead" than the PM since stocking is required to maintain the fishery. It's a nice put and take stream which Jim Beford liked to write about but he thought the Coldwater nearby was better. Maybe that's why he wrote about the Coldwater less before it got destroyed. It also has had trouble with the locals rebuilding fish passage barriers so they could create "fishing holes" (source NFWS) for their state funded fishing opportunity. In any case, that's only one of the plural "streams and rivers in this state with no gear restrictions that have better crops of trout and salmon than those that have gear restrictions" and not a very good example at that. You'll have to try again. I'll help you out with a description of the kind of apple the PM is; 100% nat repo steelhead stream and needs very few browns planted per acre of stream, lots and lots of public access, no fish barriers.

Again, could you please narrow down your rather general question, "why don't you provide us with some evidence to back up emotions?". Which emotions do you want me to back up? I made several points and used the very helpful quote feature to make sure everyone knew what I was referencing. Some very short memories around here and it helps keep the confusion down.


----------



## Trout King

kzoofisher said:


> LOL, I don't think I'm the one who's getting very emotional. Or pimping out a stretch of river? Who is doing that?
> 
> Prairie Creek is hardly comparable to the PM, it doesn't have the large percentage of public land for one thing. For another even though it is small it needs over 8000 5"+ browns planted each year and 5000 steelhead smolts. What does planting fish that size cost, $1 each maybe $.70? Sure hope it gets fished a lot if the DNR spends $9,500-5$13,000 a year planting it, that's 350-500 licenses just to break even for the fish planted. Since we know they don't all make it or get caught what is the cost per fish kept? That'a where 1/3 of the Fisheries budget goes. It doesn't have "better crops of trout and steelhead" than the PM since stocking is required to maintain the fishery. It's a nice put and take stream which Jim Beford liked to write about but he thought the Coldwater nearby was better. Maybe that's why he wrote about the Coldwater less before it got destroyed. It also has had trouble with the locals rebuilding fish passage barriers so they could create "fishing holes" (source NFWS) for their state funded fishing opportunity. In any case, that's only one of the plural "streams and rivers in this state with no gear restrictions that have better crops of trout and salmon than those that have gear restrictions" and not a very good example at that. You'll have to try again. I'll help you out with a description of the kind of apple the PM is; 100% nat repo steelhead stream and needs very few browns planted per acre of stream, lots and lots of public access, no fish barriers.
> 
> Again, could you please narrow down your rather general question, "why don't you provide us with some evidence to back up emotions?". Which emotions do you want me to back up? I made several points and used the very helpful quote feature to make sure everyone knew what I was referencing. Some very short memories around here and it helps keep the confusion down.


So why does the PM need protections if it is so great? 

It is not great because of gear restriction, according to biological studies, but what do they know? 

Why does the Muskegon need protection from chumming if it is a artificial fishery? 

Problem is they want it both ways, but still can't find hard evidence to back anything up.

Tight lines everyone. May your stringers be heavy an your chum buckets full and orange.


----------



## kzoofisher

Pretty typical, an anti-GR guy makes some assertions which I rebut and instead of countering my rebuttal he just changes the subject, often to a straw man. Let's address some if the new ones and consider the previous matters settled.

Why does the PM need the additions protection? Well you claim it is equal habitat wise to Prairie Creek and yet it doesn't need nearly the supplemental stocking so its fishery is clearly benefitting from something. My take is and always has been that the additional pressure is what makes the restrictions necessary.

Why does the Mo need protection from chumming? Don't know, never said it did. I said it is mostly a question of fair chase. Others suggested that chumming is needed because the clients won't come back if they don't get as many fish as they feel entitled to for the money they spent. I also have never supported the ban. I only try to present the other side when straw men and mind reading are used as arguments.



Trout King said:


> Problem is they want it both ways, but still can't find hard evidence to back anything up.


 This is a classic argument from the "pro-science" crowd. "They don't have science to back up their claims! Emotion!" Well, you don't have any science either. Second time for this in this thread. The only thing the DNR studied was chumming as a vector for the transmission of VHS. There isn't any science to show if chumming moves fish around or makes them active or is a vector for other diseases or turns them into pumpkins or does none of the above. There are guesses, some pretty educated and most based on emotion. You can tell the educated ones because they include qualifiers, the uneducated ones have all the certainty of the true believer and are emotional claptrap. It's a social issue, like 100% of the rules are. A few of the social reasons for doing things are based on legal requirements and they get done automatically. The other 99% get discussed on message boards, at boat launches, at meetings and in bars.


----------



## AdamBradley

Hey guys, have not commented back in here.... but hopefully we can bring it back on topic...

Sounds like the NRC will be deciding on June 9th. Opinions and such were presented to the NRC yesterday. From what I have gathered, the options on the table are prohibit chumming on type 3 streams, prohibit chumming on types 1-4 (all), or leave things the way it is.

Without pushing one way or another, all I will say is if you have an opinion, one way or the other, write the NRC and let them now. [email protected].


----------



## Lou is Blue

AdamBradley said:


> Hey guys, have not commented back in here.... but hopefully we can bring it back on topic...
> 
> Sounds like the NRC will be deciding on June 9th. Opinions and such were presented to the NRC yesterday. From what I have gathered, the options on the table are prohibit chumming on type 3 streams, prohibit chumming on types 1-4 (all), or leave things the way it is.
> 
> Without pushing one way or another, all I will say is if you have an opinion, one way or the other, write the NRC and let them now. [email protected].


The other option discussed was eliminating chumming on the Big M; PM; and Muskegon only. It was described as the "surgical option", and Jim Drexler was asked to layout such an option for consideration.


----------



## AdamBradley

I did hear of that too, I apologize for not mentioning it. Thank you for bringing that up.


----------



## toto

Ah yes, just guess which rivers have the most guides? That scenario is exactly why the NRC should not exist as it is today. It's obvious where they stand on this issue, and our governor has his option to disband the NRC, or at least propose it. It's these types of issues that dictate, to me at least, that the NRC acts on their own agendas too.


----------



## limpinglogan

Trout King said:


> I wish they had the cajones to tell the whiny fly guides to shove it. Though I could care less about chumming personally the NRC and DNR needs to quit pandering to specific groups and focus on the state of our fisheries. This is mostly over jealousy of certain guides putting way more fish in the boat than others.
> 
> The biogists say that chumming doesn't hurt the fishery, so leave it alone.
> 
> Imo it is time for them to quite wasting time on this and to start addressing more pressing issues with our fisheries and game.
> RANT OVER. lol
> 
> Thanks for the update.


^^THIS^^


----------



## limpinglogan

Trout King said:


> Jealousy does terrible things to people. I can imagine what is going throught their head when they watch that particular guide sitting in a hole catching more fish than them. Nobody is stopping them from throwing in a handful of eggs here and there and nobody is stopping them from using bait. This is about a few guides putting more fish in the boat and the other side feeling slighted because they are "their fish".


The president of TU was taped at the meeting...he was crying because someone caught more fish them him ...fly guys are not going to put up the same numbers as bait guys...nothing against any style but that is a fact...so they attack the bait guys out of jealousy...


----------



## limpinglogan

Trout King said:


> Problem is most of the points from proponents of chumming bans and gear restricted waters are "what if" in nature, but unfortunate to their cause, these issues have already been studied. So far the studies have shown that recreational fishing has no long term, negative impact on our fisheries. Yet, the outward cry is; bait fisherman, chummers, and anyone who doesn't fit to their mold is a danger to the resource and disabling them from having a
> quality experience" (hypocrisy at it's finest, as they are hell bent on disabling other to have the experience they want). Example: The flies only water of the PM. If the guides and "flies only" fisherman are so concerned about the fish population and well being of the fish in general, why are they fishing for them? Why haven't gear restricted areas shown evidence of having better populations and fish sizes than streams with no restrictions that have similar environmental qualities?
> 
> Most of this is chumming issue is appears ploy by special interests groups (I am using this term fairly loosely) and guides to keep a certain guide from putting more fish in the boat than them. The bigger issue for me is some groups are trying to keep the majority of the fishing public (bait fisherman and ordinary lure chuckers) from catching fish that they or their clients could "potentially" catch. The emotional mumbo jumbo and false pretenses have been proven to be false to this point, but yet the outward rhetoric from these groups stays the same, though it has been disproven.
> "
> I have a hard time believing logic which puts the cart in front of the horse. Maybe a study will be done on it, but is it just coincidental that the "new" strain has appeared in greater numbers due to environmental factors? The DNR has no management goal in place, so restricting certain people from enjoying that stretch of water takes precedence because nature decided it had different plans than the people that manage the artificially introduced resource from which it stems? Most of the studies I have ever read (a lot) show evidence that environmental factors are the biggest contributors to the well being and propagation of fish species, while studies that have to do with the recreational fishing, whether it be gear, kill limits etc, has little to no impact on the overall fishery in this state.
> 
> What is more astonishing is how there are streams and rivers in this state with no gear restrictions that have better crops of trout and salmon than those that have gear restrictions. It is also interesting to me that water quality is very similar to those found on the gear restricted water. So why aren't some of these sections and streams gear restricted or getting pushed to be? My own logic tells me it is because fly fishing is more difficult in these streams, so they don't really care about changing them or "protecting the fish".


Could not be more accurate...nailed it...


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Ah yes, just guess which rivers have the most guides? That scenario is exactly why the NRC should not exist as it is today. It's obvious where they stand on this issue, and our governor has his option to disband the NRC, or at least propose it. It's these types of issues that dictate, to me at least, that the NRC acts on their own agendas too.


We just overhauled the way the DNR is managed and this is the result. Do you want to go back to the way it was or do you have a new plan? I'm intrigued by the Conservation Congress in Wisconsin. It's non-binding, completely democratic, gives all interested parties a voice and is totally transparent with plenty of journalists their meetings. 166 elected representatives who keep an eye on the process and are accountable to the people in their counties might not be a bad thing.


----------



## kzoofisher

limpinglogan said:


> The president of TU was taped at the meeting...he was crying because someone caught more fish them him ...fly guys are not going to put up the same numbers as bait guys...nothing against any style but that is a fact...so they attack the bait guys out of jealousy...


Cool, can you post the tape?


----------



## limpinglogan

I want to fish for biting fish...catch them and release them with out some one else specifically fly guys telling me how to do it.


----------



## toto

Pretty simple really, how about following the biological science, period. If you were to go back and read the Administrative Procedures Act, I"m talking about the beginning of the DNR, you would find the legislature was " hands off" when it comes to the DNR and what they do. How can you justify a group of senators and congressmen/women making decisions on our outdoor pursuits, when they have no idea what's right or wrong. Now we put that power in the hands of people who still have no real idea, and we get the same results, we have put our outdoor pursuits in jeopardy of personal agendas. I trully believe these guys/gals in the NRC are trying desperately to find a way to end chumming, why, I trully have no idea. Perhaps I'm wrong and they are trying to find the science behind the logic of chumming in an effort to shut up the guides who are whining. I guess we'll find out soon. Let us not forget, didn't Michigan pass a rule/law that says using science, re: biological science is how we are to dictate our natural resources? Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW,I may be wrong, but I'm THINK you have no problem with chumming, unless I'm reading you wrong. What really needs to happen is for people get the word out on who these guys are who want to end the chumming and make sure the public knows about them. It appears they don't care about catching fish, in reality, they care more about catching customers. I highly doubt a few guys chumming is ruining their day of fishing, the rivers mentioned are far to big for a few guys chumming to affect anything.


----------



## Lou is Blue

toto said:


> Pretty simple really, how about following the biological science, period. If you were to go back and read the Administrative Procedures Act, I"m talking about the beginning of the DNR, you would find the legislature was " hands off" when it comes to the DNR and what they do. How can you justify a group of senators and congressmen/women making decisions on our outdoor pursuits, when they have no idea what's right or wrong. Now we put that power in the hands of people who still have no real idea, and we get the same results, we have put our outdoor pursuits in jeopardy of personal agendas. I trully believe these guys/gals in the NRC are trying desperately to find a way to end chumming, why, I trully have no idea. Perhaps I'm wrong and they are trying to find the science behind the logic of chumming in an effort to shut up the guides who are whining. I guess we'll find out soon. Let us not forget, didn't Michigan pass a rule/law that says using science, re: biological science is how we are to dictate our natural resources? Correct me if I'm wrong.


They asked Mr Drexler to evaluate and comment on the studies from Oregon; that indicated that eggs cured in with, I believe sodium methotrexate ( hell I don't remember exactly it was sodium something ); had higher mortality impact on juvenile trout than non treated eggs.


----------



## toto

Now see, that makes a little sense. If you want to outlaw curing eggs with certain chemicals, I get that. The problem, at least a little bit is, The Muskegon, and The Big M, are not big trout producers below Tippy Dam, and Croton? Dam. That is fact. Once you get to around High Bridge on the Big M, the trout fishing is hardly even noticable. Anyways, that would acceptable. The bottom line is, this is about a bunch of whiny guides who want to control a fishery, if one can't see that, they are blind or don't want to see it, or perhaps have another agenda in mind......:16suspect


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Let us not forget, didn't Michigan pass a rule/law that says using science, re: biological science is how we are to dictate our natural resources? Correct me if I'm wrong.


Yes, but it doesn't mean what you think it means and no, biology will not dictate management beyond ensuring that game stocks are not harmed by over fishing and hunting. So far as protecting our fishing and hunting it means nothing at all, it is just a catch phrase to ginn up support. The important part of the scientific fish and wildlife conservation act is this, "The sound scientific management of the FISH AND wildlife populations of the state, including hunting of bear, *is declared to be in the public interest*.". The bold phrase means that fishing and hunting will continue to be used to manage populations, give recreation to citizens and provide economic benefits.That's the important part of SFWCA. 

I know we've been through this but it obviously bears repeating. Science doesn't have any goals, the goals have to be set by people. Science is a method:_ the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment_." Sound scientific management" means using the scientific method to make sure that the goals set by society do not endanger game populations and that resources are used wisely for the recreational and economic benefit of the people. If there is no scientific basis to ban chumming and there is no scientific basis not to ban chumming it becomes a purely social issue, like the ban on bow fishing salmon. I have always thought that the primary argument against chumming was fair chase, that the use of chummed eggs gave some people an unfair advantage by attracting fish from one area to another. I had seen no study to back that up and didn't give it much weight or really think the issue was worth fighting over. That there may be some science from Oregon to show detrimental effects from chumming comes as a surprise for sure. If there is some science out there besides the VHS stuff I think Fisheries has to look at it and maybe do their own study. Maybe they already have but didn't have anything formal to give the NRC so they have to address this again next month.


----------



## swampbuck

The fact of the matter is. The NRC has been operating under special interest direction for years. 

The Xbow issue nearly ended that. And for the record, I opposed letting the special interest's dodge that bullet. I was in the loop and I wanted the legislature to crush them, and communicated that to the powers at the time. I opposed any compromise and still do

The wolf guys finished it....sound science is the Voter mandated LAW. If the NRC doesn't follow that law... Then they need it shoved up their collective A**es....period!

This special interest B.S. Has gotten WAY out of hand! Sportsman need to stand together.


----------



## Robert Holmes

AdamBradley said:


> That's an interesting thought Robert, but I don't see how it would hold in court. As a since of parallelism, if a stranger upstream of me at a crowded area decides to throw in some eggs, do I get a ticket for fishing in the "chum slick"?... The language in 200.16 explicitly states illegal to scatter, not fish in an area which has been chummed. The person tossing is the person breaking the law.


You are participating in the act of chumming by fishing in the slick. It would be a good question to ask a CO. If you are fishing prior to the Chum the Chummer might be elgible for a harassment ticket too. Who knows.


----------



## toto

kzoofisher said:


> How? I have heard people say that before but by law the NRC has exclusive power to regulate the taking of game. What is the loophole that allows the Legislature to do anything about it. AFAIK their power begins and ends with declaring game species. They can try to put pressure on by cutting the budget but the Legislature only provides 12% of the budget now, licenses, Pitman Robertson/Dingell Johnson and dedicated taxes are 84% of the budget and all restricted in their use. Any cuts would probably be felt most by boaters and the various kids programs that have popped up. I don't see cutting halloween programs right before a major election as a smart strategy.


I realize how difficult it would be, what with the propaganda of the non chumming crowd, however, remember the commissioners serve at the Governors discretion. It appears as though the governor can override these decisions, at least as I understand it. I'm checking on that to see just what is true, or fiction, and also if true, where to go next. I'll tell ya what I don't get, on one hand I get the idea that sodium sulfite could be damaging to the younger class of fish. It's when you start to say chumming in general is bad for the fish, I don't get that, how is chumming with eggs, assuming they are not treated at all, is bad for the fish, when the fish eat them when the salmon are spawning naturally? Hope you get what I'm saying. This, to me, just points out they are just out to stop chumming with eggs, not for a scientific reason, just for a jealousy reason, nothing more, nothing less. I'm surprised the didn't outlaw fishing with spawn altogether, in fact, if you really think about it, if it were such a damaging proposition to fish with spawn, wouldn't you stop it altogether?


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> I realize how difficult it would be, what with the propaganda of the non chumming crowd, however, remember the commissioners serve at the Governors discretion. It appears as though the governor can override these decisions, at least as I understand it.


I'll be curious to see what you find out. Both Proposal G and the SFWCA made it clear that the NRC has exclusive authority over regulating the taking of game; SFWCA also granting exclusive authority over naming game species to the NRC and Legislature. That was the sticking point with Prop G, a referendum could be held to add or remove a specie from the game list. Can Snyder remove Commissioners? They have staggered terms with the clear intent of preventing any single governor from stacking the commission. I seriously doubt the courts would allow him to remove three because they made an unpopular decision. I also seriously doubt that the Legislature will pass a law relating to the taking of game even if they can somehow justify that they have the authority. That will set a precedent that blows the door open for citizen initiated laws to regulate the taking of game; very problematic for trappers and houndsmen to say the least.


----------



## kzoofisher

Robert Holmes said:


> You are participating in the act of chumming by fishing in the slick. It would be a good question to ask a CO. If you are fishing prior to the Chum the Chummer might be elgible for a harassment ticket too. Who knows.


I think Adam is right about this. It is illegal to chum but not illegal to unknowingly fish an area that has been chummed. Very different from the way hunting waterfowl over a baited field is worded, probably because the chum will disperse downstream so quickly that it would be impossible to know where it is in just a couple of hours. I suppose that if you conspired with someone to pull up and chum a hole where you were fishing then both parties could receive a ticket.


----------



## AdamBradley

I would even go as far as to say you can fish in a chum slick. Again. The law is about scattering eggs not fishing. The stranger in a crowded area example. Let's say 15 guys are lined up at tippy. The upstream guys decides he doesn't care about the law and chums. Are the 14 guys downstream supposed to quit fishing or be faced with a ticket?


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> Can they ban it without scientific justification, I don't think so..... maybe the tabled it because they realised they are in too deep.


 I think they can but by using a scientific pretext it makes the process much easier. You have to remember that 100% of our regulations are socially based. Not just a little bit but at their foundation. Yes, science is the primary determinant for enacting some of them, e.g. the Endangered Species Act, but the rationale for using science in this way is entirely social. The idea that Prop G and the SFWCA require a scientific justification for any and all regulations is a common misconception that is often repeated on these forums. They require that decisions be made using principles of sound scientific fish and wildlife _management_ which include the use of hunting and fishing. They in no way require, and are in fact worded to specifically prevent the argument, that a scientific justification be needed for the taking of game. Why? Because fishing and hunting are important benefits to the people of the State (social goal) and almost never are needed from a biological standpoint for the good of the environment. If you have to justify steelhead fishing by saying that their numbers are overpopulated you immediately eliminate stocking in every stream. But we don't have to justify our activities as being biologically necessary because we have established that they have social benefits. The down side to that is that sometimes we disagree with the social good that the NRC chooses. The process if far from perfect but it is light years better than needing to establish a scientific need for fishing and hunting.


----------



## toto

The wording is, the commissioners serve at the pleasure of the governor. It would seem to me that if there is displeasure from the governor, he can let them go, just thinking out the box I guess.


----------



## swampbuck

All of the Commissioners were appointed or Reappointed by Snyder. According to the MNREPA the NRC operates under the advice and consent of the Senate.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The chumming law is targeting the guides who throw fish eggs into the water to entice salmon or trout to go into a feeding frenzy. If you are fishing with a guide and are an active participant (the guide chums and you catch the fish) then I assume that all participants would be ticketed. If you are fishing and a guy 50 yards upstream of you throws some eggs into the water. That guy is chumming for his benefit not yours so it would be difficult to prove that you were an active participant. If you move 50 yards upstream and fish because the other guy is catching fish in his chum slick then you are participating. I am certain after this fall and winter there will be some changes to the law. There will have to be a few test cases, to see how the courts react to the law.


----------



## AdamBradley

All logical interpretations, and I get what you mean by participating. But look at the words of the order. It's about scattering eggs, not fishing in an area of scattered eggs. I'm sure as hell not going to leave a hole if a dude walks upstream of me 30 feet and decides to take the risk. It will indeed be interesting to see how Leo and prosecutors interpret the law as written.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I assume that most sport fishermen do not chum. I think that it is something that the guides do to put their clients on to more fish. I never seen or heard of it until I got on this forum. I usually have a limited supply of eggs so I am not going to waste them chumming. I am going to make the fish earn their meal of eggs.


----------



## AdamBradley

I know what you mean, you sure don't have the crowds up there that we deal with here to see it too often. I'd say the past season, most days i fished at tippy, there was at least one recreational angler chumming. My stops at croton this past season were pretty close, more than half the stops I observed one or two guys chumming. A few other spots with congregated folks had similar observations.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Good question. When I change spawn bags while ice fishing I drop a few eggs down the hole, would that be considered chumming?


----------



## toto

Robert Holmes said:


> The chumming law is targeting the guides who throw fish eggs into the water to entice salmon or trout to go into a feeding frenzy. If you are fishing with a guide and are an active participant (the guide chums and you catch the fish) then I assume that all participants would be ticketed. If you are fishing and a guy 50 yards upstream of you throws some eggs into the water. That guy is chumming for his benefit not yours so it would be difficult to prove that you were an active participant. If you move 50 yards upstream and fish because the other guy is catching fish in his chum slick then you are participating. I am certain after this fall and winter there will be some changes to the law. There will have to be a few test cases, to see how the courts react to the law.


And THAT is the problem in a nutshell. This isn't about the health of the fish, this is about protecting the income of the guides, period.


----------



## Robert Holmes

toto said:


> And THAT is the problem in a nutshell. This isn't about the health of the fish, this is about protecting the income of the guides, period.


Do you think that protecting the fish and fair chase may have something to do with it? I look at it this way. If there are 10 fish in a spot on the river and a guy dumps a quart of eggs into the water and catches 5 fish the other 5 will cease to bite because they are full. It would not be good to be the next guy in line to fish that spot. I think that it is similar to snagging Who knows what they mix with the eggs too. I have seen on Lake Michigan where guys dumped a mix of dog food, eggs, rice, noodles, and corn to make whitefish feed beds.


----------



## toto

Stop it Robert, that makes absolutely no sense. Let me tell ya if I beat someone to a particular spot, and there's fish there, I'm not leaving it until the fish are caught, or they just have been put down. I am not buying this crap about worrying about the little guy, the little guy doesn't matter in this state anymore, it's about the money, and it's about a select group of people making decisions that THEY want, not what others want, unless of course you have the money to buy that right. Let me explain something to you, and I'm mentioned it several times on here. According to the bylaws of the NRC, there is supposed to be a period of time when the public is ask for their input, and in this case that did happen. It happened in two meetings, one in Newaygo ( I think) the other was in Onekama, which I attended. I can tell you for certain, there were approximately 75 people at the Onekama meeting. At the end of the meeting a vote was taken on two issues 1) should chumming be banned, and 2) should the steelhead limits be reduced from 3 to 1, the answer in both cases was 72 to 3 for keeping the status quo. When you see those kinds of numbers, one has to believe those will extrapolate to the same ratio even if more people were asked. Therefore, this is proof positive the NRC has their own agenda, and not one that involves anyone without money involved or some other nefarious agenda. I say that as I read the biographies of the commissioners, and 3 of them are "AVID FLY FISHERS", need I say more? Of course you do understand that, for the most part, steelhead is basically a put and take fishery, right? Yes there is natural reproduction that goes on, but the numbers haven't changed in like forever, they've only gotten better thru the years, with some exceptions of course, but take any of the major rivers in this state, and they all have a good number of fish, every year. Look don't be fooled by the argument we are only trying to protect the fishery, that's BS and I think you know it.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Toto why do you think that a majority of steelhead get planted on the west side of the LP. It is to protect the income of the charters and guides over there. Chumming is, was, or might be banned is more of a social issue I think than protecting the resource. Are the guides that bad of fishermen that they cannot actually catch a steelhead without chumming? Once you find them, know the places where they go, or have ideal water conditions catching a steelhead is pretty easy. I find them under the ice in numerous locations without electronics and catch limits of them, so they are not that hard to catch, and I don't use chum.


----------



## toto

For the record, I don't chum either but I'm set on believing this isn't about chumming. And where do you get the idea that steelhead are planted for the guides? IF that's so, we just close the rivers to anyone that isn't a guide. To plant fish for the purpose of assuring that guides are happy is not only stupid, but just plain wrong. Again, if that's the truth, then why bother even having a steelhead season, why bother selling trout stamps, if your sole purpose is to salmon and steelhead fish. I don't think you actually believe our fishing resources are being used for the express purpose of making sure the guides have fish, that's ludicrous.


----------



## AdamBradley

To put it simple, it's not about chumming. It's about one abrasive guide who always made it a fact to rub chumming in the face of a couple fly guides, and you can only go so long before the dog bites back. The dog bit this particular guide pretty darn good.


----------



## toto

AdamBradley said:


> To put it simple, it's not about chumming. It's about one abrasive guide who always made it a fact to rub chumming in the face of a couple fly guides, and you can only go so long before the dog bites back. The dog bit this particular guide pretty darn good.


Exactly.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Toto if the DNR does not cater to guides and charters please explain why a couple of rivers on the SW side of the LP get more steelhead planted than the whole UP and the 45th parallel up on the LP. Not that I want a bunch of planted fish on the real estate that I fish because most of the ones that I get are natural.


----------



## toto

First of all, are you including summer runs in your numbers? Secondly, you would most likely have to take in the population dynamics, size of rivers etc. IF you are correct, and the DNR is planting fish for the guides, charters that is just wrong, period.


----------



## o_mykiss

Robert Holmes said:


> Toto if the DNR does not cater to guides and charters please explain why a couple of rivers on the SW side of the LP get more steelhead planted than the whole UP and the 45th parallel up on the LP. Not that I want a bunch of planted fish on the real estate that I fish because most of the ones that I get are natural.


Because it would be silly to plant a ton of fish where there's no people and no fishing pressure? Especially when there are wild fish already in the system in good numbers?


----------



## Robert Holmes

o_mykiss said:


> Because it would be silly to plant a ton of fish where there's no people and no fishing pressure? Especially when there are wild fish already in the system in good numbers?


Not really. Planting fish in some of the more neglected areas may actually improve some waters. There are people in northern Michigan and we buy licenses, tackle, boats, and gas. I don't understand what you consider wild fish in good numbers. I have had my share of good days but I have also had to work hard to catch fish at times. Private sources plant more fish N of the 45th parallel in any given year than the DNR does. People on this site bash the tribal fishing and they have actually made fishing much better here. LSSU got the Atlantic Salmon established when the DNR failed on several attempts. The tribal governments plant millions of walleye every year. Many northern michigan sportsmans clubs and lake associations plant fish. Heck if we had to wait for a DNR hatchery truck to show up there would not be any fish.


----------



## born2fish

AdamBradley said:


> To put it simple, it's not about chumming. It's about one abrasive guide who always made it a fact to rub chumming in the face of a couple fly guides, and you can only go so long before the dog bites back. The dog bit this particular guide pretty darn good.


So why aren't the people on here pissed at this one guy??? I mean he was posting pictures of piles of five gallon buckets of loose eggs online just to piss people off. He is the one you should be mad at! If it wasn't for him this would not have made the NRC's radar. I've never had a problem with the guy at 6th St. in GR throwing a handful of eggs here and there, but to go to the river 7 days a week and see the same boat, in the same hole predawn, throwing dozens of five gallon buckets of eggs into the water over the course of a season, and basically flipping the bird to all other river users is just ridiculous. And why, so he could remove all skill from steelheading and effectively turn it into bluegill fishing. Making money taking the least skilled anglers out and putting them on a dozen fish a day, day after day, week after week, year after year. Everybody wants to blame the non-chummers, but it sounds to me like you had one jerk who had to take it to the extreme and he wrecked it for everyone. Its like the guys in the 1990s that put out a dump truck load of deer bait ruining the hunting opportunity for everyone around them and then getting pissed at their neighbors when the two gallon limit went into effect. I guess steelhead fishing this winter is going to take a little more patience and skill to pull off. You have one guide and one guide only to thank for it! OUT!


----------



## Robert Holmes

Really the steelhead are that difficult to catch that you have to dump a 5 gallon bucket of eggs into the river to get one to bite. I would say that the guy is not a very good guide and knows very little if anything about fishing with a little bit of knowledge, expertise, and skill.


----------



## Sparky23

born2fish said:


> So why aren't the people on here pissed at this one guy??? I mean he was posting pictures of piles of five gallon buckets of loose eggs online just to piss people off. He is the one you should be mad at! If it wasn't for him this would not have made the NRC's radar. I've never had a problem with the guy at 6th St. in GR throwing a handful of eggs here and there, but to go to the river 7 days a week and see the same boat, in the same hole predawn, throwing dozens of five gallon buckets of eggs into the water over the course of a season, and basically flipping the bird to all other river users is just ridiculous. And why, so he could remove all skill from steelheading and effectively turn it into bluegill fishing. Making money taking the least skilled anglers out and putting them on a dozen fish a day, day after day, week after week, year after year. Everybody wants to blame the non-chummers, but it sounds to me like you had one jerk who had to take it to the extreme and he wrecked it for everyone. Its like the guys in the 1990s that put out a dump truck load of deer bait ruining the hunting opportunity for everyone around them and then getting pissed at their neighbors when the two gallon limit went into effect. I guess steelhead fishing this winter is going to take a little more patience and skill to pull off. You have one guide and one guide only to thank for it! OUT!


Is that a joke dozens of 5 gal buckets of eggs come on, He bought 5 thats 5 from the state of michigan or a year so get your facts straight. Chumming was banned because of jealous fly guides and purists that dont catch as many fish, period. They have the money o they can do what they want. The scientific evidence that the sodium sulphite increased mortality is true, however, they dont talk about the fact that egg cure manufactures then pulled that out of there product, and if you look at any store bought cure it will say meets Oregon guidlines, meaning there in no unsafe level of sulphite. This is one more step towards fly guys getting there way and banishing bait. What is the difference with fishing with cured eggs or chumming? Nobody uses heavy cure on chum eggs anyway just on skein to fish with. There is NO evidence that dead eggs with is waht all that are chummed or fished with cary VHS so there is no scientific evidence valid to shut it down. It was simply who has the money, trout unlimited and river quest. For those interested a petition is being started to get the NRC to reconsider and to go with a limit per boat. As opposed to all together ban, if they really cared about the fish why would it still be legal on the grand and the Kazoo, St.Joe? They dont fish those rivers so they didnt care about it, this bn was bought and is has shown the bigger problem in the state.


----------



## AdamBradley

Where are you interpreting that chumming is still legal on the kzoo or the st Joe? They are designated streams up to the upstream migratory limit from what i am aware of.


----------



## Sparky23

AdamBradley said:


> Where are you interpreting that chumming is still legal on the kzoo or the st Joe? They are designated streams up to the upstream migratory limit from what i am aware of.


Sorry guess im not sure on the Kazoo or Joe maybe the grand is the only one that slipped through, either way makes 0 sense. Guys get the wrong idea about chumming and think that its as Robert said gallons at a time, when i use it it is a half hand full at a time maybe a quart a day. Even said guide has never used over a gallon a day. It's funny most guys, especially the fly guys who say its not about how many fish they catch seem jealous that if you use a hand full of eggs in the right spot i can double what you get in a day in that spot. So many misconceptions about it and it boil's down to this FLY'S ONLY GUYS GETTING MORE POWER, the way some act about chumming alost think it would be funny to see next step, Fly;s only sections on the kazoo, the grand and the MO maybe then you will see how bad big money and special interest groups are.


----------



## Trout King

Sparky23 said:


> Sorry guess im not sure on the Kazoo or Joe maybe the grand is the only one that slipped through, either way makes 0 sense. Guys get the wrong idea about chumming and think that its as Robert said gallons at a time, when i use it it is a half hand full at a time maybe a quart a day. Even said guide has never used over a gallon a day. It's funny most guys, especially the fly guys who say its not about how many fish they catch seem jealous that if you use a hand full of eggs in the right spot i can double what you get in a day in that spot. So many misconceptions about it and it boil's down to this FLY'S ONLY GUYS GETTING MORE POWER, the way some act about chumming alost think it would be funny to see next step, Fly;s only sections on the kazoo, the grand and the MO maybe then you will see how bad big money and special interest groups are.


Not to mention they are beating the drum of "ethics and fair chase" as they floss and snag actively spawning fish.

It is about jealousy first and foremost, but Chad didn't do himself any favors by advertising chumming and flaunting it either. 

It is just a sad state that we have come to the point where special interests groups are able to control our fish and game laws by crying and pandering to the NRC. Chumming isn't going to affect most steelhead fisherman, but this issue has created another ridiculous precedent in how our laws will be made.


----------



## Robert Holmes

In a nutshell this guide makes no secret about chumming for fish and rattled everyone out there who was attempting to fish with skill. The more skilled fishermen pooled their resources and ruined the chumming thing for the guide and everyone else. Don't blame the fly guys because chumming got banned, they weren't out there putting it in everyone's face. Blame the guide that could not keep his yap shut. I would think if this is what he did to catch fish he would have kept it more of a secret. When I have good fishing days if anyone comes near me I pull my good lure off from the line and rig up a very non productive lure. I don't flaunt anything, I have even been known to keep all of my catch in a cooler in my vehicle so I can tell people the fish aren't biting.


----------



## Trout King

Robert Holmes said:


> In a nutshell this guide makes no secret about chumming for fish and rattled everyone out there who was attempting to fish with skill. The more skilled fishermen pooled their resources and ruined the chumming thing for the guide and everyone else. Don't blame the fly guys because chumming got banned, they weren't out there putting it in everyone's face. Blame the guide that could not keep his yap shut. I would think if this is what he did to catch fish he would have kept it more of a secret. When I have good fishing days if anyone comes near me I pull my good lure off from the line and rig up a very non productive lure. I don't flaunt anything, I have even been known to keep all of my catch in a cooler in my vehicle so I can tell people the fish aren't biting.


I wouldn't say "more skilled", I would call it butthurt. These fly guides aren't the most skilled fisherman on that river, considering they park on spawning fish and encourage lining (glorified snagging). 

Steelhead are not difficult to catch once you get down the presentations that work, though they can certainly be picky. If you learn to read water and the then the rest is as easy as bluegill fishing. I personally catch more fish when not spawn fishing on the Muskegon River. 

Also, if I am taking someone fishing that doesn't have any experience with steelhead and they wanted to catch a fish on a tough day a handful of spawn could make the difference and a memory of a lifetime for that person.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I use more spawn in the winter for ice fishing than I do in the fall or spring so I tend to save mine. A handful of pea gravel works very well to get the fish to look around for food. I do this quite often and it works.


----------



## Trout King

Robert Holmes said:


> I use more spawn in the winter for ice fishing than I do in the fall or spring so I tend to save mine. A handful of pea gravel works very well to get the fish to look around for food. I do this quite often and it works.


Well, if they keep getting their way, these same people that outlawed chumming will have your spawn bags soon. The butthurt won't end because one certain guide can't flaunt his chumming in their face. People throwing spawn and other bait are still going to outfish them, and they don't like that.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Trout King said:


> Well, if they keep getting their way, these same people that outlawed chumming will have your spawn bags soon. The butthurt won't end because one certain guide can't flaunt his chumming in their face. People throwing spawn and other bait are still going to outfish them, and they don't like that.


----------



## Robert Holmes

You guys fight your battles in the SWLP. I think that the fly guys are going to be outnumbered by the bait guys. I am not going to lose any sleep over a fly guy attempting to ruin my fishing. For a short period of time a couple of years ago spawn fishing was banned. It took what about a month and they cancelled the ban. After they put the temporary ban on using spawn I found an artificial remedy that looks very much like real eggs and works pretty good.


----------



## Sparky23

Robert Holmes said:


> In a nutshell this guide makes no secret about chumming for fish and rattled everyone out there who was attempting to fish with skill. The more skilled fishermen pooled their resources and ruined the chumming thing for the guide and everyone else. Don't blame the fly guys because chumming got banned, they weren't out there putting it in everyone's face. Blame the guide that could not keep his yap shut. I would think if this is what he did to catch fish he would have kept it more of a secret. When I have good fishing days if anyone comes near me I pull my good lure off from the line and rig up a very non productive lure. I don't flaunt anything, I have even been known to keep all of my catch in a cooler in my vehicle so I can tell people the fish aren't biting.


I will blame them directly they (trout unlimited and river quest) are the one sthat brought this to the dnr over and over until they finally took it to the NRC. It doesn't matter how much bait guys outnumber fly guys the fly guys are the layers and upper class with all the money, hence them getting it banned. They are the type that knows and sits on the board and any restrictions weather you chum or not that are brought on by special interest groups is bad for all fisherman. I know you dont seem to care a lot about it Robert but how would you feel if your favorite river was made fly's only or you couldnt use spawn under the ice or in rivers?


----------



## Robert Holmes

Sparky23 said:


> I will blame them directly they (trout unlimited and river quest) are the one sthat brought this to the dnr over and over until they finally took it to the NRC. It doesn't matter how much bait guys outnumber fly guys the fly guys are the layers and upper class with all the money, hence them getting it banned. They are the type that knows and sits on the board and any restrictions weather you chum or not that are brought on by special interest groups is bad for all fisherman. I know you dont seem to care a lot about it Robert but how would you feel if your favorite river was made fly's only or you couldnt use spawn under the ice or in rivers?


I have a substitute for spawn that although it is artificial it looks and feels like the real thing and it works. No matter how much money the fly guys they will never gain even another inch of river anywhere in Michigan so I say let them spend their money. Look at how much money the Ford's spent trying to get a public access site relocated because it split their property in Wolverine and they lost. This battle started in the SWLP and it has been limited to that area so I am not too worried. The NRC decision was made to settle the situation down. Right now it will be up to the DNR officers to do the enforcement if they do or not is another story.


----------



## toto

According to the new reg/rule, this isn't limited to the SWLP, it's ALL type 1-4 trout streams. Wanna make an assumption on where all these streams are? If you think, for one minute that the fly guys won't push for more water, you apparently watching. Those guys, and perhaps not the upper management of these groups, but some have said they want ALL trout waters flies only.


----------



## Robert Holmes

toto said:


> According to the new reg/rule, this isn't limited to the SWLP, it's ALL type 1-4 trout streams. Wanna make an assumption on where all these streams are? If you think, for one minute that the fly guys won't push for more water, you apparently watching. Those guys, and perhaps not the upper management of these groups, but some have said they want ALL trout waters flies only.


Lets assume for a minute that all trout waters are flies only: how many guys will quit fishing? How much money is the DNR willing to lose? The DNR has already lost a lot of money over the lack of salmon and the wolf issues in the UP. They will not pass laws to satisfy a minority (3%) of the fishermen. The fly only waters in Michigan have a history dating back to the 1800's and early 1900's and have dedicated waters due to the history. They cannot take any water and change it to fly only fishing to satisfy their ego any more than a spinner guy can have a spinner only stream.What they want and what they get are two different stories.Even though the NRC passed a law on chumming it does not mean that the conservation officers are going to write tickets aggressively. I think that they will watch the suspect for awhile then decide. The next few weeks we will know. Who knows someone may challenge the law too. There is not any sound biological reason behind the law, unless fair chase is being taken into consideration.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Maybe I'm over thinking this but, I just wonder if MRGA is wanting to lessen the amount of part time guides on the water, especially those that aren't part of MRGA.


 If by "over thinking" it you mean having an emotional reaction without any evidence for your supposition then yes, you are over thinking it.


----------



## kzoofisher

Robert Holmes said:


> Fishermen, hunters, and trappers always have a beef about the other guy. Look at when they tried to pass dove hunting in Michigan most of the hunters that I know were against dove hunting. On this site there is probably 30 guys that are against having a wolf season but they are avid deer hunters. Look at all of the APR guys out there that want APR on the whole state and they are really pushing for it. Now the fishermen chime in with the chumming issue.


OK, but what does that have to do with the proposed guide regulation?


----------



## Robert Holmes

kzoofisher said:


> OK, but what does that have to do with the proposed guide regulation?


You have fishermen opposed to chumming and fishermen that are for chumming. I am not convinced that I see a benefit to lifting the ban under the same NRC members or any benefit to fighting the imposed regulation for now.


----------



## friZZleFry419

I am going to start tying gravel bags?


----------



## REG

Robert Holmes said:


> You have fishermen opposed to chumming and fishermen that are for chumming. I am not convinced that I see a benefit to lifting the ban under the same NRC members or any benefit to fighting the imposed regulation for now.


Then you have this group of fishermen; who could be for, against or ambivalent to chumming; that are concerned with how these regulations were implemented.


----------



## Robert Holmes

You have guides on this site who say catching 20+ steelhead in a day without using chum is pretty simple so why is there a need to chum.For the guys that have to chum figure it out, there are ways to do it legally. Right now the NRC is leaning toward the special interest groups so no need to get them all fired up over this.


----------



## AdamBradley

Just curious whom these "guides" on this site are that are catching 20+ with, or without chum? As for "need" chum, no, I don't personally. But, it has turned a 8 fish day to a 10, or more importantly a skunk to 1 or 2. WILLFUL BITERS might I add, despite my creation of an "artificial hatch".


----------



## toto

Robert Holmes said:


> You have guides on this site who say catching 20+ steelhead in a day without using chum is pretty simple so why is there a need to chum.For the guys that have to chum figure it out, there are ways to do it legally. Right now the NRC is leaning toward the special interest groups so no need to get them all fired up over this.


Can't say whether or not "these guides" are the same guides that are doing all the whining, but if so, why? If they are catching 20+ fish per day, I would think their clients would be happy, and no problem. The reality is, that isn't reality. These guys are only concerned about one thing, and one thing only, they are concerned about their income, and if some guy is chumming to put his clients on fish during the tough days, he's only concerned about his income too. So here you have this conundrum of opinions. Think about it, IF these guides were truly catching 20+ fish per day, would they even care if someone else were chumming? This all started on the Muskegon, and in case you didn't know, the MO has been a bastion of hatred from one group to the other for a long time.


----------



## Robert Holmes

My opinion but I think that a guide should be better than having to use chum to catch fish I also think that a guide should not put themselves into a position where there is harassment going on between the fly fishermen and his crew.


----------



## toto

I agree with you to a point. The guides job is to get his clients on fish, period. If the bite is tough on one particular day, and he needs to resort to chumming, what's wrong with that. You, I, and a guide can only do what the fish dictates, if they don't want to bite one day, you want to have something tug on the end of the line, and if I'm a paying client, you can bet your bottom dollar I do.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Fishing is fishing, I don't use chum to get the fish to bite and I don't rake the gravel with two flies. Either they bite or they don't bite. I know how to catch fish without the help of a guide so I don't use a guide. I have been on the water enough to know that there are days that you will get skunked. Even the best guys have got their share of skunks. Unless the regulation is changed the guides will have to find a way to suck up those skunks. I have enough time on the water steelhead fishing that I know if you can catch 20 steelhead on a good day you can get 4 on a bad day,


----------



## toto

I agree, sometimes you just can't get em to bite. As you, I don't chum either, it's either I figure it out, or I don't. Besides, don't feel like carrying around one more thing to make a mess, it is what it is. The problem is, the guides don't seem to want to suck it up, it's about the money. I get it, they went into business to take people fishing, if they can't catch fish, perhaps there's an opening at Wal Mart near them.


----------



## AdamBradley

(bites tongue on a hilarious Walmart joke that is oh so fitting. I just cant do it.)


----------



## Trout King

AdamBradley said:


> (bites tongue on a hilarious Walmart joke that is oh so fitting. I just cant do it.)


LOL


----------



## Robert Holmes

I don't buy the part where the guides are saying that they can land 20 fish per day 6 days a week and on the 7th day they have to chum just to get one to bite. I also don't understand the part of why or how the guides got into a verbal war with the fly fishermen. The guides are in a boat all that they had to do is move on and not get into it with the fly guys. My guess is that the fly guys were fishing a good spot and the guide comes up river and anchors right in front of them. The Mo is a huge river with plenty of room for everyone to fish it makes no sense to crowd in on other fishermen.


----------



## REG

Bob, some guides are fly fishing guides who chum or have used chum in the past as well, so it's a bit more complicated then that. Certainly, especially if you check out some of the You Tube snippets regarding testimony in front of the NRC, whining that someone caught 10 fish out of a hole that you just worked over is sour grapes at best. Sooner or later, one fishing approach will be much more effective than another on any given day, but that point was breezed over. If it happened the other way around, would that have been brought before the NRC? I doubt it!

In the end, most sportfishing groups aligned as expected.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Just to take the side of the NRC for a moment. If the chumming works so well I assume there are guys that will toss eggs until the last egg is thrown into the river. When they are out of eggs they will do anything to get more eggs. Obtaining more eggs may involve illegal fishing activities. Not point the finger at the guides here it could be your average fisherman. When you have several fishermen targeting female fish to remove the eggs you have limited potential to disrupt the natural spawning cycle.


----------



## swampbuck

I don't chum, but I do have knowledge of the interaction between the NRC and special interest groups. And that is an abomination that should outrage ALL outdoorsman


----------



## REG

Bob (good name, BTW), like swampbuck intimated, IMHO it almost seems it was an already decided NRC decision that was in search of way to justify the reg. Thus, the course that it went. It isn't like chumming was anything new, those who were going to use it did so already, and those who don't were by in large unlikely to change. We still have lots of natural reproduced fish in the rivers. What it did was provide a pathway for future regulation changes down the road, including some that may affect the way you fish. It's easier for the organized groups to generate support to pass these changes when the angling public at large isn't really looking.


----------



## Robert Holmes

With all of the pro v. con going on over the chumming issue I think that the NRC will not be passing any new fishing regulations anytime soon. As for not allowing live bait the bait dealers are also license dealers and that generates $$$$$ for the DNR. You really don't want to start messing with them. A few efforts have been tried and rapidly failed when it comes to messing with the bait dealers. The guys who want to chum will continue to do so in a legal way and they will figure that one out for themselves.
If it boils down to money the fly guys don't generate as much money for the DNR as some of the larger bait dealer/sporting goods stores. So the NRC better be careful about what the do.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Anything ever come of MUCC asking the NRC to reconsider their ban?


----------



## huntto

Here is the link to the petition to ask the NRC to reconsider their views on the chumming ban. It encourages the NRC to make decisions based on scientific evidence rather than social views.

https://www.change.org/p/natural-resources-commission-rescind-michigan-s-chumming-ban


----------



## Robert Holmes

Steelhead fishing checklist. 1.) a good cigar 2.) a cold beer 3.) a gallon of chum


----------



## Trout King

Robert Holmes said:


> Steelhead fishing checklist. 1.) a good cigar 2.) a cold beer 3.) a gallon of *gravel and sand*


Fixed it for ya


----------



## Robert Holmes

Trout King said:


> Fixed it for ya


Thanks King but until you have tried it you cannot say that it does not work. It has worked for me on many occasions. Probably not as good as chum but then I like to keep my eggs for spawn bags.


----------



## Sparky23

i can only chime in to laugh my ... off Throw them rocks and scare them down to my hole lol.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I laugh too when it works and I am cranking on a steelhead.


----------



## REG

Robert Holmes said:


> Steelhead fishing checklist. 1.) a good cigar 2.) a cold beer 3.) a gallon of chum


Wow, what does a gallon of gravel weigh and how do you fit that in your vest?


----------



## Robert Holmes

REG said:


> Wow, what does a gallon of gravel weigh and how do you fit that in your vest?


Fishing vests are for the fly guys and they provide a nice place for the trout unlimited patch, I think that is what started this post. Other than that I find what is necessary along the river bottom so I don't have to create a post on this site asking if anyone has spare spawn for chumming. Sometime when you are fishing grab a handful of sand and toss it into a hole, it has a unique sound and pattern when it hits the water. Very similar to a school of minnows being chased by a predator fish. It will get steelhead and salmon to look around without spooking them. The sinking sand resembles a spawning fish kicking up bottom sand then the fish sees your spawn and fish on. As for the guys that think I am crazy lets compare fishing resume's. I have 2 brook trout caught in Michigan that are probably larger than your largest brown trout. I have also caught river browns, inland lake browns and great lakes browns all over 30 inches.


----------



## reelnsteel

Robert Holmes said:


> Fishing is fishing, I don't use chum to get the fish to bite and I don't rake the gravel with two flies. Either they bite or they don't bite. I know how to catch fish without the help of a guide so I don't use a guide. I have been on the water enough to know that there are days that you will get skunked. Even the best guys have got their share of skunks. Unless the regulation is changed the guides will have to find a way to suck up those skunks. I have enough time on the water steelhead fishing that I know if you can catch 20 steelhead on a good day you can get 4 on a bad day,


I think 4 would be a good day


----------



## HuronBrowns

You guys are still going on about this post? Seriously.. Not even sure what this thread is about anymore so I guess I can just say like on every other thread, Robert take the L!!


----------



## Trout King

This sums up the beginning of the whole debate.


----------



## toto

Thought I would bring this up to the top again. Did anyone notice the July meeting of the Natural Resources Committee? I found it pretty interesting that NOW the guides are whining that their guide trips are less than before. I guess that falls under the title "careful what you wish for". Sooooooooooo now they want chumming re-introduced, at least for the winter in one guides mind. Hilarious.


----------



## Trout King

toto said:


> Thought I would bring this up to the top again. Did anyone notice the July meeting of the Natural Resources Committee? I found it pretty interesting that NOW the guides are whining that their guide trips are less than before. I guess that falls under the title "careful what you wish for". Sooooooooooo now they want chumming re-introduced, at least for the winter in one guides mind. Hilarious.


The guides that now want chumming back are not part of the group of businesses that pushed to have chumming banned. While I have made it clear where I stand on this issue, you have to look at who they interviewed for that "article". It was the service who was responsible for most of the outcry to ban it in the first place. While he may have lost some business this past year, I'm not sure if it was the issue of chumming, or the personal issue that blew up over social media. The other guide services in that article, one is basically unknown, and the other seems to be a offshoot of Bett's Guide Service. 

Chumming IMO shouldn't be banned for the reasons that they gave, but if you are a fishing guide, you shouldn't need chum to put fish in the boat. On the other hand, people pay good money to catch fish and chumming was a tool used to help the inexperience catch fish. I'd rather see people chumming to help get biters than the fly guides sit on top of gravel bars and have clients floss away at spawners, but then again, that is my personal feelings on it.


----------



## toto

I'm not sure which article you are referring to, however I looked at the July minutes for the NRC and noticed there were a few guides who were complaining about this. Not sure if they were for or against the chumming previously, I'd have to try to find out. However, if it isn't the ones wanting it stopped, then it would seem we have a conflict between guides in general. Personally, and I've said this all along, I don't care one way or the other, I just don't want our DNR decisions made for reasons that just aren't true.


----------



## Trout King

Here is the article. Personally, I find it rather humorous. 

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/o...usiness-after-chumming-regulations/425973001/


----------



## fisheater

The last paragraph of the article was most revealing. Chuck Hawkins, a guide noted as a major proponent of the chumming ban has now relented to a degree. He would be willing to relent if the fishing went no-kill, and there was some type of egg certification.
Mr. Hawkins wants the state to protect his private business, conducted on public waters, utilizing a public resource, by not allowing others to keep fish if they so desire. It seems ludicrous to me that one member of the public should have a greater right to the public resource, or that his interest supercedes another's interest. As for special regulations for the safety of salmon eggs, we have had issues in the past. It was just a couple of years past when there were special regulations in which the use of salmon eggs was restricted from certain areas. It was amazing as illiterate, knuckle dragging, backwards, bait fishermen were somehow able to comprehend and actually cooperated with these regulations.
I do not care for the Mr. Harwkins of this world, those whom twist truth to their own advantage over other people.


----------



## toto

The DNR puts limits out that they feel are appropriate for that species in a particular body of water. I like to think the NnRC is wise enough to see right through Hawkins' little relentment. It's obvious to anyone these guides are only concerned about themselves.


----------



## REG

Toto, wise enough? IMO, they(NRC) were in on it. Also, in regards to the counter offer, it speaks to who dictates to whom.


----------



## Fishman95

fisheater said:


> illiterate, knuckle dragging, backwards, bait fishermen were somehow able to comprehend and actually cooperated with these regulations.


Ouch


----------

